On Easter Sunday 2005, ABC's Extreme Makeover Home Edition aired an especially poignant episode. Five children, ages 14-21, from the Higgins family were orphaned. A couple from their church, with three children of their own, took them in. The result was 10 people living in cramped quarters.
The show finds families like these and, in the course of a week, rebuilds their home from scratch. The process is edited into a one-hour episode. In the beginning, we are told the tale of woe in as heart-tugging a fashion as possible. Also factoring prominently in every beginning segment are the horrible living conditions and the heroic nature of the people who are flourishing despite the hardship. Then the family is whisked off to a vacation, the house is razed and rebuilt, and the ending segment is the presentation of the house to the always overwhelmed family.
The ending segment is designed to be as heart-tugging as the first. The rebuilt home is always astonishingly beautiful and completely furnished. In the Easter Sunday special, the rebuilt home had nine bedrooms, including one for each child. The show also paid off the mortgage.
The Higgins' happy ending did not last. The family that took them in asked them to leave the beautiful nine-bedroom home because it did not belong to the Higgins.
The eldest child, Charles Higgins, who is also legal guardian for the minor children, contacted the producers of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, who could not help. Apparently the 24-page single spaced contract did not give the Higgins any right to the home built as a result of their tragedy. It did, however, give ABC the rights to their story and the episode was rebroadcast complete with happy ending after the Higgins children were already evicted.
As is often the case when good contracts go bad, the Higgins children sued both the couple that had evicted them and the various companies involved in making the show. The claims against the companies involved in making the show centered around the promise to provide them a home.
In a published decision yesterday, the California Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the portion of the contract that required arbitration was unenforceable because it was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Higgins will now be able to take their case through to a full-blown jury trial.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
Wow, that's amazingly atrocious behavior. If nothing else, that family should be shamed in public.
2 - Eric Berlin
They should go through a "to the shame" as illustrated in The Pricess Bride.
3 - Daron
Perfect !
4 - Conook
I remember that episode and was very touched by the way the two families pulled together. it is a shame about what happened. I feel that abc should make it right in compensation in some way to the higgins family. the purpose of the show is to provide a new home and better life for the individuals involved. in the instance that occured between these two families abc should have factored that possibility into there contract either way.
no matter what it is really a shame that the two families have two go thru what is about to happen in court
5 - Ty
I remember this case and thanks for the update from the CA appeals court. I am so glad this family of orphans (a heroic real life version of "Party of Five") is going to be able to sue.
I only hope that couple who took them in and used them to essentially get a new free loaded house end up homeless and hated by everyone they pass by.
6 - chocolate
I think that it is wrong. The Higgins used those kids to get a new home. The show should help or take the house back. The house was remodeled under false pretenses meaning the expansion was due to take care of the large family. Kids do not worry because when those taxes kick in those people will loose the house due to tax default.
7 - fah q
HA!!! thats what they get!
8 - Katherine Bommarito
I really hope those children get justice. I also hope the parents also get justice by loosing their home that was meant for those children not as their real estate investment.
9 - Inmemoryofjames
And to think, this was a couple from CHURCH that took in these poor kids.
10 - charles almon
The Higgins kids were lucky they weren't sexually abused. You know those holier than thou church folk.
11 - tboneandersen
I do not remember that episode . I think that the premise of the show is meant to be a wonderful and humanitarian jesture for all involved.So with that in mind and the renovation /makeover was also done with the intent that to provide some security for the Higgins.The folks who took them in have had the mortgage paid off then it is and would seem equitable that the Higgins famly recieve a portion of that equity because had it not been for the circumstances and Misfortune of the Higgins family the Host family would never have gained the equity in the new home had it not been for the Higgins.So share in the wealth and show good will.
12 - Lorie
Like they say the devil walks in many forms. There's good and evil. Hope their own children never have to walk the same path that the Higgins Children are going through. Prayer is very stong, Higgins Children keep praying and I will do the same. And you know, if worst comes to the point where you can't get the house (although, it belongs to you all-which was also part of the reason on your parents lost), just see it like they needed it more than you all. Because, family is the most beautiful thing one can have. Never seperate and always love one another. As long as we have Jesus in our lives we have everything, especially our health. In the meantime stay together and fight for what is yours. My God, there's enough child abuse everyday on the news for adults to act in such a vicious way. That's what you call WICKED!!! That's abandonment in my eyes.
13 - kathleen and sean
WE DIDN'T SEE THE SHOW, BUT ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT. UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE HIGGINS CHILDREN, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE BANK. WHAT COMES AROUND......GOES AROUND!!!!
14 - Joyce IN AZ
There is a saying "God don't like ugly". If the home was built as a result of the Higgins tragedy and as a result of one of the Higgins contacting Extreme Makeover. Why did the Higgins not have some sort of contractual agreement towards ownership of this house?
15 - JD in SoCal
ABC and the companies who donated products did nothing wrong to these people. They should not be held liable for the grievous actions of another. What this article doesn't truly say is WHY they were kicked out. But it wasn't ABC, et al, who kicked them out. Their only fault was in not protecting themselves fully enough from these frivolous, deep-pocket lawsuits.
16 - Orlando12
The house may be deeded to the unscrupulous foster parents, but weren't the rooms custom designed for the kids? Weren't the products in each room and the rest of the house given to the kids?
The home should be stripped of all of its contents, and everything put in storage until the case is settled. That stuff belongs to the Higgens family !
17 - Bill Nad
I have seen this show a lot but not this episode and I hope this story shames the show into doing what is right for the kids that are who the home was really built for.
I like that blogcritics comments do not want to have personal attacks but this is exactly what this kind of story is going to rile up in the readers of it.
18 - Jessica in California
The show--simply as a gesture of goodwill--ought to purchase a new property outright for the Higgins family, and do an extreme makeover on that property just for them. And after they do it, they should ensure the deed shows equal ownership by each Higgins child.
The show can't take away the home from those "good and charitable" folks that sheltered the Higgins orphans, because they were the owners of the original home and property that underwent the makeover.
Because this family seemed willing to share their smaller and more humble home with the orphaned kids, one must wonder why they were unwilling to share their home when its size and amenties were better suited to such a large group.
At the very least, I am sure the show has learned a valuable lesson from this, and--hopefully--will give close consideration to the circumstances of each family they assist, accommodating their needs and ensuring their best interests accordingly. I truly hope the show will see it is best, all the way around, to give the Higgins kids a home of their own.
If they jump outside the framework of their usual format and do this, Extreme Makeover will not only follow through on their original intent and "promise" to help this family, they'll bring peace and resolution to the kids' aching hearts, and they will do much for their own image and that of ABC. Everyone's interests would be best served--even the corporate machine's.
19 - Jeff
Kinda sad what someone would do to cause much pain to someone else.
20 - Susan
It's an unfortunate ending. However the companies involved with the rebuilding of the home did so as a charitable contribution and now they are being sued. So now not only are they out of pocket for their materials and labor they have to defend themselves for being charitable. As a business owner if asked to help with a donation like this I would have to think twice and I would probably decline based on this situation. It is sad when good intentions get turned into an ugly mess.
21 - Ken
I think the house should be taken away from the people that kicked the Higgins out, after all that house probably never would have remodeled by ABC if it weren't for the Higgins kids.
22 - JAck
Gotta love Christians! hahaha
23 - Terri
A few comments:
First, I have a problem with folk who bash Christians as a whole just because of what happened to the 5 Higgins who were "adopted". There are fakes everywhere! Dishonesty by someone who "claims" to be a Christian does not make all christians bad. In fact, the offending person is probably NOT a christian, but just "pretending" to get something. Obviously, in this case, their deception worked. How sad for the family who really needed the help.
Second, Extreme Home makeover was operating on the assumption that everyone was dealing honestly, therefore, their lapse in judgement as to NOT include the higgins family on the official paperwork, was just that, a lapse in judgement. They did what they came to do, took down a house too small for the needs of the ocupants, built a house that DID fix the need, and paid off the mortgage to help with finances. They could have had no idea what was to come, or the hardship that would once again, be placed on the 5 orphaned members of the Higgins family.
Third, the couple (with 3 kids) that took the others into their home were NOT named Higgins. That was the 5 orphaned. That being said, I think the only "right" solution would be for the couple who got the new house through dishonesty to be evicted, and the house go to the family for whom it was actually built...the Higgins. With no mortgage, they would be fine. What about the couple that suddenly had no house? Well, they too, also have no mortgage, and they can go elsewhere and get another home. The Higgins family can't. The older children (very yound adults) could never find jobs that allowed them to afford a 9 bedroom home. Since the "intent" of the show was to provide for the family that had been orphaned, that is what the courts should do.
That's just my 2 cents!!!
24 - Ty
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
If there is justice in the world, the oprhans will get that house, while the couple will somehow (if possible) be forced to buy a house resembling their original house BEFORE Extreme Makeover did anything.
25 - brian from texas
its religious people like this that give us christians a bad name