This guy is screwed, but I bet that felt so good. :lol:
http://www.wlwt.com/news/22600154/detail.html
QuoteFrustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure
Man Says Actions Intended To Send Message To Banks
POSTED: 10:42 am EST February 18, 2010
UPDATED: 6:36 pm EST February 19, 2010
MOSCOW, Ohio --
Like many people, Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be unique.
Hoskins said he's been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.
"When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn't going to stand for that, so I took it down," Hoskins said.
View Slideshow
Hoskins said the Internal Revenue Service placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property on state Route 125 after his brother, a one-time business partner, sued him.
The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.
"The average homeowner that can't afford an attorney or can fight as long as we have, they don't stand a chance," he said.
Hoskins said he'd gotten a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house, but the bank refused, saying they could get more from selling it in foreclosure.
Hoskins told News 5's Courtis Fuller that he issued the bank an ultimatum.
"I'll tear it down before I let you take it," Hoskins told them.
And that's exactly what Hoskins did.
Man Says Actions Intended To Send Message To Banks
The Moscow man used a bulldozer two weeks ago to level the home he'd built, and the sprawling country home is now rubble, buried under a coating of snow.
"As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was," Hoskins said. "I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground."
Hoskins' business in Amelia is scheduled to go up for auction on March 2, and he told Fuller he's considering leveling that building, too.
RiverHills Bank declined to comment on the situation, but Hoskins said his actions were intended to send a message.
"Well, to probably make banks think twice before they try to take someone's home, and if they are going to take it wrongly, the end result will be them tearing their house down like I did mine," Hoskins said.
Man Has No Regrets Over Bulldozing House
Hoskins said he's heard from people all over the country since his story first aired Thursday, and he said most have been supportive.
He said he sought legal counsel before tearing down his home and understands the possible consequences, but he has never doubted his decision once he made it.
"When I knew I was going to lose it, I decided to take it down," Hoskins said.
Copyright 2010 by WLWT.com.
Well, it's certainly more safer than going in his bank and shooting it up. Or flying a plane into it.
Lots of people are trying to 'send messages' these days in the US: that guy, the man who rammed a plane in a building, all those others who decide to stop paying their credit cards, the teaparty nutcases...
We should place bets on whether or not a revolution/civil war is a'comin in America. :P
G.
The only time threats actually work is when it's with the cable company.
Naturally, I used to be on Comcast's threat list.
"If you don't get a technician out here today, I'll be down at your offices tomorrow with all my cable boxes, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY AFTER THAT."
Hey, it works.
I found the story amusing.
:lol: The funny part is that he didn't actually own that house--the bank did.
Isn't there something in American Law about being able to just walk away from their house?
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2010, 07:38:59 AM
Isn't there something in American Law about being able to just walk away from their house?
Walking away from a house that you already paid $190,000 for is rather painful though...
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2010, 07:34:02 AM
:lol: The funny part is that he didn't actually own that house--the bank did.
and everything is probably still there, just rearranged.
Quote from: Zanza on February 23, 2010, 07:40:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2010, 07:38:59 AM
Isn't there something in American Law about being able to just walk away from their house?
Walking away from a house that you already paid $190,000 for is rather painful though...
Well here you can, if you can't maintain your mortgage, end up still owing money after you paid $X for your house so far.
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2010, 07:38:59 AM
Isn't there something in American Law about being able to just walk away from their house?
It is not something in American law,
per se, it is in the mortgage contract. The owner's liability for the mortgage debt is limited to the house. If the owner gives up the house, then the bank has no further claim. It ruin's one's credit, of course, but one's possessions, cars, and the like cannot be taken.
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2010, 07:34:02 AM
:lol: The funny part is that he didn't actually own that house--the bank did.
He owned the house, but the bank had claim on it if he didn't pay the debt. The bank may have been holding the title, but the house was his.
The guy is not telling the truth. The IRS does not put a lien on your property because your business partner sues you. I'll bet that he was not paying his taxes properly. Further, if the buyer was going to pay off the entirety of the debt, the bank had no standing to object, so I bet that the $170k doesn't actually pay off what he owes the bank. He was probably cross-collateralized on his business loans, which is stupid as hell anyway.
Quote from: Viking on February 23, 2010, 07:41:58 AM
Well here you can, if you can't maintain your mortgage, end up still owing money after you paid $X for your house so far.
You have a different form of mortgage contract. You also have different personal bankruptcy laws.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 07:44:52 AM
He owned the house, but the bank had claim on it if he didn't pay the debt. The bank may have been holding the title, but the house was his.
Oh, I thought the titleholder was considered the owner of record.
Quote from: Scipio on February 23, 2010, 07:45:38 AM
The guy is not telling the truth. The IRS does not put a lien on your property because your business partner sues you. I'll bet that he was not paying his taxes properly. Further, if the buyer was going to pay off the entirety of the debt, the bank had no standing to object, so I bet that the $170k doesn't actually pay off what he owes the bank. He was probably cross-collateralized on his business loans, which is stupid as hell anyway.
I think we all know that the guy is lying. We also know that he is crazy (because destroying his house just makes him into a jailed bankrupt as opposed to a bankrupt).
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 07:48:30 AM
I think we all know that the guy is lying. We also know that he is crazy (because destroying his house just makes him into a jailed bankrupt as opposed to a bankrupt).
Some political pundit will say he's a hero though. -_- Doesn't strike me as the kind of guy Glenn Beck will applaud, but just wait.
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2010, 07:47:18 AM
Oh, I thought the titleholder was considered the owner of record.
If you want to remodel or sell your house, do you have to have the bank's permission? if it wants to do so, does it need yours? The answers to those questions tell you who the actual owner of the property is.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 07:48:30 AM
Quote from: Scipio on February 23, 2010, 07:45:38 AM
The guy is not telling the truth. The IRS does not put a lien on your property because your business partner sues you. I'll bet that he was not paying his taxes properly. Further, if the buyer was going to pay off the entirety of the debt, the bank had no standing to object, so I bet that the $170k doesn't actually pay off what he owes the bank. He was probably cross-collateralized on his business loans, which is stupid as hell anyway.
I think we all know that the guy is lying. We also know that he is crazy (because destroying his house just makes him into a jailed bankrupt as opposed to a bankrupt).
Does the US still send people to debtor's prison? Because that's remarkably enlightened.
Quote from: Neil on February 23, 2010, 08:54:57 AM
Does the US still send people to debtor's prison? Because that's remarkably enlightened.
Don't we wish, when we hear stories like this! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 07:43:01 AM
It is not something in American law, per se, it is in the mortgage contract. The owner's liability for the mortgage debt is limited to the house. If the owner gives up the house, then the bank has no further claim. It ruin's one's credit, of course, but one's possessions, cars, and the like cannot be taken.
It depends on the state whether the mortgage contract allows for full recourse against the debtor for liability beyond the value of the house.
Many states in the US allow for a mortgage holder to obtain a "deficiency judgment" personally against the debtor after foreclosure for any amount not brought by the sale. See OCGA 44-14-161, for example.
Quote from: Caliga on February 23, 2010, 07:47:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 07:44:52 AM
He owned the house, but the bank had claim on it if he didn't pay the debt. The bank may have been holding the title, but the house was his.
Oh, I thought the titleholder was considered the owner of record.
In many states, the titleholder is the owner of record. See http://title.grabois.com/
Debtor's prison or not, a deliberate destruction of a collateral to prevent the creditor from obtaining recovery, is a crime in many jurisdictions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2010, 06:55:44 AM
The only time threats actually work is when it's with the cable company.
Naturally, I used to be on Comcast's threat list.
"If you don't get a technician out here today, I'll be down at your offices tomorrow with all my cable boxes, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY AFTER THAT."
Hey, it works.
I used to enjoy the customers who didn't pay their bills or something and had trouble getting someone out to reconnect.
"Maybe I'll just bill you for MY time," said in this threatening tone.
Idiots.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 23, 2010, 02:59:32 PM
I used to enjoy the customers who didn't pay their bills or something and had trouble getting someone out to reconnect.
"Maybe I'll just bill you for MY time," said in this threatening tone.
Idiots.
I used to enjoy the cable companies who tried to convince me that their shit service was actually worth paying for.
"Maybe we will just bill you for a while at a marginally-less-shitty 'introductory rate'" said in this wheedling tone.
Idiots.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 03:11:26 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 23, 2010, 02:59:32 PM
I used to enjoy the customers who didn't pay their bills or something and had trouble getting someone out to reconnect.
"Maybe I'll just bill you for MY time," said in this threatening tone.
Idiots.
I used to enjoy the cable companies who tried to convince me that their shit service was actually worth paying for.
"Maybe we will just bill you for a while at a marginally-less-shitty 'introductory rate'" said in this wheedling tone.
Idiots.
Yes. cable companies suck to work for and to deal with.
The bitch of it was, and this is going back many years, they really didn't care about customer service. They didn't, and probably still don't, have to. So long as people were willing to put up with it and it isn't in a town that has competition the company never really cared.
I like these acts of screw the man defiance.
They're digging holes for themselves but its entertaining for me.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 23, 2010, 03:54:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 03:11:26 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 23, 2010, 02:59:32 PM
I used to enjoy the customers who didn't pay their bills or something and had trouble getting someone out to reconnect.
"Maybe I'll just bill you for MY time," said in this threatening tone.
Idiots.
I used to enjoy the cable companies who tried to convince me that their shit service was actually worth paying for.
"Maybe we will just bill you for a while at a marginally-less-shitty 'introductory rate'" said in this wheedling tone.
Idiots.
Yes. cable companies suck to work for and to deal with.
The bitch of it was, and this is going back many years, they really didn't care about customer service. They didn't, and probably still don't, have to. So long as people were willing to put up with it and it isn't in a town that has competition the company never really cared.
I don't think it is that much about lack of competition (though it obviously plays a role too) as it is about high switching costs (in time and effort, if not money, terms). It's the same as with mobile phone operators and banks - they can afford to have sub-par customer service, because most people just can't be arsed to go through the hassle of changing your service provider.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2010, 03:11:26 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 23, 2010, 02:59:32 PM
I used to enjoy the customers who didn't pay their bills or something and had trouble getting someone out to reconnect.
"Maybe I'll just bill you for MY time," said in this threatening tone.
Idiots.
I used to enjoy the cable companies who tried to convince me that their shit service was actually worth paying for.
"Maybe we will just bill you for a while at a marginally-less-shitty 'introductory rate'" said in this wheedling tone.
Idiots.
My real point, g, was that he was giving this shpeal to me, who was there as tech support for broadband. I had nothing to do with billing nor policy making, nor the fact that no one was available to go out there.
The bank should make a message too buy suing his ass for destroying their property :contract:
Quote from: Monoriu on February 23, 2010, 08:39:29 PM
The bank should make a message too buy suing his ass for destroying their property :contract:
He doesn't seem to have much to do and has gained national sympathy and support. What are they gonna do, dock his none existent wages?
Quote from: Monoriu on February 23, 2010, 08:39:29 PM
The bank should make a message too buy suing his ass for destroying their property :contract:
Not their property until proceedings are completed; Ohio's a lien state. Anyway, if his comments that he built the house are true, they've got no damages to sue for, since the house was improvements to the property after the purchase. :contract:
The best they could go for is to sue him for cleanup costs to restore the property to the condition it was originally sold in.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 24, 2010, 09:30:07 AM
Not their property until proceedings are completed; Ohio's a lien state.
Once proceedings begin, though, surely a property holder cannot destroy value in order to deny it to the lien-holder.
QuoteAnyway, if his comments that he built the house are true, they've got no damages to sue for, since the house was improvements to the property after the purchase. :contract:
First, I see no reason to believe anything that this person says. Second, what you say is only true if the guy got a $350,000 loan on the land alone. If that is true (and the house was a mere addition that wasn't covered by the lien except to the extent that it occupied the land the lien was on) then the guy is doubly a moron - he had a house clear and free, and had paid the $350,000 land value down to less than $200k. Given the drop in property values, the only way he was going to walk away from this with any money was to get the sales value of the house (which he says is also worth $350k) and hope that there was enough from the land sales to cover his debt.
But I am willing to bet that the $350,000 value was land plus house, and that this is what he had a mortgage on.
QuoteThe best they could go for is to sue him for cleanup costs to restore the property to the condition it was originally sold in.
Why?