Isn't the bank just gonna foreclose on the land his house was on anyway??? I guess now they cant make as much money on it, but what did he really accomplish??

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_...osure_bulldozer

 

MOSCOW, Ohio – An Ohio man says he bulldozed his $350,000 home to keep a bank from foreclosing on it.

 

Terry Hoskins says he has struggled with the RiverHills Bank over his home in Moscow for years and had problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He says the IRS placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property and the bank claimed his house as collateral.

 

Hoskins says he owes $160,000 on the house. He says he spent a lot of money on attorneys and finally had enough. About two weeks ago he bulldozed the home 25 miles southeast of Cincinnati.

 

Messages were left for the bank and its attorney.

 

IRS spokeswoman Jodie Reynolds said individual taxpayer information is private and federal law prevents her from commenting.

Isn't the bank just gonna foreclose on the land his house was on anyway??? I guess now they cant make as much money on it, but what did he really accomplish??

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_...osure_bulldozer

If the bank had indeed foreclosed on the house, then the bank owns his house. What he just did is actually criminal - its grand larceny, and he could be prosecuted. Not a real bright move.

 

This is a far more "sane" way of handling issue then flying a plane into a building.

If the bank had indeed foreclosed on the house, then the bank owns his house. What he just did is actually criminal - its grand larceny, and he could be prosecuted. Not a real bright move.

The article seemed to say they were GOING to foreclose, but hadnt yet.

The article seemed to say they were GOING to foreclose, but hadnt yet.

In that case, its more complex. The bank in that case "owns" 160k (what he owed). The land itself may be worth that much anyway, so they'll just take the land and move on, most likely. So really, that's even more stupid, because what he basically did was take $190,000 of his own money, throw it in a pile, and burned it. See, once the bank seized the property, they could only take $160k of take from it, and any further money would have to go back to the homeowner (which he could use to pay off the IRS, or whatever). Having now destroyed that asset, in a way that his insurance will not cover... he just threw $190,000 in the trash to make a point.

 

Furthermore, if he had instead decided to declare bankruptcy, he'd get some of those funds even faster, and REALLY screwed the bank over - which would have been more effective.

 

Stupid isn't a strong enough word to describe this man's actions.

 

 

In that case, its more complex. The bank in that case "owns" 160k (what he owed). The land itself may be worth that much anyway, so they'll just take the land and move on, most likely. So really, that's even more stupid, because what he basically did was take $190,000 of his own money, throw it in a pile, and burned it. See, once the bank seized the property, they could only take $160k of take from it, and any further money would have to go back to the homeowner (which he could use to pay off the IRS, or whatever). Having now destroyed that asset, in a way that his insurance will not cover... he just threw $190,000 in the trash to make a point.

 

Furthermore, if he had instead decided to declare bankruptcy, he'd get some of those funds even faster, and REALLY screwed the bank over - which would have been more effective.

 

Stupid isn't a strong enough word to describe this man's actions.

Well thought out. And yes, stupid is not a strong enough word.

This is basically the non-fire version of Arson, isnt it? I love how he just tells the story like its no big deal

This is basically the non-fire version of Arson, isnt it? I love how he just tells the story like its no big deal

Yeah, the closest approximation is Criminal Damage to Property. But CDP usually is used for graffiti and smaller level stuff - at this level, if they prosecute him (not a definite), then its Larceny. But regardless of the criminal side, the bank will probably sue for the damages.

 

In that case, its more complex. The bank in that case "owns" 160k (what he owed). The land itself may be worth that much anyway, so they'll just take the land and move on, most likely. So really, that's even more stupid, because what he basically did was take $190,000 of his own money, throw it in a pile, and burned it. See, once the bank seized the property, they could only take $160k of take from it, and any further money would have to go back to the homeowner (which he could use to pay off the IRS, or whatever). Having now destroyed that asset, in a way that his insurance will not cover... he just threw $190,000 in the trash to make a point.

 

Furthermore, if he had instead decided to declare bankruptcy, he'd get some of those funds even faster, and REALLY screwed the bank over - which would have been more effective.

 

Stupid isn't a strong enough word to describe this man's actions.

 

Wow, I didn't even realize he could get all that money back over $160k if they sold the actual house. Way to go, dumbass.

Wow, I didn't even realize he could get all that money back over $160k if they sold the actual house. Way to go, dumbass.

It all depends on what the bank got for his property, of course. And then there are all the legal costs, and then the tax liens. Whatever was left after that, he'd have to be paid - its after all his money. But whatever it would be, its a lot better than having NOTHING, and then in addition to that, facing possible criminal prosecution and probable civil action.

 

This is a far more "sane" way of handling issue then flying a plane into a building.

 

yea, but that's not saying much.

It wasn't just a simple mortgage lien. He had outstanding IRS and legal issues stemming from a lawsuit over his business that was settled 10 years ago.

It wasn't just a simple mortgage lien. He had outstanding IRS and legal issues stemming from a lawsuit over his business that was settled 10 years ago.

 

That's why I said this...

 

It all depends on what the bank got for his property, of course. And then there are all the legal costs, and then the tax liens. Whatever was left after that, he'd have to be paid - its after all his money. But whatever it would be, its a lot better than having NOTHING, and then in addition to that, facing possible criminal prosecution and probable civil action.

 

Way more fun when the dumbass bulldozes his half of a house he's losing in a divorce.

That's why I said this...

 

Well, yeah, of course. I only posted what I did because I skimmed the thread before posting instead of actually reading it.

Just wondering: Did he just save the bank the price of having to demolish what I can only imagine was a total dump? Empty land is a lot more liquid and easier to sell, right? I mean as long as the land is worth what he owed the bank they weren't going to see any of the money from the house anyways. He did them a favor?

 

Either way, complete idiot.

lol, yeah, I forgot to come in this thread earlier. Really f***ing stupid.

Just wondering: Did he just save the bank the price of having to demolish what I can only imagine was a total dump? Empty land is a lot more liquid and easier to sell, right? I mean as long as the land is worth what he owed the bank they weren't going to see any of the money from the house anyways. He did them a favor?

 

Either way, complete idiot.

Nowadays, with new home construction in such a shambles, open land is not terribly liquid. If the house was liveable, its worth more intact.

 

I read another article about this and I found out he actually had another lien on his house for like $365k so it wasn't as simple as just declaring bankruptcy or letting them foreclose.

I read another article about this and I found out he actually had another lien on his house for like $365k so it wasn't as simple as just declaring bankruptcy or letting them foreclose.

Oh, so he owed more than the house was worth? In that case, at least he wasn't destroying his own assets. But he was apparently destroying a bank's assets, which will likely land him in court.

 

Oh, so he owed more than the house was worth? In that case, at least he wasn't destroying his own assets. But he was apparently destroying a bank's assets, which will likely land him in court.

He said he knows there will probably be a judgment against him, but he didn't want the bank to make money off him.

He said he knows there will probably be a judgment against him, but he didn't want the bank to make money off him.

I'm not sure I am even understanding this--wouldn't the bank not make money but rather just recoup their losses?

Although this person sounds so mind numbingly stupid that I probably shouldn't even try to understand this.

I'm not sure I am even understanding this--wouldn't the bank not make money but rather just recoup their losses?

Although this person sounds so mind numbingly stupid that I probably shouldn't even try to understand this.

 

He obviously didn't understand how foreclosure works. This isn't uncommon. People frequently damage the interior of the house or steal copper pipes and fixtures or whatever to make some statement to the bank (according to my commercial transactions professor).

Copper wire and pipes being stolen from foreclosed, abandoned or new construction properties happens somewhat frequently. The scrap value can be pretty high if you get a whole house worth.

I'm not sure I am even understanding this--wouldn't the bank not make money but rather just recoup their losses?

Although this person sounds so mind numbingly stupid that I probably shouldn't even try to understand this.

 

 

The borrower would gain anything above the debt amount in the sale. Most people do not know that. On the other hand, the bank usually will accept a lower offer to move the asset quickly. It is a stressful situation and people do stupid things in stressful situations.