Skip to comments.
Hero evicted after falling victim to an investment scam
katu ^
Posted on 03/29/2004 9:22:38 AM PST by chance33_98
Hero evicted after falling victim to an investment scam
![](http://www.katu.com/news/images/story2004/040326ken_reusser.jpg)
BEAVERTON, Ore. - An elderly couple, swindled out of more than $80,000 by their accountant, were forced out of their $1 million Beaverton home by Washington County Sheriff's deputies. One week ago, six armed deputies, said Ken and Trudy Reusser, broke down the door to their home, searched the house and asked the couple to pack their belongings and leave within the hour. Two of the deputies drew guns, said Trudy Reusser.
The officials removed the couple because the pair was unable to pay for the home, which sits on land once owned by Ken Reusser's grandfather.
"We thought we could retire there and have the kids come visit," said Trudy Reusser from her neighbor's home, where she and her husband have been staying. "Now we're strapped like a young couple starting out in life."
The couple said they owed about $800,000 on the house to Washington Mutual.
Trudy, 65, and Ken, 84, a retired Marine Corps pilot who was awarded the Purple Heart five times and the Navy Cross twice, said they trusted Robert E. Thomas, their accountant, to care for their finances. Instead, he took checks from their checkbook, wrote them to himself and deposited them in his accounts.
Thomas was sentenced in May 2003 to a year in jail. He pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree aggravated theft and one count of first-degree forgery exceeding $10,000.
The couple filed a civil lawsuit against Thomas and Washington Mutual, which the couple said made it easy for Thomas to forge the checks.
The Reussers have tried to recover their money from the bank, but because they missed a 30-day deadline to file the complaint, Washington Mutual could not help.
The Reussers said they tried to sell the home, but Washington Mutual told them if they did not drop the lawsuit against the bank, it would block the sale.
Olivia Riley, a spokeswoman for Washington Mutual, released a statement saying, "While Mr. Reusser's situation is unfortunate, it is not of our company's making."
Three years ago, the Reussers said they lost $262,500 in a high-yield investment they learned about from friends. That, along with the $83,383 they lost to Thomas, forced them to file for bankruptcy in August.
The sheriff's office said it was not aware of the earlier investment loss.
TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: bank; dirty; foreclosure; judges; marinecorps; mutual; oregon; reusser; scam; veterans; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
To: chance33_98
I don't get it, if you owe $800,000 on a $1,000,000 piece of property, the math says you have $200,000 in assets. I don't get why they would be forced out, and the bank would not allow the sale.
2
posted on
03/29/2004 9:30:28 AM PST
by
stylin_geek
(Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
To: chance33_98
Hero evicted after falling victim to an investment scamDon't take this the wrong way, but being a hero does not insulate nor protect one from making poor investment decisions.
I hope their family takes them in while they sort this one out. Also, what the hell were the storm troopers thinking when they drew their weapons?
3
posted on
03/29/2004 9:31:09 AM PST
by
Archangelsk
(Shall we have a king?)
To: stylin_geek
Something fishy here. And given their previous losses, maybe the old gentleman simply can't handle money. To be duped TWICE is a bit much.
4
posted on
03/29/2004 9:33:39 AM PST
by
EggsAckley
(....."I see the idiot is here"............)
To: chance33_98
after the 282,000 and 80,000 ran out, how did they plan to make payments anyway?
5
posted on
03/29/2004 9:45:27 AM PST
by
isom35
To: EggsAckley
Nothing fishy. I know someone who just doesn't learn that these investments are scams. He's lost his shirt more than once. People are just too tempted by these supposedly "high-yield investments" to realize that they are too good to be true. They don't seem to be moved by the logic that a truly wealthy person wouldn't come within a hundred feet of these scams.
6
posted on
03/29/2004 9:46:13 AM PST
by
mcg1969
To: mcg1969
It's the same mentality that leads people to go to Vegas every year, certain that, THIS time, they'll beat the house and walk home a millionaire.
7
posted on
03/29/2004 9:52:40 AM PST
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: stylin_geek
I don't get it, if you owe $800,000 on a $1,000,000 piece of property, the math says you have $200,000 in assets. I don't get why they would be forced out, and the bank would not allow the sale.Make that "you MIGHT have $200,000 in assets." Whether they would get $200,000 out of a sale depends, first, on whether the house actually sells for $1 million, and, second, what selling costs, court costs, legal expenses, etc. get deducted from the proceeds of the sale. Selling at a foreclosure sale is about the least cost-effective way of selling a property. The couple would have done better if they had conceded their inability to afford the house and sold it on their own before the bank foreclosed.
That said, they will get whatever portion of the sale proceeds remains after the mortgage and selling expenses are paid off.
8
posted on
03/29/2004 9:55:03 AM PST
by
blau993
(Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
To: Poohbah
So true. If high-yield investments were a sure bet then there would be no need for investment portfolios to include conservative buffers. And anyways, the only time for riskier-type investments are when a person is young and has sufficient time to absorb any loses. After a certain age the portfolio needs to be heavily weighted towards the conservatives.
However i think that the 'high yield investments' this couple invested in are not your normal hi-yield/hi-risk investments. A Ponzi scheme-esque type of 'investment' can be termed as a high-yield investment by some (and these are either fools or swindlers), but anyone with their wits about them would not even look at it as an investment (unless, ofcourse, the person is a swindler and will use it to get money from those who would willingly part with it).
9
posted on
03/29/2004 10:12:20 AM PST
by
spetznaz
(Nuclear missiles: The ultimate Phallic symbol.)
To: chance33_98
which is why national bankruptcy laws should protect a home regardless. (ala FL) This couple would have been able to force the bank to wait for the sale of the home and get their equity out. Now the bank gets this old couples equity.
To: longtermmemmory
Maybe, but then if I see myself spiraling toward bankruptcy I'd just go out & get the most expensive property I could find, since I get to keep it anyway, or at least take my time selling it.
11
posted on
03/29/2004 10:15:56 AM PST
by
waverna
(I shall do neither. I have killed my captain...and my friend.)
To: blau993
Yeah, I realize all that, but from the way the article reads, the bank that holds the mortgage has said they will block the sale unless the lawsuit is dropped.
12
posted on
03/29/2004 10:20:00 AM PST
by
stylin_geek
(Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
To: chance33_98
This
article has some more information. It looks like these folks, for whatever reason, didn't act on the opportunities they had to resolve this earlier.
13
posted on
03/29/2004 10:22:26 AM PST
by
drjimmy
To: spetznaz
A Ponzi scheme-esque type of 'investment' can be termed as a high-yield investment by some (and these are either fools or swindlers),Strike the "either fools or" portion.
The only folks who tout it as a "high-yield investment" are the swindlers.
14
posted on
03/29/2004 10:29:03 AM PST
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: chance33_98
Thanks for posting this. I recieved this news as a forward, and would encourage all to pass it on:
If you have money in this bank, you might want to think about withdrawing it. If you have a mortgage with them, you should refinance with another bank! It could be YOU in this spot next time, and the bank won't care what you loose! Please pass this on to everyone in your address book, so everyone is warned.
BEAVERTON, Ore. - An elderly couple, swindled out of more than $80,000 by their accountant, were forced out of their Beaverton home by Washington County Sheriff's deputies. One week ago, [march 20, 2004] six armed deputies, said Ken and Trudy Reusser, broke down the door to their home, searched the house and asked the couple to pack their belongings and leave within the hour. Two of the deputies drew guns, said Trudy Reusser.
The officials removed the couple because the pair was unable to pay for the home, which sits on land once owned by Ken Reusser's grandfather.
"We thought we could retire there and have the kids come visit," said Trudy Reusser from her neighbor's home, where she and her husband have been staying. "Now we're strapped like a young couple starting out in life."
Ken, 84, a retired Colonel in the Marine Corps, fought for our freedoms in three different wars. He is one of the most decorated war heroes in Oregon. He earned forty-nine medals and ribbons in the process, including: two of our nation's second highest award, the Navy Cross, plus 4 Purple Hearts, Legion of Merit w/combat "V", 2 Bronze Stars w/combat "V", 4 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and an incredible 18 Air Medals. As an aviator, during his combat career he was brought down by enemy action five times and suffered life-threatening injuries. Ken and his wife Trudy, 65, said they trusted Robert E. Thomas, their accountant, to care for their finances. Instead, he took checks from their checkbook, wrote them to himself and deposited them in his own accounts.
Thomas, the accountant, was sentenced in May 2003 to a year in jail. He pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree aggravated theft and one count of first-degree forgery exceeding $10,000.
The Reussers have tried to recover their money from the bank, but because they missed a 30-day deadline to file a complaint, Washington Mutual would not help.
The fact is, that the bank improperly processed forged and even unsigned checks against their account! So, the couple filed a civil lawsuit against Thomas and Washington Mutual, for gross negligence and breach of contract, in the Oregon Circuit Court, Washington County.
Olivia Riley, a spokeswoman for Washington Mutual, released a statement saying, "While Mr. Reusser's situation is unfortunate, it is not of our company's making."
Incredibly, although the bank hired James Laurick, of Kilmer, Voorhees and Laurick to represent them, the bank did not respond the to the lawsuit in a timely manner! They missed the 30 day statute and were actually in default. They did not even bother to show up in the courtroom, on the appointed date! State law requires that the plaintiffs win by default in such a case. This should have been good news for the Reussers', who were unable to afford an attorney, and despite each living on 100% disability, they represented themselves before the Court, and filed all the legal documents in a timely manner!
But, in another unfair twist of this case, Judge McElligott told his court recorder to call Mr. Laurick's office and ask why he wasn't there! The judge accepted the excuse of the lawyer, and allowed the case to continue! To further contribute to the absurdity, As Ken Reusser stood to leave the courtroom, he complained to the judge about the unfairness of the judge's action. Judge McElligott abruptly said: "that will be two days in jail for contempt," to the elderly Reusser. All the supporters were stunned and stood silent as the confrontation between Reusser and the judge continued. Reusser looking directly at the judge said in a challenging voice: "yes why don't you put me in jail"? The judge shot back: "that will be five, no six, days in jail!" The judge then told Reusser to sit down, that he was under arrest!!
Is this anyway to reward a Veteran?!
Judge McElligott, of course, ruled in favor of Washington Mutual Bank....the Reussers getting no justice.
The Reussers then tried to sell the home, but Washington Mutual told blocked the sale! Of course, making the Reussers unable to repay the mortgage, and allowing the bank to forclose!
Three years ago, the Reussers said they lost $262,500 in a high-yield investment they learned about from friends. That, along with the $83,383 they lost to Thomas, forced them to file for bankruptcy in August......
We may not be able to right all wrongs, but if you have money in this bank, you can help to right this wrong, by taking all funds out, and telling your branch why!
15
posted on
03/29/2004 10:34:09 AM PST
by
tuckrdout
(Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
To: Archangelsk
I sure don't plan on being $800,000 in debt with virtually no income when I am 80.
16
posted on
03/29/2004 10:34:12 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: drjimmy
It looks like these folks...didn't act on the opportunities they had to resolve this earlier.One of which would be to read their bank statements so that they would be able to contest any strange checks.
I don't know why people trust their money to others and then don't exercise the slightest bit of oversight. I think Sammy Davis went out the same way - trusting his accountant, who wasn't paying the IRS.
I have friends who don't read their bank statements or credit reports. This is just asking for trouble in these days of identity theft, if you ask me.
17
posted on
03/29/2004 10:34:34 AM PST
by
radiohead
(Over toning the opponent since 2003)
To: Blood of Tyrants
18
posted on
03/29/2004 10:45:19 AM PST
by
tuckrdout
(Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
To: waverna
re: if I see myself spiraling toward bankruptcy I'd just go out & get the most expensive property I could find, since I get to keep it anyway, or at least take my time selling it.
CAREFUL!!!
The laws vary state by state, so check YOUR state's laws FIRST, and also be sure to see that you are SURE to be legally a "resident" of that state,,,,
To: chance33_98
If this was a case of a $100,000 home with an $80,000 loan in default, everyone here would be packing up their tarbuckets and pitchforks to march on Washington Mutual headquarters; but, alas, jealously tempers indignity.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson