Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

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.

Bulldozed Home Photos

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.

SURVEY

What do you think about what Terry Hoskins did?

Good for him

Not a good idea

He should be prosecuted

Results | Disclaimer | E-Mail

The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.

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.

The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.

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.

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.

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.

>> The man said he owed 160 and had an offer at 170 but the bank refused to allow it thinking they could get more.

Bank approval is not necessary for home sale above the amount owed. Take the check, and pay off the mortgage. It isn’t a short-sale, no approval needed.

If the offer was, in fact, for less than the amount owed, the bank has every right to tell him to hit the bricks.

>> I would have done the same thing. I still would pay the difference between what the land gets and what is owed.

You’d rather pay the bank the difference between the mortgage and the empty lot, than the difference between the mortgage and the lot + house? Why would you WANT to pay more?

SnakeDoc

If the facts as presented in this article are accurate, then the bank may even think twice before taking any legal action against him in CIVIL court.

If the guy owes $160,000 on the home, his best legal defense would be to demonstrate that the land itself is worth at least $160,000 even without the house on it. In order to succeed in a civil court case the bank has to demonstrate that they've suffered harm by his actions, and if the property is still worth more than he owes on it then they have no standing to sue him.

If the bank's stake in the asset is the $160,000 mortgage then they can't possibly contend that they've been harmed simply because the demolition of the home has reduced its value from $350,000 to $160,000. The bank never "owned" a $350,000 home . . . they hold a mortgage valued at $160,000.

IF what the guy says about the bank refusing the $170,000 to pay off the mortgage so they could make more by foreclosing is true, good luck in getting a conviction.

The guy might also have a counterclaim for common law fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The prosecutor, if he wants to get re-elected, should take a pass on any prosecution and simply call it a civil matter best handled in a civil lawsuit by the bank; assuming the bank bothers to file a lawsuit.

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.