Posted on 02/19/2010 10:08:00 AM PST by AreaMan
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.
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.
|
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.
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 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
Should have just hired a lawyer...idiot
A very stupid move. A much smarter move would have been to sell it before foreclosure and pay the bank off and keep the rest. Now it is worth only what the land it was sitting on and he is STILL liable for the loans.
For example . . . what fraud was involved here?
I’m not an attorney, but, was just wondering since he owed on the home, didn’t the bank technically own it before it was bulldozed? He didn’t have a clear deed.
I was going to respond "Yeah, but who would want to?" - then I remembered an idea that occurred to me while watching the Olympics broadcast earlier in the week: Urban Biathlon.
:-)
It’s not uncommon for people to trash their homes when they get foreclosed on. We once bought a house that had been foreclosed. The previous owner had trashed the inside and taken everything (fixtures etc) she could. I know people get angry, but when you sign a contract....
He might have bulldozed the lawyer also.
“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.”
I don’t understand the bank’s stand here.
I think you're correct. It was collateral on a loan, so he owes the difference between what the house is going to be sold for and what he owed. In this case, the whole $160,000. He probably won't do jail time, but I'm sure he's going to be sued and he won't have much luck getting another loan of any kind.
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.
I always take with a grain of salt a story from someone who just bulldozed their house.
Glad I bought my copy years ago.
He is just doing his small part to bring the housing market in balance
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.
And you'd still overpay.
Greed.
I would be very suspicious of this statement. Maybe it’s true, but it may also be made up to justify his actions. People don’t like having their houses foreclosed on and losing money on them.
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.