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.

Love this. Ridiculous. The bank could have gotten what it was owed. Now they’ll get just land and rubble.

Yeah. Selling land seized at foreclosure is a big profit area for banks. That is why they do it so much.

/sarcasm

I've never been to Ohio, except to change planes, but I can tell you that the general law is that the proceeds of a foreclosure sale are distributed like this:
Balance of loan
Costs of foreclosure
Distribution to borrower

Meaning that the bank doesn't get to keep the extra money if the land sells for more than the bank is owed, at he foreclosure sale. The bank has to pay it to the borrower. I would shocked if Oho law wasn't exactly that way.

>> Once again, unless you know otherwise I am basing my statement on what was provided. He owed 160 and was offered 170. Bank approval might be necessary if they had started legal proceedings. That is only a guess on my part and your part.

I know otherwise. If he was in legal proceedings for $160K, and sold for $170K ... he could just pay it off. If the bank seized the house and sold for $350K, and he owed $160K — he’d get a check for the difference ($190K). The bank cannot collect more than they are owed.

The account is wrong somewhere. If approval was required ... the dude owed more than was offered (whether the offer was less than $160K or he owed more than $170K is irrelevant).

>> Finally, yes, if the bank was screwing me on purpose to make a profit and harm me, then I would do exactly what the man did. The bank was owed the exact amount agreed to, not a penny more. If I thought the bank was going to make thirty or forty thousand or more, by holding the property while ensuring I lost it all, then I would have done what he did.

The bank CANNOT make more than you owe. If they sell for more than you owe — they must cut you a check for the rest.

If you owed the bank money, and intentionally destroyed the collateral property ... you’d likely be fined heavily, or headed to jail.

SnakeDoc

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.

I can't believe the level of ignorance about foreclosure law and loans. IF he only owed the bank 160,000 they can't get more than he owes out of it when they auction it off. He gets anything over the 160,000. Also, the bank can't keep him from paying off the loan, if he would get 170,000 for it and paid the bank their 160,000 they would have had to take it. They couldn't refuse. This guy is lying about something here and the MSM is playing it up because it fits in with their "private owned banks and businesses are bad, government run stuff is good" meme.

He probably won’t get jail time for this, but he certainly opened himself up to an enormous civil lawsuit from the lienholder(s) for destroying the asset that secured a financial instrument (or words to that effect).

He could very well be found liable for the amount of the loan anyway, since he chose to destroy the house. At the very least, he has sown the seeds for his own financial destruction, and the fallout from this life decision could well follow him around to his grave. A jury verdict against him would be far more damaging than a foreclosure would have been.

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.