"I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"
Posted on 02/19/2010 10:08:00 AM PST by AreaMan
Add insurance fraud to the list.
good for him! He made a hell of a statement of how frustrated and financially raped people get to feel from banks and such. I hope he hangs in there and doesn’t have any legal problems.
I’m guessing that we’re going to see more of this sort of desperation from individuals that feel like they just cant take anymore and are literally ready to die and take as many with them as possible.
"I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"
“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.”
Since we are sending people to jail here for comitting acts that we don’t like, which are not necessarily crimes, I vote for the bank manager to be his celly.
So your friend essentially tried to steal a truck, and when he was caught, he destroyed it. What happened to him?
Clermont County is eastern Cincinnati--the nicer half of town. $350,000 for a house there would have been pretty average during the real-estate boom.
They were foreclosing as collateral for his other debts, not the mortgage. They didn’t want the mortgage paid, they wanted the equity to cover his other debts. He’s a crook in my humble opinion. You don’t have a right to own a house regardless of everything else you do.
It’s only insurance fraud if he now turns around and files a claim and tries to have the insurance company pay to rebuild the house.
One can take so much. He has given up.
I believe the house was collateral against his business loans as well as the mortgage. It is common to use home equity as collateral for business loans. The bank would have used the proceeds beyond the mortgage to cover business loans.
Purposefully destroying a collateral asset to keep from paying a debt is most likely fraud, and a felony. He’s in trouble. Jail time is a definite possibility.
Beyond that, it appears he had some federal tax problems as well. The feds could make the case that he was willfully destroying property to evade paying federal taxes as well. We all know how Al Capone made out on that one.
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.
If the amount was less, then the point is moot. But, you have nothing, and I have nothing, to indicate that was the fact.
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.
If it cost me the difference it is a matter of principle. If it isn’t to you, then that is a comment on your character and not something I can help you with. It is just we see the world a different way.
You’re right, but don’t the banks require insurance so that they are covered in case the house, their collateral, is destroyed? I wonder what happens in this case. This guy is a total piece of crap and he deserves what he’s gonna get from doing this.
It wasn't worth $350k in the present market. After the bulldozing, the land was probably worth less than $60k.
Many banks will try to attach personal property in addition to business when collecting a debt. Doesn't mean it is legal or right, they just do.
But this is pure speculation on my part and yours as the article doesn't say more than claimed.
He isn't in trouble unless he personally pledged the property. He isn't in trouble on taxes either, unless you know something different. His tax troubles will continue regardless. I saw nothing in the article to say the Feds had liens on the house.
Sounds like a guy who is going through the meat grinder though, I feel sorry for him.
lets summerize:
He had a tax lien for not paying the IRS
He was being sued by his Brother/Biz partner
His commercial bank was forclosing on his business.
His bank was forclosing on his house.
Not menitoned in the article, but he probably signed a personal gaurantee on his biz debt. That means he didn’t own the equity in his house, he had promised it to the bank.
I am doubting that he was being mistreated by the bank.
We're seeing more of what I call the “NTL” crowd.
NOTHING TO LOSE
I believe we'll see more of this.
What will happen when they tell an elderly person that their life isn't worth the cost-benefit analysis of the medical care and they basically sentence that person to an early death? Nothing to lose! Who know how such a person could react.
With this guy...NTL!
The people who had their homes foreclosed and just break back in, change the locks and become squatters...NTL!
The dude from yesterday's tragedy...felt he had NTL!
Remember the guy who went into the city commission meeting and shot up a few city employees?...NTL.
How about the guy who welded the canopy on the bulldozer and wreaked havoc on the town he felt did him wrong...he felt he had NTL!
And if they start stealing folk's 401(k)...will we see even more of the NTL reactions?
For each person there is a threshold of snapping back.
While most have a high threshold of tolerance, some simply do not.
Even the most friendly of dogs will bite if backed far enough into a corner of fear and defense.
It is a form of self-preservation to that mind.
Our founding fathers reached that point with the King and the Tea Party members are in the same mindset.
The question now is will the NTLs reach critical mass and, as a result will we see a group reach NTL status em mass and be a far larger problem.
What seems to be interesting is the recent increasing frequency of these types of NTL reactions.
I believe it may be a foreshadowing. Wyatt's Torch!
The crime is destruction of property which did not belong to him as it was pledged as collateral to the bank who loaned him the $350,000.00 to “purchase” the house. He is apparently significantly behind in his mortgage payments—and until the house goes into foreclosure, the bank would not have been able to refuse payments bringing the mortgage up to date so I am not certain I believe he found someone willing to pay off the mortgage or at least pay it up to date.
He may be completely in the wrong as far as the law but I have to respect this man. He built this house and he let no one take it from him. At least he didn’t go around and start offing family members. He didn’t torch the place. He leveled it
” 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.”
Some other items in the story don’t add up either. If the bank thought they could get more than 170K, the positive difference would be paid to the owner, if he only owed 160K.
Therefore, he owed substantially more than 170K, enough that the short sale was significantly short.
“but don’t the banks require insurance so that they are covered in case the house, their collateral, is destroyed?”
What does insurance cover?
Fire insurance, yes — tree falling on the house, yes — bulldozed by owner, NO.
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.