OH: Woman's house and goods wrongly "repossessed"

[rbwhatever1]

One would think the Media could write an article that was accurate. Perhaps just get the headline correct. How can Property never owned be "repossessed" by a person or entity that never had control over it? It cannot. It can only be seized.

This Property was clearly seized by an entity that had no right to forcibly seize it, which it did. Let the Bank fire up the printing presses...

[tbrown]

In situations like this, I always wonder what would happen if she hired a crew to do the same thing to the bank president's house.

I can understand mistakes, but when they refused to make her whole financially, they went beyond the pale. By choosing in the bright light of day to not replace what they took, and not fix the damage they caused, they Intentionally and knowingly stepped outside the bounds of civilized behavior and, morally and ethically, opened themselves up to justice in kind.

[EEllis]

In situations like this, I always wonder what would happen if she hired a crew to do the same thing to the bank president's house.

I can understand mistakes, but when they refused to make her whole financially, they went beyond the pale. By choosing in the bright light of day to not replace what they took, and not fix the damage they caused, they Intentionally and knowingly stepped outside the bounds of civilized behavior and, morally and ethically, opened themselves up to justice in kind.

Playing devils advocate for a min here but how do you know they refused to make her whole? The way it looks there is a dispute over the value of possessions that were removed how do you know she isn't asking for 10 times the value? What should they do if they think she is trying to get unjust enrichment from their mistake?

[tbrown]

Playing devils advocate for a min here but how do you know they refused to make her whole? The way it looks there is a dispute over the value of possessions that were removed how do you know she isn't asking for 10 times the value? What should they do if they think she is trying to get unjust enrichment from their mistake?

If I recall the story correctly, the value she claimed for the stolen property was less than $20,000. Even if the entire contents of the house was only worth $2000 (as you're suggesting) it seems to me that $20,000 is not an unreasonable settlement for a mistake of this magnitude.

And that's before we factor in the PR opportunity for the bank president to look like a mensch instead of a schmuck, at a time when there's a lot of anti-bank sentiment around foreclosures.

[seamusTX]

I have no idea what the replacement value of all the movable goods in my home is. I'm not exceptionally wealthy nor a collector of art or antiques. But we paid about $2,000 for a bed a few years ago, and $1,000 for a refrigerator. That's just the recent stuff that I remember. My tools would cost thousands to replace. Don't get me started about the firearms and accessories or saddles. No value could be put on photographs, my wife's wedding dress, or my late mother-in-law's silverware or jewelry.

If the story is at all accurate, this bank has given the poodle a severe ache in the posterior—especially in a rural area where people have long memories.

- Jim

[EEllis]

If I recall the story correctly, the value she claimed for the stolen property was less than $20,000. Even if the entire contents of the house was only worth $2000 (as you're suggesting) it seems to me that $20,000 is not an unreasonable settlement for a mistake of this magnitude.

And that's before we factor in the PR opportunity for the bank president to look like a mensch instead of a schmuck, at a time when there's a lot of anti-bank sentiment around foreclosures.

I don't disagree as to the PR cost but truly the law doesn't allow one to recover more than than you are actually damaged in most cases. So the idea that refusing to over pay being criminal was what I addressed. As to possibly overpaying , lets call it 15,000 based on your figures, well it is reportedly a local bank. It may not put it out of business but it may be a bigger hit than you think. In one story the bank seemed to say while they did remove some items the home owner is claiming thing that they say they did not remove. It seems to me they are probably in the negotiation stage where she is claiming high and they will likely work it down to something they can both agree on.

[MasterOfNone]

I would think that unless the bank had an independent inventory conducted, there is no way to know what she had in the house.

[SewTexas]

on one of the news articles I saw she said that most of the little bit left in the house was damaged, the few pieces they showed, were.

[gringo pistolero]

In situations like this, I always wonder what would happen if she hired a crew to do the same thing to the bank president's house.

It would be funny if some people upset with the bank over this and other issues did exactly that. It would be even better if they left signs that said

JUSTICE
4
KATIE

[Cedar Park Dad]

If a personal injury, such as the previous slipped on a melon case mentioned above, goes to trial. The plaintiff does not have much of a case or wanted way to much money to go away. Insurance Companies and Plaintiff attorneys do not like to go to trial and would prefer to settle with out a trial. Defense attorneys do not mind going to trial as they are being paid by the insurance company.

Sometimes an inexperienced attorney will take a bad case to trial, just because they don't know better, or need the practice. Most good plaintiff attorneys will show the other side they have a good case and show a good case for the damages they have. And then settle. It saves them the expense of a trial and reduces the risk for their client of getting nothing from a jury.

Problem in this case is it is property damage, not personal injury. Yes there is some pain and suffering for the loss of the property, but that is not worth much. A lot of the time the attorneys fees are taken out of the settlement and are not covered in the damages. Thus she would even get less, as much as 50% less. Plus you may not be able to get an attorney to help you on a contingency basis, and you would pay out of pocket until you receive a your money.

It would probably be covered by a homeowners policy. They might give her the best deal. Then their insurance company would settle it with the other insurance company.

It sure would have been nice if the police arrested someone, just because.

I'm no trial lawyer but I'm sure they could argue personal injury here. Mental injury via trauma and infliction of emotional distress.

As this is a CHL site, what happens if she's home when they come in?

[Dave2]

As this is a CHL site, what happens if she's home when they come in?

I'd imagine it'd be much the same as when anyone else breaks into your home while you're there.

[seamusTX]

Repos, foreclosures, and evictions often involve the county sheriff. Shooting at cops is not conducive to a long, comfortable retirement. They may have a low hit rate, but they have a lot of ammo.

- Jim

[EEllis]

I'm no trial lawyer but I'm sure they could argue personal injury here. Mental injury via trauma and infliction of emotional distress.

It needs to be intentional for the most part and is more than a bit hard to actually quantify. You could try for punitive damages but then you have to show some real negligence not a mistake and that means lots of time and effort doing research for maybe nothing. It's not supposed to be a payday or punishment it should make the person whole but that's the limit of what the court should do for the most part.

[Dave2]

Repos, foreclosures, and evictions often involve the county sheriff. Shooting at cops is not conducive to a long, comfortable retirement. They may have a low hit rate, but they have a lot of ammo.

- Jim

Shooting the Sheriff is not what I was talking about.

[The Annoyed Man]

If the story is at all accurate, this bank has given the poodle a severe ache in the posterior—especially in a rural area where people have long memories.

- Jim

Yeah, that pooch ain't going to stay aaaahhhhh...... "relationally indisposed" for long.