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

[EEllis]

she needs to take them to court, it would end up before a jury since she's asking for a high amount, I'd like to see what happens when they stand before a jury, they would lose real fast and real large, and they know it....

Of course they would lose they admit they screwed up. It is just that the law only allows you to recover actual damages. You have a 5 to 10 yo sofa worth $200 then that's what you get $200 not the $1000 for a new sofa. And then there are the items they said they didn't remove which she has to show and prove they removed. Unless she can get punitive damages then I an possitive she will get much less than she requests at trial and bare the cost of the trial.

[seamusTX]

The law allows you only the value of the items not what it may cost you to replace. You can expect anything but I don't trash people for following the law.

Are some actions immoral that are not illegal?

Or to put it conversely, are some actions morally required that are not legally required?

There was a time when honorable people fixed their mistakes and apologized without being dragged into court. Apparently that time is receding into sepia-tinged history.

- Jim

[EEllis]

The law allows you only the value of the items not what it may cost you to replace. You can expect anything but I don't trash people for following the law.

Are some actions immoral that are not illegal?

Or to put it conversely, are some actions morally required that are not legally required?

There was a time when honorable people fixed their mistakes and apologized without being dragged into court. Apparently that time is receding into sepia-tinged history.

- Jim

So if they don't first offer which is almost certainly exaggerated they are immoral? Isn't it immoral to try and profit from someone else mistake? Now days many see injuries or accidents as paydays. They don't just want be made whole, they believe they should profit from it. Is that moral? w I don't know maybe the lady deserves every bit of the 18 grand shes asking but then again unless the Bank has a habit of making these kind of mistakes I don't believe they should have to pay any more than the damage they caused.

[seamusTX]

I've said my piece. I think everyone has made their sympathies clear.

- Jim

[SewTexas]

she needs to take them to court, it would end up before a jury since she's asking for a high amount, I'd like to see what happens when they stand before a jury, they would lose real fast and real large, and they know it....

Of course they would lose they admit they screwed up. It is just that the law only allows you to recover actual damages. You have a 5 to 10 yo sofa worth $200 then that's what you get $200 not the $1000 for a new sofa. And then there are the items they said they didn't remove which she has to show and prove they removed. Unless she can get punitive damages then I an possitive she will get much less than she requests at trial and bare the cost of the trial.

and what I am saying is that a jury would give her the punitive damages, because she deserves to be able to refurbish her home and not from Goodwill like you are implying.

[anygunanywhere]

Actions have consequences unless you are one of the elites.

Anygunanywhere

[Cedar Park Dad]

Actions have consequences unless you are one of the elites.

Anygunanywhere

[Tic Tac]

Of course they would lose they admit they screwed up. It is just that the law only allows you to recover actual damages. You have a 5 to 10 yo sofa worth $200 then that's what you get $200 not the $1000 for a new sofa.

Actual damages are replacement cost, not some imaginary depreciated value. Or they could return the actual items THEY STOLE instead of intentionally victimizing her a second time.

You try that pennies on the dollar bull with me? Doom on you.

[jimlongley]

Or they could return the actual items THEY STOLE instead of intentionally victimizing her a second time.

You try that pennies on the dollar bull with me? Doom on you.

Getting back the original merchandise is unlike;ly to ever happen, but I think they should be forced to do it, or replace it with brand new. Their errors and omission insurance should cover all of that, and of course they could subrogate against whoever was responsible for getting it wrong.

[Dave2]

Or they could return the actual items THEY STOLE instead of intentionally victimizing her a second time.

You try that pennies on the dollar bull with me? Doom on you.

Getting back the original merchandise is unlike;ly to ever happen

In this case, why not? It was discovered relatively quickly, and they should have at least a general customer list, even if it doesn't list exactly who bought exactly what. The embarrassment of having to personally call everyone you've done business with in the past <time period> and explain that you accidentally stole some poor woman's stuff and you need them to bring "their" merchandise back is just part of paying for your mistake.

[EEllis]

she needs to take them to court, it would end up before a jury since she's asking for a high amount, I'd like to see what happens when they stand before a jury, they would lose real fast and real large, and they know it....

Of course they would lose they admit they screwed up. It is just that the law only allows you to recover actual damages. You have a 5 to 10 yo sofa worth $200 then that's what you get $200 not the $1000 for a new sofa. And then there are the items they said they didn't remove which she has to show and prove they removed. Unless she can get punitive damages then I an possitive she will get much less than she requests at trial and bare the cost of the trial.

and what I am saying is that a jury would give her the punitive damages, because she deserves to be able to refurbish her home and not from Goodwill like you are implying.

I'm saying that I don't think the law allows her to ask for punitive damages without some extra factor that she would have to prove that so far there hasn't been a hint of. The jury can want whatever they want if the law doesn't allow for it then they are out of luck and so would this lady. And by the way I implied nothing! I wrote that I believe the law allows and requires the bank only to pay replacement value on whatever her loss is.

[EEllis]

Of course they would lose they admit they screwed up. It is just that the law only allows you to recover actual damages. You have a 5 to 10 yo sofa worth $200 then that's what you get $200 not the $1000 for a new sofa.

Actual damages are replacement cost, not some imaginary depreciated value. Or they could return the actual items THEY STOLE instead of intentionally victimizing her a second time.

You try that pennies on the dollar bull with me? Doom on you.

Bull. It happens all the time with cars and it holds true for all property. It isn't what you paid for it, what it will cost to get a new one but what it is worth. You have a 5 yo couch then you get paid the value of a 5 yo couch and you can go get a 5 yo couch just like you had. While it seems you think being made whole means you must be better off than before the problem that is not how the law views it and getting mad or tough doesn't change the law.

[EEllis]

Or they could return the actual items THEY STOLE instead of intentionally victimizing her a second time.

You try that pennies on the dollar bull with me? Doom on you.

Getting back the original merchandise is unlike;ly to ever happen

In this case, why not? It was discovered relatively quickly, and they should have at least a general customer list, even if it doesn't list exactly who bought exactly what. The embarrassment of having to personally call everyone you've done business with in the past <time period> and explain that you accidentally stole some poor woman's stuff and you need them to bring "their" merchandise back is just part of paying for your mistake.

The most likely reason is the missing stuff wasn't worth it for the bank or the companies dealing with the repo or cleaning to keep. They are not going to throw out $2,000 worth of washer dryers they would try and recover monies from any abandon property, yes I know the property wasn't abandoned but they thought so and were acting as such, even the property that was of lower value would have been gone over by any workers and the rest hauled off for trash.

[Dave2]

Or they could return the actual items THEY STOLE instead of intentionally victimizing her a second time.

You try that pennies on the dollar bull with me? Doom on you.

Getting back the original merchandise is unlike;ly to ever happen

In this case, why not? It was discovered relatively quickly, and they should have at least a general customer list, even if it doesn't list exactly who bought exactly what. The embarrassment of having to personally call everyone you've done business with in the past <time period> and explain that you accidentally stole some poor woman's stuff and you need them to bring "their" merchandise back is just part of paying for your mistake.

The most likely reason is the missing stuff wasn't worth it for the bank or the companies dealing with the repo or cleaning to keep. They are not going to throw out $2,000 worth of washer dryers they would try and recover monies from any abandon property, yes I know the property wasn't abandoned but they thought so and were acting as such, even the property that was of lower value would have been gone over by any workers and the rest hauled off for trash.

I was under the impression that they were required to hold on to (as opposed the throwing away) "abandoned" property for a while just in case something like this happened. Now that I say it out loud, though, it makes me wonder why, if I'm right, they would be allowed to sell said "abandoned" property.

[MechAg94]

she needs to take them to court, it would end up before a jury since she's asking for a high amount, I'd like to see what happens when they stand before a jury, they would lose real fast and real large, and they know it....

Of course they would lose they admit they screwed up. It is just that the law only allows you to recover actual damages. You have a 5 to 10 yo sofa worth $200 then that's what you get $200 not the $1000 for a new sofa. And then there are the items they said they didn't remove which she has to show and prove they removed. Unless she can get punitive damages then I an possitive she will get much less than she requests at trial and bare the cost of the trial.

and what I am saying is that a jury would give her the punitive damages, because she deserves to be able to refurbish her home and not from Goodwill like you are implying.

I'm saying that I don't think the law allows her to ask for punitive damages without some extra factor that she would have to prove that so far there hasn't been a hint of. The jury can want whatever they want if the law doesn't allow for it then they are out of luck and so would this lady. And by the way I implied nothing! I wrote that I believe the law allows and requires the bank only to pay replacement value on whatever her loss is.

I don't know what Ohio law is, but in Texas, I thought punitive damages were capped at some multiple of actual damages, not eliminated completely. She could still attempt to get punitive damages, just not millions.