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

[seamusTX]

Settled out of court for an undisclosed amount:
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... -home.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sic finit.

- Jim

[iAmSam]

With any luck, she got more than original bill the bank refused to pay. These days I don't think a jury would be very sympathetic to illegitimate bank foreclosure.

[EEllis]

With any luck, she got more than original bill the bank refused to pay. These days I don't think a jury would be very sympathetic to illegitimate bank foreclosure.

I doubt it. Remember the bank didn't foreclose, they accidentally cleaned out a house that was vacant and looked abandoned. They met and offered payment but the list of the items she wanted payment for looked nothing like what they believed were removed. She should get the value of the stuff and some but it shouldn't be the lottery win that she seemed to want.

[gringo pistolero]

I doubt it. Remember the bank didn't foreclose, they accidentally cleaned out a house that was vacant and looked abandoned. They met and offered payment but the list of the items she wanted payment for looked nothing like what they believed were removed. She should get the value of the stuff and some but it shouldn't be the lottery win that she seemed to want.

She originally asked for less than $20,000 to replace the property the bank supposedly damaged or stole. If that is a "lottery win" then any retirees receiving more than $20,000/year in Social Security benefits must have hit the proverbial Power Ball Jackpot!

[EEllis]

I doubt it. Remember the bank didn't foreclose, they accidentally cleaned out a house that was vacant and looked abandoned. They met and offered payment but the list of the items she wanted payment for looked nothing like what they believed were removed. She should get the value of the stuff and some but it shouldn't be the lottery win that she seemed to want.

She originally asked for less than $20,000 to replace the property the bank supposedly damaged or stole. If that is a "lottery win" then any retirees receiving more than $20,000/year in Social Security benefits must have hit the proverbial Power Ball Jackpot!

If she had abandoned the house and the property left behind was worth nothing or at the most a few hundred then yes I think $20,000.00 constitutes winning the lottery.

[JALLEN]

What happened was the bank foreclosed on the property they had a mortgage lien on, which, unfortunately was not her house. That property was across the street.

When they had their contract agent take possession, change the locks, remove the belongings, etc. the agent got the wrong house. The house they took possession of belonged to the woman and always did, and she owed the bank nothing. The bank was liable for damages for her property and whatever else she suffered as a result of the bank's agent's carelessness. The agent would be liable to the bank for that as well.

The bank did the right thing, after it tried every other way to wiggle out. Still, unless there is more to this, there doesn't appear to be the kind of malicious conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages, but why take the chance? The cheapest settlement is right now, and the bank finally realized it, not to mention the hideous publicity they were exposed to.

[hillfighter]

The bank did the right thing, after it tried every other way to wiggle out. Still, unless there is more to this, there doesn't appear to be the kind of malicious conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages, but why take the chance? The cheapest settlement is right now, and the bank finally realized it, not to mention the hideous publicity they were exposed to.

If they paid up quickly after realizing their mistake I would agree and chalk it up to gross negligence. But like you said they tried every other way to wiggle out of doing the right thing. That sounds like bad intentions to me.

The bank only did the right thing when it looked like continuing to do the wrong thing might bite them in the end. If I was a juror, their malicious conduct after the B&E would make me lean toward punitive damages if that was on the table. Make an example out of them.

[MasterOfNone]

I doubt it. Remember the bank didn't foreclose, they accidentally cleaned out a house that was vacant and looked abandoned. They met and offered payment but the list of the items she wanted payment for looked nothing like what they believed were removed. She should get the value of the stuff and some but it shouldn't be the lottery win that she seemed to want.

She originally asked for less than $20,000 to replace the property the bank supposedly damaged or stole. If that is a "lottery win" then any retirees receiving more than $20,000/year in Social Security benefits must have hit the proverbial Power Ball Jackpot!

If she had abandoned the house and the property left behind was worth nothing or at the most a few hundred then yes I think $20,000.00 constitutes winning the lottery.

Did any sources indicate that she had abandoned the house or that the contents were worthless? I have seen the articles that said she was away for two weeks, but none that said she abandoned the house. And I have not seen an inventory of the contents.

[ChoqPOC]

She deserved to be reimbursed not only for the property they "stole", but for having to climb through her own dang windown to gain access back to her home (among a million other things I can think of)... $18K was a bargain and I am sure she got more than that in the end. Good for her for continuing to fight for what's right.

[EEllis]

I doubt it. Remember the bank didn't foreclose, they accidentally cleaned out a house that was vacant and looked abandoned. They met and offered payment but the list of the items she wanted payment for looked nothing like what they believed were removed. She should get the value of the stuff and some but it shouldn't be the lottery win that she seemed to want.

She originally asked for less than $20,000 to replace the property the bank supposedly damaged or stole. If that is a "lottery win" then any retirees receiving more than $20,000/year in Social Security benefits must have hit the proverbial Power Ball Jackpot!

If she had abandoned the house and the property left behind was worth nothing or at the most a few hundred then yes I think $20,000.00 constitutes winning the lottery.

Did any sources indicate that she had abandoned the house or that the contents were worthless? I have seen the articles that said she was away for two weeks, but none that said she abandoned the house. And I have not seen an inventory of the contents.

When our representatives arrived, they noted that the grass was overgrown, the door was unlocked, and the utilities
had been turned off. The home was also nearly empty, with two dressers being the only furniture inside the premises,
and a neighbor indicated that the home had been vacant for some time. Therefore, not knowing that the GPS was
incorrect, our employees had no reason to doubt that they were at the right location, and they proceeded to change the
door locks, clean the property, and discard what they assumed to be trash and abandoned items. Unfortunately, we did
not discover our error until the clean-up process was nearly complete.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 05#p840247

True that is from the bank but there are so many things that can be checked that I tend to believe them. The woman was in the midst of a divorce and such things happen. Mind you I'm not calling the property worthless or anything I just think she gave the highest possible number and then doubled or tripled it and if the situation was as they say I don't think the bank needed to pay more than the actual damage, which doesn't sound that high. People seem to be focusing on their hate of banks and big business rather than facts and law. Heck lets face it it was the cleaners that screwed up not even the bank. Thats a job that someone just trying to get by does. They showed up at the wrong house but because it looked like the other foreclosed homes they assumed they were at the right spot. You do realize that those cleaners that get a few hundred a property will no be liable to the bank for everything they paid the home owner?

[EEllis]

From a statement the bank made to the local paper before the settlement.

Thorne wrote in his statement that the bank is looking to compensate Barnett for the items missing. There is disagreement, however, between the two parties as to what all is missing and how much they are worth.
A list shown to the Columbus news station appears to show the amount "owed" by First National Bank, including $2,500 for "miscellaneous kids clothes," more than $9,000 for "Toyota engines and parts" and nearly $2,000 for pool supplies.
This list is "inconsistent with ... the list and values of missing items provided by (Barnett) herself as recorded in an earlier telephone conversation with one of our representatives," Thorne wrote.
The two sides' attorneys are in contact to resolve the issue, Thorne wrote, but as of Tuesday, no resolution had been reached.

http://www.vintondaily.com/news/bank-di ... 6171e.html

And for those who question if anyone lived there

A McArthur Police report released July 25, three days after that story broke, said that Barnett never contacted city police wanting to file any type of report against the Wellston bank.

According to the report, Barnett first called police July 2 to say that someone had been in her home and had cleaned it and mowed the grass. She told police no one was living there at the time.When Wood went to the home with her, Barnett reportedly never mentioned "anything being taken or missing, just cleaned up." Later that day, a man from First National Bank met with Wood(chief of police) at the police station to say he had cleaned out the wrong house in a bank repossession by mistake.

"This officer located Mrs. Barnett and advised her who had been in her home, that the repo man had got the wrong house," Wood wrote in his report. "She then began to laugh and stated that at least they cleaned up inside and mowed the grass."

Wood then told Barnett to contact the office if she needed any other help.

emp mine

from http://woub.org/2013/08/07/new-informat ... osure-case

[VMI77]

I don't care what their excuse is....making a "mistake" like that could be lethal. The onus is on the bank and they need to be made to pay for their mistakes. Had I been on the jury I'd have pushed for $100K or more. I had personally made the same kind of "mistake," say, removing property from a friend's home at his request, but getting the wrong address, I'd be in jail --if not shot dead. Bankers in jail would definitely have a salubrious effect on the country.

[EEllis]

I don't care what their excuse is....making a "mistake" like that could be lethal. The onus is on the bank and they need to be made to pay for their mistakes. Had I been on the jury I'd have pushed for $100K or more. I had personally made the same kind of "mistake," say, removing property from a friend's home at his request, but getting the wrong address, I'd be in jail --if not shot dead. Bankers in jail would definitely have a salubrious effect on the country.

Your equating two separate situations. This house was vacant and unlived in, sounds like the yard looked it. They spoke with neighbors who said that no one lived there having moved out previously. So how are you being shot when no one is there? They didn't kick in the door like they were on a drug raid or breaking in like a burglar. They got sent to the wrong location by a gps and since it looked abandoned they assumed it was the foreclosed house. They were wrong but there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for assessing a punitive penalty on the bank. That means by law the lady only gets made whole, they jury doesn't get to give punitive damages. So no they wouldn't be getting 1000,000 grand or any other silly dang thing never mind the actual facts which seem to be it was no big thing until some lawyer got involved and tried to make a payday of it. It really shocks me a bit. I mean I know people hate banks but the total disregard to facts and the law is something else. By the way while it is the banks liability without a doubt lets also acknowledge who really made the mistake. Most likely it would be some contractor who gets paid a few hundred for cleaning and mowing so the place doesn't look to crappy to sell. I've done this before. You take some pics and make a report and send it to the owner (the bank) and tell them how much the cleanup will be and then they say yes or no. Maybe it worked different here but I doubt it was the bank president who drove out to house and said "This is the one!" By law the owners compensation is not based off of punishment for the bank, the desire to send a message, or anything but real actual damages she sustained. If there is clearly a question what those damages are then the bank is entitled, and most likely as a publicly held corp they have a duty, to have a court decide the damages if they feel there may be something wrong with the amount.