TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: 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.

tbrown wrote: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.

philip964 wrote: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.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:As this is a CHL site, what happens if she's home when they come in?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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

seamusTX wrote: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

seamusTX wrote: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