View Full Version : OH - Man bulldozes house rather than turn it over to bank for foreclosure. (Video)
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12590/48/ VIDEO:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4n7EHVREAg&feature=player_embedded
Is this the tipping point? Americans have been taken advantage like no one on earth by greedy Banksters and corporations. Like many of them, a man named Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be somewhat unique.
Hoskins said he’s been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.
“When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn’t going to stand for that, so I took it down,” Hoskins said.
Hoskins said the Internal Revenue Service placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property on state Route 125 after his brother, a one-time business partner, sued him.
The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.
“The average homeowner that can’t afford an attorney or can fight as long as we have, they don’t stand a chance,” he said.
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.
Hoskins told News 5’s Courtis Fuller that he issued the bank an ultimatum.
“I’ll tear it down before I let you take it,” Hoskins told them.
And that’s exactly what Hoskins did.
Without going to the right or wrong of the issue, that is frigging funny!
I bet he goes to jail, unless populism somehow alters the course of the case.
shakazulu12
02-22-10, 17:33
Depends on the states laws. I know based on Oregon law, he actually could get away with it. Basically the bank has to make a choice, sue for the contract and get a judgement for the amount owed to them, but then they would not have a secure claim to the property anymore and there are all kinds of ways to take care of that, or foreclose it as is, since the destruction he did took place while he legally owned it. Can't do both though. The downside to the judgement is that its now unsecured and with that dollar amount would like go away in a chapter 7 BK, which the owner wouldn't care about anyway since his credit is already ruined.
Other states are not this liberal though, I'm curious to see what the follow up is on this one.
Ridge_Runner_5
02-22-10, 17:39
I was neutral until he tried to pay off his debt and the bank told him to pound sand...after that, I sided with him.
I was neutral until he tried to pay off his debt and the bank told him to pound sand...after that, I sided with him.
Yep, that's also the point where I agreed with him.
I was neutral until he tried to pay off his debt and the bank told him to pound sand...after that, I sided with him.
yeah that struck me as messed up... he tried to pay the 1760k, and they decided they'd rather take his 350,000 dollar house and screw him. :mad:
at that point, i'd probably be renting a bulldozer too :D
I was neutral until he tried to pay off his debt and the bank told him to pound sand...after that, I sided with him.
There's more to the story we aren't aware of...if you owe a debt to the bank and go in to pay it off (EVEN IF PAST DUE), they can't say pound sand we want the collateral cuz it's worth more.
If any banker wants to chime in, I'm all ears.
Best I can tell, he still owes the debt and destroyed his collateral that he could have sold.:rolleyes:
...at least he didn't drive the dozer into the bank and try to kill folks.
Ridge_Runner_5
02-22-10, 19:15
...at least he didn't drive the dozer into the bank and try to kill folks.
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9329/killdozer.jpg
There's more to the story we aren't aware of...if you owe a debt to the bank and go in to pay it off (EVEN IF PAST DUE), they can't say pound sand we want the collateral cuz it's worth more.
Best I can tell, he still owes the debt and destroyed his collateral that he could have sold.
Yep, he destroyed a $350 thousand house and still owes the debt. He could have sold the house, paid off the debt and still walked away with cash in his pocket. What an idiot!
Ridge_Runner_5
02-22-10, 21:57
Yep, he destroyed a $350 thousand house and still owes the debt. He could have sold the house, paid off the debt and still walked away with cash in his pocket. What an idiot!
It was too late to sell the house. The bank was going to auction the whole property...
In Texas, it's a felony to hide or destroy a car to prevent repossession so I would think doing that to a house would be the same... I understand the sentiment but he just "dug the hole a little deeper".
There's more to the story we aren't aware of...if you owe a debt to the bank and go in to pay it off (EVEN IF PAST DUE), they can't say pound sand we want the collateral cuz it's worth more.
If any banker wants to chime in, I'm all ears.
Best I can tell, he still owes the debt and destroyed his collateral that he could have sold.:rolleyes:
...at least he didn't drive the dozer into the bank and try to kill folks.
not really if the bank holds deed/mortgage to the house you can not sell it without them releasing it !
this is what the bank did they refused the sale of the house
again depends on what type of foreclosure but the stuff I heard the other day on the radio they had a financial guy as a guest describing why the bank was the one who was in the wrong and should have taken the offer over the amount of debt but the loan officer or whoever was in charge made a very bad decision
again this is from what I heard and it made perfect sense ?
He'll be going to jail or spending tons of money he doesn't have trying to stay out.
It was too late to sell the house. The bank was going to auction the whole property...
He could have dealt with it earlier when he still had a choice. What I see here is an epic failure of personal responsibility.
Well, the Banks are basically part of the Gov't now. I'll bet he does go to jail. It does not surprise me that his greedy bank turned down the offer of $170K. He may have owed $160K on the mtg, but then there is the legal fees, back interest, late penalites, back RE taxes, etc.
Well, the Banks are basically part of the Gov't now. I'll bet he does go to jail. It does not surprise me that his greedy bank turned down the offer of $170K. He may have owed $160K on the mtg, but then there is the legal fees, back interest, late penalites, back RE taxes, etc.
Yeah, yeah, the greedy banks. There are 8,000 FDIC insured banks in the US and the vast majority are not the 10 or so large banks that you read or hear about.
The vast majority are also small community banks and are typically one of if not the largest employers in their communities. They are also typically the most significant source of small business loans that keep small businesses employing other people in their communities.
Don't you imagine that the same fool who bulldozes his supposed $350 thousand house over a $170 thousand debt might be slanting the story his direction?If the house was really worth $350 thousand he could have sold it, paid off his debt and walked away with around $150 thousand in his pocket after a 6% sales commission and closing costs. Simple math.
I call bullshit on his story and say all the facts aren't in.
Well, the Banks are basically part of the Gov't now. I'll bet he does go to jail.
He would go to jail because he destroyed someone else's property. The bank owned over 45% of that house. If you drove a bulldozer through half of someone else's house, I bet you'd be in trouble too.
Information about River Hills Bank:
http://www.faqs.org/banks/RIVERHILLS-BANK-6662-New-Richmond-Ohio.html#top
I don't know where that is sourced, but at $111 million in total assets, this bank really looks like one of the bailout recipients...
Yeah, yeah, the greedy banks. There are 8,000 FDIC insured banks in the US and the vast majority are not the 10 or so large banks that you read or hear about.
The vast majority are also small community banks and are typically one of if not the largest employers in their communities. They are also typically the most significant source of small business loans that keep small businesses employing other people in their communities.
Don't you imagine that the same fool who bulldozes his supposed $350 thousand house over a $170 thousand debt might be slanting the story his direction?If the house was really worth $350 thousand he could have sold it, paid off his debt and walked away with around $150 thousand in his pocket after a 6% sales commission and closing costs. Simple math.
I call bullshit on his story and say all the facts aren't in.
No doubt the home owner was not the shrapest tool in the box. However, there is no getting around that in this economu that his bank, be it large or small is not the issue, made a very bad decision not to allow the $170K offer to go to closing.
As for the $350K value on his house. I have no idea, nor do you, if that is an accurate value. Would it surprise me if he could not get a market value for his home even if it was worth $350K, no. How about after word got out in his small community that his home an business were both in foreclosure and LIEN status with the IRS. Do you think people knowing that will still want to pay market value? I don't think so. There are no secrets in small communites.
An offer of .50 cents on the dollar, $170K on $350K sounds about right to me, given the situation.
The bank sound shave taken the money and run. They make nothing from seeing the homeowner go to jail. LOSE/LOSE.
An offer of .50 cents on the dollar, $170K on $350K sounds about right to me, given the situation.
That is the point, I don't believe we know what the true situation is. We only have the idiot's most likely biased side of the story. That is why it is so easy for people to bank bash. They can say just about anything and get away with it becasue the bank can't set the record straight due to confidentiality laws.
If the news report is correct, and he has been having trouble over this debt for years, I would say the bank has been overly kind.
As to the bank getting pennies on the $, we don't know that either. We only know what the idiot has said. The total debt after years of trouble could well have exceded the true value of the property for all we know.
Last time I looked, Ohio is a judicial foreclosure state, which means they could not have foreclosed had they not had a valid claim. And in a judicial foreclosure the borrower could have put up a defense. Sorry, the story just doesn't wash for me.
As to the bank getting nothing, we don't know that either. If the bank was insured as lienholder then they might get paid off unless the policy has a self-destruction clause. But again, we don't know the full situation.
As an aside, RiverHills Bank, New Richmond, Ohio, is a very small community bank in a city of 2,500 on the Ohio River south of Cincy. RiverHills employs 42 full-time-equivilent people and is only 1 of 2 banks in town.
shakazulu12
02-23-10, 12:11
I only briefly watched this report when it first hit a few days ago. If I remember correctly, he wasn't even behind on his mortgage. The bank was foreclosing due to the fact he had a ton or IRS debt and they could potentially take the house ahead of the bank's interest in the property. In essence, the bank was attempting to foreclose the house first and protect their interest.
Its also not likely that house was worth anywhere near $350,000. People over-value their properties all the time and Ohio is one of the worst hit places in regards to property values with this mess.
Again, I'm in Oregon where we have both Judicial and Non-Judicial foreclosures, though banks almost never go the judicial route here. The laws vary all over the place in regards to whether or not this guy is still liable.
If I remember correctly, he wasn't even behind on his mortgage. The bank was foreclosing due to the fact he had a ton or IRS debt and they could potentially take the house ahead of the bank's interest in the property. In essence, the bank was attempting to foreclose the house first and protect their interest.
He didn't have to behind in his mortgage. In Ohio, I can go after the equity in your house if I have a default judgement on some other debt, perhaps a business loan. In that case, yes, I would want to exicute my judgement against his equity before IRS liened the property, otherwise I would be behind both the first mortgage holder and the IRS in priority. I can't do that in Texas against your primary residence because of our homestead laws.
The way I read this story, the debt owed to the bank was secured only by the land - in other words, he bought the land with the money loaned by the bank and their security interest was in the dirt. He then built the house himself, separately.
He may very well have an argument that the bank has no interest in, or right to, the structure or improvements on the land, and that their foreclosure and possession of the property with the house would unjustly enrich the bank, so ... screw 'em, I'll give them back only what's theirs.
shakazulu12
02-23-10, 13:30
^^^^^This would actually make the most sense out of it, though could have simply stripped it and at least made some money on the deal.
^^^^^This would actually make the most sense out of it, though could have simply stripped it and at least made some money on the deal.
It's the only reason I can think of that he's not in jail and the bank hasn't gone apeshit on him. I will say that most of the security instruments I've seen in residential property transactions have language indicating that the lender is secured by the property, including any and all improvements upon or subsequently added to the property. If this guy's paperwork had something like that and the bank ends up short on the sale of the land, he may still be in trouble.
I will say that most of the security instruments I've seen in residential property transactions have language indicating that the lender is secured by the property, including any and all improvements upon or subsequently added to the property.
And the idiot's paperwork will say the same thing.
shakazulu12
02-23-10, 16:44
Unfortunately we may never know, the way the news cycle works. By the time we could get any answers on this, it wouldn't be worth the article anymore.
Alpha Sierra
02-23-10, 18:44
He could have dealt with it earlier when he still had a choice. What I see here is an epic failure of personal responsibility.
+1
No sympathy for that douchebag.
What a douchebag, I'd fine him at least $1.05 for his villainy.
He'll be going to jail or spending tons of money he doesn't have trying to stay out.
Why? It was his house, he can do what he wants to it.
Lenders can generally call notes at any time for a myriad of reasons even if he was not behind on his payments. It appears the cross-collateralization with his business assets precipitated the note call. Once it was in foreclosure he no longer had the option to sell the house for more money, as some here have suggested, and pay the bank off. The bank's lien controls the deed and would prevent him from being able to sell.
It appears from the photos that he actually did strip the house before demolishing it. It is quite common for foreclosed home owners to complete strip a house of everything removable before possession is transferred in the foreclosure, running a bulldozer it is taking it to the extreme but seems quite reasonable considering just the information we have.
Cameron
Once it was in foreclosure he no longer had the option to sell the house for more money, as some here have suggested, and pay the bank off. The bank's lien controls the deed and would prevent him from being able to sell.
Please reread what I wrote when I said:
He could have dealt with it earlier when he still had a choice.
And the bank's lien does not control the deed, the owner does. But any transfer is subject to liens. He could have sold the house and the lien would have been paid at the closing but he waited too long because (my guess) he just didn't want to pay his legal debt obligation. And the reason I say the debt was legal is that the bank could not have obtained a judicial foreclosure if the lender didn't have adequate proof that the debt was legal and binding. I have seen countless foreclosures thrown out of court (as it should be) due to sloppy paperwork on the lender's part.
It is quite common for foreclosed home owners to complete strip a house of everything removable before possession is transferred in the foreclosure,...............
You must have some interesting friends. Common I would not know about, but it is hardly responsible adult behavior.
.......... running a bulldozer it is taking it to the extreme but seems quite reasonable considering just the information we have.
Reasonable???? Childish is more like it. Sorta reminds me of the crazies that want to destroy their ex girlfriends/wives/whatever rather than let them be with someone else. "If I can't have you, babe, I'll make sure no one else can."
seems foreclosures are many times trashed to the point they have to get rid of it ?
cement in all the plumbing copper pipe removed and sold wiring cut apart walls cut with recip saws etc....
sadly its a childish stupid thing to do but it happens
but in this case with the bank ! what idiots at the bank
so we now have two idiots who destroyed something its becoming more insane every day it seems
We only have the idiot's most likely biased side of the story. That is why it is so easy for people to bank bash.
If the news report is correct, and he has been having trouble over this debt for years, I would say the bank has been overly kind.
As to the bank getting pennies on the $, we don't know that either. We only know what the idiot has said. The total debt after years of trouble could well have exceded the true value of the property for all we know.
It is hard not to bash the banks when they are paying depositors 1/4 to 1/2 of one percent's interest for CD's and then lending it back out at 6.5-8% for Mortgages, Car loans and Student loans. That is not my idea of a fair rate of return on depositers money. Couple that with the banks making all kinds of bad loans with high fees attached and then going out of business and sticking the tax payer with the debt. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THEM.
As for the debt exceeding the property value, we don't knaow that. What ever the case may be an offer of $170K AKA pennies on the dollar because even the bank states, they could gt more than that for the property.
It is pointless to have a discussion thread if you are going to say do not take the only information we have, from the article, at face value, if you are going to say we only have one side of the story and it should not be deemed accurate.
Perhaps you will contact the lender and the borrower and get the us the real story ?
I think the problem comes from so many people living way over their means or ability and wanting everything now !!!!!
then when the smallest ripple comes they are in serious trouble
this guy might be one of those people ? the kind of person to get mad and bulldoze a house is a strange one at best
again the banks are idiots to in this case but the guy has some issues !!!!
wife and I watch the HGTV show house hunters and its funny when most of the new young couples complain about the kitchen
saying or whining " OH it doesnt have granite OH it doesnt have stainless OH we are going to have to remodel everything"
friging your first house you are young live with it and fix it up fancy later !!!!!
It is hard not to bash the banks when they are paying depositors 1/4 to 1/2 of one percent's interest for CD's and then lending it back out at 6.5-8% for Mortgages, Car loans and Student loans. That is not my idea of a fair rate of return on depositers money.
Then invest your money somewhere else, and don't borrow any. Seems easy enough.
Couple that with the banks making all kinds of bad loans with high fees attached and then going out of business and sticking the tax payer with the debt. I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THEM.
And I have no sympathy for people who borrowed way beyond their means, blindly signed off on the paperwork disclosing the fees and interest terms, and who collectively defaulted on hundreds of billions of dollars in loans.
I get so tired of this blind populist anger being thrown at banks "big business" and other companies with whom you don't have to do business in the first place, and who - like all the other financial companies, big and small - are required by law to disclose all of the things that you complain about. It's not like they tricked anyone.
I do agree that we should not bail them out with taxpayer money. I'm as angry about that as anyone. If a single institution is "too big to fail" and requires a government bailout to save the world, then that tells me that the antitrust people at DOJ and FTC need to get involved and "downsize" that company.
It is hard not to bash the banks when they are paying depositors 1/4 to 1/2 of one percent's interest for CD's and then lending it back out at 6.5-8% for Mortgages,.....
My mortgage is 3.375%. Where have you been?
Couple that with the banks making all kinds of bad loans with high fees attached and then going out of business and sticking the tax payer with the debt......
There you go again, playing fast and loose with the facts. There are over 8,000 banks in this country and only a handful in the news. Most of the big banks have already paid back their TARP money with interest and dividends. Some didn't even want to take it in the first place but it was forced on them by Treasury.
Let's see now, who hasn't paid back thier bailout money? Oh yeah, that would be Fannie and Freddie, both Barney Frank's darlings, and of course, AIG. Edited to add: And let's not forget GM.
As to the smaller banks going out of business, many had large investments in Fannie and Freddie stock which was wiped out by the Feds. When that was written off it reduced capital to the point that they were no longer viable, thru no fault of their own.
Were they some banks that deserved to go out of business? Sure, but you make it sound like alll the banks are bad, and they aren't.
What ever the case may be an offer of $170K AKA pennies on the dollar because even the bank states, they could gt more than that for the property.......
Fast and loose with the facts again......the idiot claims that is what the bank said. IIRC, the bank actually didn''t say anything publicly. You obviously prefer to take the word of a known deadbeat who has had, by his own admission, problems with the IRS and his bank debt for years.
I have chased enough deadbeats over the years to know that they rarely, if ever, take responsibility for their own actions.
Why? It was his house, he can do what he wants to it.Cameron
He did not own his home free and clear and his actions are technically illegal. Common sense would dictate that illegal acts are punishable by law so he will way the piper either way! CASE CLOSED!
My mortgage is 3.375%. Where have you been?
Mine is 6.5%. Would you like to trade payments? You do know that rates flucuate, right? In the business.
There you go again, playing fast and loose with the facts. There are over 8,000 banks in this country and only a handful in the news. Most of the big banks have already paid back their TARP money with interest and dividends. Some didn't even want to take it in the first place but it was forced on them by Treasury.
The reason those Banks that you mention had to take the TARP money is the the reasons that I mentioned. Even those Banks admit that.
Let's see now, who hasn't paid back thier bailout money? Oh yeah, that would be Fannie and Freddie, both Barney Frank's darlings, and of course,
I never said anything about Banks who did not pay their loans back. That is SPIN. Stop it.
As to the smaller banks going out of business, many had large investments in Fannie and Freddie stock which was wiped out by the Feds. When that was written off it reduced capital to the point that they were no longer viable, thru no fault of their own.
You sound like a Banker or Lawyer trying to justify.
Were they some banks that deserved to go out of business? Sure, but you make it sound like alll the banks are bad, and they aren't.
Show me where I said all Banks are bad. Are they Greedy? Yes, Their Greed caused them to give no income loans at higher rates to people who should never have been approved. Ever heard of a NINJA Loan?
Fast and loose with the facts again......the idiot claims that is what the bank said. IIRC, the bank actually didn''t say anything publicly. You obviously prefer to take the word of a known deadbeat who has had, by his own admission, problems with the IRS and his bank debt for years.
You are Obfuscating what was written in the article. You have no reason to prove that there was no offer of $170K. That is merely your twisted opinion. Like I said earlier, if you are going to say all that was written by the reporter is not true, WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A DISCUSSION THREAD ABOUT IT ?
I have chased enough deadbeats over the years to know that they rarely ever take responsibility for their own actions.
No disagreement there. Then again, my mean FICO exceeds 800, what do I know.
Mine is 6.5%. Would you like to trade payments? You do know that rates flucuate, right? In the business.
That's right, they do flucuate - so why are you using old info? BTY, I am aslo getting 1.55% on daily money market funds. 3.375% minus 1.55% is a significantly skinnier spread that what you wrote.
I never said anything about Banks who did not pay their loans back. That is SPIN. Stop it.
What's the matter - you don't want to talk about the greedy bastards who haven't paid their bailout money back? Maybe the idiot should have bulldozed Fannie, Freddie, AIG and GM?
You sound like a Banker or Lawyer trying to justify.
You seem bothered by facts but yet you buy the idiot's story hook, line and sinker.
Show me where I said all Banks are bad. Are they Greedy? Yes, Their Greed caused them to give no income loans at higher rates to people who should never have been approved. Ever heard of a NINJA Loan?
That is right, you said banks, and you did not differentiate, thereby implying all. And there you go again playing fast and loose with the facts - vast the majority of banks in this country did not originate liar loans or pick a payment loans. A few bad apples did and most of those got hammered and their stockholders lost everything, as it should be.
You have no reason to prove that there was no offer of $170K. That is merely your twisted opinion.
You mean like it is your twisted opinion that idiot is telling the truth?
what do I know.
Even though that is an easy layup, I'll leave it alone.
Perhaps you will contact the lender and the borrower and get the us the real story ?
Still working on that part for you. In the meantime, I went to the Clearmont County online court records and it seems the idiot is no stranger to both the Common Pleas and Municipal Courts.
In Common Pleas there over 50 cases against him, mostly state sales tax liens for not filing returns and paying sales tax due. And by his own statements the IRS is after him.
In Muni Court, there are 8 open civil cases seeking judgements from people and businesses who claim he owes them money. And there are similar closed cases where judgements were granted against him. Looks like even one of his carpet supplies sued him and got a judgement.
BTW the business is Terry's Carpet Plus, Inc. in Amelia, Ohio. Ain't the Internet grand!
I also found the following posts by a couple of folks at sodahead but I certainly don't claim to know if the information is true or not:
"So, the original report was rather incomplete, mostly Mr. Hoskins' side. But from what people have been able to dig out it looks like the house was used as collateral in a business loan, the business went south, including a lawsuit from his partner/brother, he hasn't paid taxes in 5 years, and owes well over $1.4 million. The only thing he seemed to have on his side is, by his math, about $180,000 in equity on his house.
"Now, that equity is gone, he appears to have committed a felony, as the house was collateral and not his to freely destroy, and still owes every cent he did before. Idiot."
and this:
"Correction...before quoting a guy who has lost soo many lawsuits...check the court records...he owes 1.4 million in his bankrupcy filing.. He has delayed this for ten years, and has spent millions on his defense. This is not a small-guy about to loose his modest home to a big NY bank, it's a guy fighting the government about not paying taxes. The bank is a small five branch bank, that is very community oriented. The loss of this collateral, will be a community cost paid for by the customers of this tiny bank. This guys actions are criminal."
http://www.sodahead.com/business/terry-hoskins-bulldozes-ohio-home-to-avoid-foreclosure-a-hero-or-an-idiot/question-882755/
VooDoo6Actual
02-25-10, 10:49
CZ is unequivocally correct.
imo, Banks are GREEDY period.
DeputyMend
02-26-10, 20:36
He could have dealt with it earlier when he still had a choice. What I see here is an epic failure of personal responsibility.
I agree 100%
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.