• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

SandEagle

SandEagle

Lifer
pics in link

http://www.wlwt.com/news/22600154/detail.html


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.



hahaha, i would've done the same thing
 
The bank really screwed the pooch on this one. He owed 160K, he offered 170K, more than the original mortgage contract. The bank refused because they thought they could get more money from foreclosure, just insulting. Now, they get squat.
 
"Well, to probably make banks think twice before they try to take someone's home, and if they are going to take it wrongly, the end result will be them tearing their house down like I did mine," Hoskins said.

No you moron. I am not one to ever side with the banks, but you are a moron. And I hope the bank sues you. I am sure somewhere in the mortgage agreement YOU SIGNED it prohibits you from demolishing the house because then you would be destroying the asset you have for the mortgage.
 
techs said:
"Well, to probably make banks think twice before they try to take someone's home, and if they are going to take it wrongly, the end result will be them tearing their house down like I did mine," Hoskins said.

No you moron. I am not one to ever side with the banks, but you are a moron. And I hope the bank sues you. I am sure somewhere in the mortgage agreement YOU SIGNED it prohibits you from demolishing the house because then you would be destroying the asset you have for the mortgage.
Click to expand...

"He said he sought legal counsel before tearing down his home and understands the possible consequences, but he has never doubted his decision once he made it."

So he knows the consequences.
 
SandEagle said:
pics in link

http://www.wlwt.com/news/22600154/detail.html


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.



hahaha, i would've done the same thing
Click to expand...

So, now he owes the bank the whole $350,000?

What a dumbass.
 
Bateluer said:
The bank really screwed the pooch on this one. He owed 160K, he offered 170K, more than the original mortgage contract. The bank refused because they thought they could get more money from foreclosure, just insulting. Now, they get squat.
Click to expand...

If he had the $160k then why didn't he just pay off the loan? Why did he let it get to the point of foreclosure?
 
So he's been unable to successfully pay the amount he agreed to for nearly a decade and now he's angry that they are going to take the item that he agreed to let them take if he couldn't pay.

The way he did it:
He's out of a house, has a bad credit score and he's going to be paying the remainder of the $160,000 minus the amount they can sell the lot for.

Had the bank finished foreclosure:
He's out of a house and has a bad credit score.
 
JulesMaximus said:
If he had the $160k then why didn't he just pay off the loan? Why did he let it get to the point of foreclosure?
Click to expand...

He didn't have 160k, he had a buyer willing to pay 1/2 the cost of the house (probably be easy to find that). He would have sold the house to the other person for 170k and given the bank the remaining 160k that he owed them.

Had he not demolished the house and the bank taken ownership they would have been holding onto a house worth 350k and been able to sell it for probably 300k. This would have been an additional 140k profit for the bank.
 
Bateluer said:
The bank really screwed the pooch on this one. He owed 160K, he offered 170K, more than the original mortgage contract. The bank refused because they thought they could get more money from foreclosure, just insulting. Now, they get squat.
Click to expand...
I didn't notice that but now that I see that's why the bank foreclosed, I think it makes sense that the guy did what he did. That bank is slimey
 
techs said:
I wonder how long it will now take him to pay back the bank because he destroyed his own home?
Click to expand...

He offered the bank more than he owed. Combine that sum with the money he already paid them, and the house should have legally been his.
 
Bateluer said:
The bank really screwed the pooch on this one. He owed 160K, he offered 170K, more than the original mortgage contract. The bank refused because they thought they could get more money from foreclosure, just insulting. Now, they get squat.
Click to expand...

EMPshockwave82 said:
He didn't have 160k, he had a buyer willing to pay 1/2 the cost of the house (probably be easy to find that). He would have sold the house to the other person for 170k and given the bank the remaining 160k that he owed them.

Had he not demolished the house and the bank taken ownership they would have been holding onto a house worth 350k and been able to sell it for probably 300k. This would have been an additional 140k profit for the bank.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't work like that.

When a bank (or any other party for that matter) forcloses on your property for a debt you owe them, any amount received in the sale in excess of the debt goes to the (former) owner. I.e., the bank can't profit, they can only get what they are owed.

I see stuff in their about IRS liens too. Might be that the $170K isn't enough to pay off all creditors.

JulesMaximus said:
So, now he owes the bank the whole $350,000?

What a dumbass.
Click to expand...

No, he only owes the $160K to the bank.

Fern
 
Fern said:
No, it doesn't work like that.

When a bank (or any other party for that matter) forcloses on your property for a debt you owe them, any amount received in the sale in excess of the debt goes to the (former) owner. I.e., the bank can't profit, they can only get what they are owed.

I see stuff in their about IRS liens too. Might be that the $170K isn't enough to pay off all creditors.



No, he only owes the $160K to the bank.

Fern
Click to expand...

1) Foreclose
2) "Sell" it to a holding company that the bank wholly owns
3) Profit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top