MOSCOW, Ohio -- Like many people, Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be 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.
So what was Mr. Hoskins completely appropriate response to the bank's foreclosure procedure?
The Moscow man used a bulldozer two weeks ago to level the home he'd built, and the sprawling country home is now rubble, buried under a coating of snow.
Because, you know, nothing gets you out of mortgage foreclosure like destroying the bank's collateral... I mean, there's no possible way that the bank might take umbrage at having their asset made essentially worthless. I love the rationale:
"As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was," Hoskins said. "I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground."
Except that, more than likely, the bank is the entity that gave you the money with which you built that house, dolt. There's only two ways the bank even got involved - either he needed a loan to buy the land or he got the loan to actually build the house. If he paid $350K for a buildable house lot this guy has less common sense than Tiger Woods' marriage counselor; if he got the loan to build the house then he's destroyed the bank's investment.
In any case, this guy's in a world of hurt - he might as well have taken the bulldozer to the bank and provided some entertainment out of the deal...
That is all.
Link sent by reader PISSED, who is apparently plugged into the news of the odd...
13 comments:
Wonder if alcohol was involved. It would be kind of scary if it wasn't.
As always, I suspect there is more to the story. The article does mention the guy had a buyer for the house at more than was owned, but the bank refused the sale, saying they could get more selling it themselves.
I also noted that his problems with the bank have been "ongoing for a decade." Means he wasn't any part of the recent mortgage crash. Ten years is more than enough time to figure out some kind of answer to money problems.
And what the hell was he doing with a three-fifty-grand house in Clermont County? That's a largely rural county east of Cincinnati. Lots of farms. Not very valuable land -- at least, not ten years ago. $350K there would buy a hell of a house. You could live quite comfortably in a much cheaper house.
Afterthought: a web search led me to another story about this guy, which gave the address. That and Bing Maps produced an overhead view of the place. Click "Bird's Eye" under "Aerial" to get an overhead photo.
Three thousand square feet of house, plus a swimming pool, on a three-acre lot. With a farm pond.
His business is failing, he's facing bankruptcy, he's been having money problems for ten years, and he lives in a house like that?
(On an entirely unrelated note, as a fierce defender of privacy rights, it makes me a little nervous that armed only with the address, I found THAT MUCH data on the guy's house, THAT fast. Aerial photos, tax records including house and lot size, and ghods only know what else if I was interested.)
I sent the link to my daughter. She works for a law firm that does foreclosures. I'm sure she'll have a comment on this. Not only does the guy not have a house, he still owes every penny of the mortgage.
Not only that, but if the bank had taken title to the house, he destroyed their property, not his.
On the bright side, chances are he'll have a place to live for the next few years.
The scary thing is some people think he's a hero. The man is an idiot. No wonder his business failed. And for the people who think the bank is the bad guy, let's hope they don't need to borrow money again.
If you owe the bill-pay the bill. I hate people like that.
See Ya
Carteach0:
I SERIOUSLY doubt that the bank refused him the right to sell.
I used to work in the mortgage department of a pretty big credit union.
Financial insitutions DON'T WANT your property -- as soon as they take possession and start to market it, it's just sucking money until it's sold.
Additionally, unless they had already FINISHED foreclosure proceedings and taken possession, how can they stop him? Once they get the loan paid off, it's GAME OVER, and the bank has ZERO interest in the property.
Of course the TAX LIEN against his house (which has nothing to do with the bank) would have to be paid off before he could sell it, but, so that would put a crimp in his payoff plans.
Then there's the fact that he had this house and his business JOINTLY mortgaged to pay for his failed business.
But, tax liens are pretty similar -- the government DOES NOT WANT your house, they want MONEY. If you can sell it for enough to cover the bill, they are fine with that.
In other words, this guy did NOT have a sale lined up that could cover the debt secured by his porperty. He did NOT have an offer for enough to cover both the liens AND the loans -- if he did, the bank and government would be more than happy to let him cash out and just hand them the money.
And he's PUBLICLY announced he's thinking about doing the same thing to his business.
This guy is no different than any con artist who defrauds a bunch of people, and then burns his own house to get out of the mortgage.
Geodkyt,
The article had the info about his 'house sale'. The same article that supplied all the information we are all talking about.
Maybe some real live facts will come out eventually.
First point, 350k for a 3acre lot is cheap. There are 1/4 acre lots nearby that sell for $250k.
Second, the article states he owed the bank $160k NOT $350k, that was what the property was VALUED at. The article further states that he had a buyer willing to pay him $ 170k to pay off the bank & the bank refused because they wanted to make more by selling the home on the open market. Sorry jay but i completely see why he did what he did.
SteveA is absolutely right - dude owed the bank ~160k for the property, not the 350 the property + buildings were worth. He built the house after buying the land. His business partner got the property (and business property) foreclosed on, and after several attempts to pay the bank, the bank decided that they could get more at auction. Can't really fault the guy for stopping the bank from continuing to screw him over.
THE ARTICLE states that he had a buyer, but the bank refused to let the sale go through.
I call BS. WHERE did that info come from? The suspect?
I call BS for two reasons:
1. Banks don't work that way. They want the MONEY, not the PROPERTY -- because even foreclosing at well under value is STILL generally a losing proposition, especially in this market.
2. Unless they have ALREADY foreclosed (in which case, it was no longer HIS property -- it was THEIRS, and what he did is legally and morally no different thna if he came by and bulldozed YOUR house), the bank cannot STOP him from selling and using the proceeds to payoff his outstanding note.
I've worked in this business, and tried to help people avoid foreclosure.
BTW,
I suspect teh $160,000 loan was a CONSTRUCTION loan -- they loaned him the money to BUILD the house. The HOUSE and lot (not just the bare lot) was the collateral.
Post a Comment