DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Man bulldozes his house that's headed for foreclosure

Here's link to story about man in Moscow, Ohio who bulldozed his $350,000 home that the bank was in the process of foreclosing. I view his actions as rather immature, I certainly don't believe his story adds up and wonder what his action does for his credit score? I also wonder if would have more respect for him if he had flown a plane into it rather than using a bulldozer?

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

Sounds like a waste of a good home for someone who can afford to pay the bills.

I didn't read the link... sorry, got the gist of it from what you wrote, but was the guy drunk?

I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about foreclosures - but it seems odd if he only owed $160,000 on a house that was once valued at $350,000......and he had an offer from someone for $170,000 - why would the bank foreclose on it? The bank, according to him, said they could get more for it - but that wouldn't be there money, would it? Wouldn't they only get what was owed, and the rest goes to him?

Anyway, kind of weird.

Probably because this had something to do with it: (from the story)

Quote:

---

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.

---

It doesn't sound like a hard-luck story more than it sounds like; how do I screw my brother/bank?

It's important to note that he had this house built on what used to be an empty lot. He took out a loan, and had accrued enough equity on his investment so that he could sell it, and all parties involved (including the bank) could have walked away from this very, very, clean. - It could have been a win-win for all parties. However:

It's an example of a power struggle. He had the power to sell his house and he was able to do that. The bank had the power to turn down the sale for 170,000 because they felt that they could get more out of it by foreclosing, so he utilized his power and tore the place down. Now he'll have a foreclosure on his record that he tried to avoid in the first place, and the bank has a lot filled with a bunch of debris. - Everybody lost.

I'll tell you what, I bet the bank wishes they had taken the 170,000 for it though. - Take what you want from that.

But, who would've recognized the amount over the $160,000 he owed? (in a plain old forclosure that is). I understand there are what could/should be called mitigating factors with the IRS lien.

The way I interpreted the story was that he had pledged the home as collateral for business loans?

He owed the bank 160 grand for the house mortgage and the house was also collateral for the business?

The devil is in the details but if he owed the bank he owed the bank. If we all did this goofy stuff nobody would get a loan for anything.

His story about having a buyer but the bank turning down the sale didn't wash to me. If after paying for a title search I decided that $170,000 was an acceptable purchase price, I would find a way to buy it. I'd go straight straight to a real estate lawyer and work out the details. Perhaps offering the seller $10,000 cash, assume all liens, and then with my good credit rating get a mortgage to pay off the lienholders.

Wonder what action these lienholders will take now? I would like to feel sorry for the guy and the circumstances of his ill-fortune. But destroying property pledged to secure a loan just ends up screwing everybody involved. I'm guessing there will be legal consequences. This guy looked too young to me to be forfeiting a better chance of a brighter future.

So now he has a property valued well below it's previous value and he still owes 160k. Good job.

The banks have been screwing people over for years and are one of the reasons we are in serious trouble......I actually think this is funny.

So the problem is the supply of buyers ran out? I speculate it is because the baby boomers reached a certain stage in life where they aren't going to buy new anymore, this could have been predicted. In a few decades there will be a surplus of nursing and nursing homes when the babyboomers die.

The problem, the home owners, and home investors, banks and private owners, had counted on the value of homes to remain high based only or too much so on what construction and investments were made into the property. The best property in the world is not able to sell if noone can buy it.

The way to get home values back up is to get more buyers. You get more buyers by getting average people able to afford these homes. Average people can't afford these homes because average people can't get real jobs. Not only can the average not get real jobs, but there are also not as many real families. There are not as many real families because it wasn't demanded that families stay whole. Like it or not families buy more of these big houses that need buyers.
Is it the lawyers fault, Is it the education of childrens fault. Is it that there hasn't been nationalized health care and free higher education over the past 30 years.
The houses are foreclosing because there are not buyers. There are not buyers because people can't get ahead. People can't get ahead to a place where they would be a buyer for these houses, for a jillion reasons.
Even people who can get ahead, if they don't plan a traditional family, they aren't going to invest ( at least long term) in a big house.
Doesn't economics lead, or didn't it lead to home builders (companies) making larger and larger communities, or larger sized homes, for the simple reason that the percieved value of a completed property would be more to help the bottom line.
So all over America the business model being similar caused too much housing and too big of houses to be built for the buyer market. Eventually you can't flip every house in America before somewhere at the top there is nobody to pay for the flipped property. If all of those houses are mortgaged to the banks then the banks will suffer, and that is what happened, no?

And Another thing, Consider what investment must be made by the average person to become a buyer for one of these big homes. The cost of education to achieve the wealth to afford the home diminshes the wealth.
What you have here is a businessman who was successful by taking a risk, worked hard, (the bank didn't work hard for that property) did some kind of business model, it worked out for some time then things happened. I have to admire the American success story, but not how he might have swindled his brother or underpaid taxes. Were they fair taxes probably not.

One way to look at it, The American dream risk taking entrepreneur, who put his own neck on the line, he earned the pie that everyone was fighting over. What did the bank and the goverment earn of that pie? The hard working customers they played a part, but they needed a service/product and he provided it for them. I don't know what the brother did.

I admire the bulldoze driver more than the bank, he took a risk
What risk did the bank take, did they raise a credit card rate another 12 % that is not a risk.
What risk does the goverment take, the gov't doesn't fail downwards they only fail sideways into other kinds of goverment.

Stifel Edith.

Good Post.

It may appear immature because, frankly, it is immature but that's based on what's being reported is actually true, and if certain details are intentionally left out, it may very well be a good decision.

I can tell you, with experience, particular banks have no problem destroying your reputation, security and well-being for the sake of profit. My parents are going through a similar situation with their house, and during the process, the bank they're doing business with has no qualms about committing illegal acts, misrepresenting documents in their favor, lying about payments received and general harassment.

I believe this sums it up:

Quote:

---

"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.

---

The bank has more money than you, they will lengthen the legal process in hopes of you giving up. You just simply do not have the funds to endure opposition.

Quote:

---

If I am going to go live under a bridge, I am going to see to it a few dozen or more do as well....I could hang with the population if need be.

---

While you're doing that, I'll enjoy the house I bought for a 4.75% interest rate and an $8,000 tax credit that you all helped pay for.

j/c

I found this in a foreclosure website: http://www.all-foreclosure.com/?p=308

Bulldozing a home to spite your lender

From WLWT
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.”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.
It’s fairly easy to understand the frustration this man felt in dealing with his bank and the IRS over money owed on the property, but bulldozing the home wasn’t a rational act. The article states Mr. Hoskins had an offer from someone for $170,000 on the home but the bank felt a foreclosure sale would bring a higher price.

Ohio foreclosure procedure requires an appraisal and a minimum price at the foreclosure sale to be no less than 2/3 of the appraised value of the property. If the stated value of $350,000 is accurate, the minimum price at auction would be $233,345. The owner states in the article the bank was owed $160,000 so it appears there would be a minimum overage after the foreclosure auction of about $73,345

If there are no other liens against a property, auction overages will go to the homeowner, so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to bulldoze a home when there’s a significant possibility of a large overage. Although the article says the IRS had filed a specific federal tax lien against Mr. Hoskins’ commercial property, if that lien(s) was a general lien instead of specific, then any overage from the foreclosure sale of the home would go to the IRS instead of Mr. Hoskins.

Taking a guess, I think Mr. Hoskins wasn’t going to get any overage from a foreclosure sale, so he decided the bank and the IRS shouldn’t get the amounts they were owed. “Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire” comes to mind.