Ohio man bulldozes $350K home to avoid foreclosure

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Ohio man bulldozes $350K home to avoid foreclosure
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 7:07 PM
An Ohio man says he bulldozed his $350,000 home to keep a bank from foreclosing on it.

Terry Hoskins says he has struggled with the RiverHills Bank over his home in Moscow for years and had problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He says the IRS placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property and the bank claimed his house as collateral.

Hoskins says he owes $160,000 on the house. He says he spent a lot of money on attorneys and finally had enough. About two weeks ago he bulldozed the home 25 miles southeast of Cincinnati.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_bi_ge/us_odd_foreclosure_bulldozer


You have to love this story.

They said the man also offered to pay it off, but the bank wouldn't let him because they knew they could make more than $160k from foreclosing and reselling the house. So basically they were dicking the man and he took matters into his own hands.

I love this guy.
Feb 23, 2010 7:07pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Feb 23, 2010 7:16 PM
Yeah, because breaking the law is such an admirable quality. When big business does it, it's stealing but when the little guy does it he becomes a vigilante hero.

I have 0 sympathy for this guy. 9 times out of 10 bankruptcy is solely due to financial irresponsibility.
Feb 23, 2010 7:16pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 23, 2010 7:32 PM
"They said the man also offered to pay it off, but the bank wouldn't let him because they knew they could make more than $160k from foreclosing and reselling the house. So basically they were dicking the man and he took matters into his own hands."

Where are you getting this? The bank is due only the funds that are contractually owed to them, they typically aren't in the business of owning property, they make money on spreads between deposits and loans. Seriously, where did you even get this idea? If the house could be sold for more than the equity/money borrowed, why destroy it?
Feb 23, 2010 7:32pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 23, 2010 7:36 PM
eersandbeers wrote: An Ohio man says he bulldozed his $350,000 home to keep a bank from foreclosing on it.

Terry Hoskins says he has struggled with the RiverHills Bank over his home in Moscow for years and had problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He says the IRS placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property and the bank claimed his house as collateral.

Hoskins says he owes $160,000 on the house. He says he spent a lot of money on attorneys and finally had enough. About two weeks ago he bulldozed the home 25 miles southeast of Cincinnati.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_bi_ge/us_odd_foreclosure_bulldozer


You have to love this story.

They said the man also offered to pay it off, but the bank wouldn't let him because they knew they could make more than $160k from foreclosing and reselling the house. So basically they were dicking the man and he took matters into his own hands.

I love this guy.
If the dude had $160k laying around that he could pay off his mortgage with...why did he have it in the first place or at least why was he delinquent on his payments?
Feb 23, 2010 7:36pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:15 PM
gut wrote: Yeah, because breaking the law is such an admirable quality. When big business does it, it's stealing but when the little guy does it he becomes a vigilante hero.

I have 0 sympathy for this guy. 9 times out of 10 bankruptcy is solely due to financial irresponsibility.
This was breaking the law? Can you tell me what law was broken?

And yes, I like the so called "vigilante" hero who has been getting screwed by corporatism.
I Wear Pants wrote:
If the dude had $160k laying around that he could pay off his mortgage with...why did he have it in the first place or at least why was he delinquent on his payments?
From what I heard on the radio, the man wasn't delinquent on his house debts. He was late on payments for his business and he had his house as collateral.

I don't know if I'm saying this correctly, but apparently he was going to sell the house also, but the bank wouldn't let him because they knew they would make more off foreclosing and reselling the house.
Feb 23, 2010 9:15pm
M

mtrulz

Senior Member

2,905 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:19 PM
Dumbass
Feb 23, 2010 9:19pm
Enforcer's avatar

Enforcer

Senior Member

2,140 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:24 PM
He was on a Radio show yesterday and they were saying that there wasnt a law against this , And the head guy at the bank was wanting to put in the first bid to buy his house. Also said hisfriend tried to payoff the money owed but Bank wouldnt let him pay it.
Feb 23, 2010 9:24pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:26 PM
Enforcer wrote: He was on a Radio show yesterday and they were saying that there wasnt a law against this , And the head guy at the bank was wanting to put in the first bid to buy his house. Also said hisfriend tried to payoff the money owed but Bank wouldnt let him pay it.

This is why I support the man. The bank was clearly going to take the house regardless and were screwing the man.

This wasn't just someone who just refused to pay the debt.

Banks have been trying to screw people like this for awhile and I hope more people start doing this when the banks decide they want to take a house.
Feb 23, 2010 9:26pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:28 PM
So he signed a contract that states that he must stay up on his business payments or the bank is allowed to foreclose on his collateral (his house in this case). He was late on his payments and the bank was going to take his house. Don't see what the bank did wrong here. Don't sign contracts you do not intend to uphold.
Feb 23, 2010 9:28pm
Ender Wiggin's avatar

Ender Wiggin

Senior Member

1,124 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:32 PM
Apparently the bank wouldnt let him pay it through his friend.
Feb 23, 2010 9:32pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:34 PM
Ender Wiggin wrote: Apparently the bank wouldnt let him pay it through his friend.
He was delinquent enough that the bank was allowed contractually to take the house. It's not their job to give the guy a second chance at upholding his agreement.
Feb 23, 2010 9:34pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:35 PM
Alright this is just weird...the guy had $170,000 of equity in his house and he just bulldozed it away?

If he put it up for collateral for another venture, he should be in jail, he just willingly destroyed the collateral on his other debts.

I'm not going to make too much of a judment given the lack of facts, but why is this guy a hero?
Feb 23, 2010 9:35pm
Ender Wiggin's avatar

Ender Wiggin

Senior Member

1,124 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:36 PM
I dont know the details but apparently it was going to be paid by his friend but the bank wouldnt allow that. Who said anything about second chances or any of that?
Feb 23, 2010 9:36pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:38 PM
Ender Wiggin wrote: I dont know the details but apparently it was going to be paid by his friend but the bank wouldnt allow that. Who said anything about second chances or any of that?
He was delinquent on his business payments. Enough so that the contract allowed the bank to take his house. They are not evil because they will not let him pay it off now through his friend.

He should have had his friend pay it before it got to this point.
Feb 23, 2010 9:38pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:39 PM
Basically the bank was going to take the house even if the man had the money or could sell it to pay off the debt.

The banks take millions in tax dollars but make sure they don't help out the average American by giving a little leeway. Especially when he was going to pay it.

And the man legally did nothing wrong so he won't even be charged. Otherwise it would have already happened.
Feb 23, 2010 9:39pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:41 PM
eersandbeers wrote: Basically the bank was going to take the house even if the man had the money or could sell it to pay off the debt.

The banks take millions in tax dollars but make sure they don't help out the average American by giving a little leeway. Especially when he was going to pay it.

And the man legally did nothing wrong so he won't even be charged. Otherwise it would have already happened.
The bank is operating for profit. It probably made more sense to take the house.

The guy had chances to avoid this. Stop acting like the bank just showed up and kicked his ass out.
Feb 23, 2010 9:41pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:42 PM
I Wear Pants wrote:
eersandbeers wrote: Basically the bank was going to take the house even if the man had the money or could sell it to pay off the debt.

The banks take millions in tax dollars but make sure they don't help out the average American by giving a little leeway. Especially when he was going to pay it.

And the man legally did nothing wrong so he won't even be charged. Otherwise it would have already happened.
The bank is operating for profit. It probably made more sense to take the house.

The guy had chances to avoid this. Stop acting like the bank just showed up and kicked his ass out.

The bank did not allow the man a second chance even though his friend offered to pay the debt. The bank did not let the man sell the house because they could make a bigger profit from foreclosing on the house.

So yes, it was a dick move by the bank. I wonder how much bailout money they got.

I would like to read more details on it though.
Feb 23, 2010 9:42pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:44 PM
I'm sorry. None of this makes sense. I'm reading the linke eersandbeers provided, and his posts. They don't make sense.
Feb 23, 2010 9:44pm
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:45 PM
An article I read the other day, said the guy had spent millions on lawyers.

It doesn't add up for me either Manhattan.
Feb 23, 2010 9:45pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:46 PM
Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I'm sorry. None of this makes sense. I'm reading the linke eersandbeers provided, and his posts. They don't make sense.

I'm combining what I heard on a radio show and this article. I need to find a better article.
Feb 23, 2010 9:46pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:48 PM
I read something about this... after trying to crunch all the numbers I pretty much came to the conclusion this is gonna end up costing him a LOT more than what he originally still owed the bank
Feb 23, 2010 9:48pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:50 PM
The program Obama has implemented in the last year was to allow for 4.5 million homeowners to avoid foreclosure. If your mortgage payment was/is 31% or higher of your income you qualify. However, only 85,000 have been able to take advantage of it because lenders won't cooperate. Not saying this is the case but it sure sounds like it to me.
Feb 23, 2010 9:50pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 23, 2010 9:56 PM
I don't know the facts are confusing. Apparently the man owed a lot of money to the IRS and the bank took the house ahead of time to try to reclaim its interest. I can't find a story that has facts all laid out.

Here is what CBS said.....

"Terry Hoskins says he has struggled with the RiverHills Bank over his home in Moscow for years and had problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He says the IRS placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property and the bank claimed his house as collateral. "


So basically he didn't owe the bank anything on his house, and even offered to pay it off, but the bank wanted to make a profit. And the bank wouldn't let him sell the house either.

I'm not necessarily a populist, but I don't know how people couldn't see this as a good story. Basically it's a general disgust with our country when a man isn't allowed to pay for his house and we bail out bankers with billions of dollars.
Feb 23, 2010 9:56pm
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Feb 23, 2010 10:00 PM
ytownfootball wrote: However, only 85,000 have been able to take advantage of it because lenders won't cooperate. Not saying this is the case but it sure sounds like it to me.
No shit. We've only been trying to get our loan modified for 10 damn months now!
Feb 23, 2010 10:00pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Feb 23, 2010 10:01 PM
I know your pain.
Feb 23, 2010 10:01pm