Friday, February 19, 2010

You Gotta Throw an Elbow Sometimes

I have no idea if this will work or even accomplishes anything useful, but I have to think it got the bank's attention:
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 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.

Sometimes, one elbow is enough. Here -- I'm doubtful.


joe said...

Huh, well it sounds like this was either after the time period he can just pay off the full amount of the loan or else the bank was into some shenanigans. I'd guess the former, so he's certainly civilly liable and I wonder if there's not a criminal case to be made.

I mean, let's not glorify this guy. This action was out of spite, and we don't need more strain on our banking system.

PG said...

What joe said. As someone who's faithfully paying the mortgage every month on property that's underwater (despite a 20% down payment and regular mortgage payments, we still owe $75k more than the current market value), I'm not inclined to make a hero of someone who steals from the bank -- and until you pay off the mortgage, you're kidding yourself if you believe that you "own" your home.

David Schraub said...

What makes this seem different is that our hero was able to pay off the mortgage. He had an offer in hand. I don't have a problem with the bank recouping its investment, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have any claim beyond what it's owed, and that's $160,000.

joe said...

But David, there's a certain point after mortgage default at which the house is legally the bank's to sell under the terms of the loan agreement. And when they're selling something of course they'll look for the greatest return on their initial investment. It sucks for this individual if he was a day late and a dollar short, but I have a hard time seeing the bank as in the wrong even as a moral matter.

Ace said...

The reason for the wave of foreclosures, though, is the epidemic of fraudulent, deceptive, and shockingly negligent lending practices by these very banks.