Man levels house to keep bank from getting it.

[NSFL]

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.

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

Wow, it would have hurt me to have taken down a house I built.

[flip]

Isn't there a CP poster from Moscow?

[NSFL]

Moscow, Russian or Moscow, Ohio?

[burn_this_city]

Moscow Ohio.. Sweet story, the bank is SOL from what I can gather. He technically still owned the home.

[transplant99]

Better than flying a plane into the bank in protest I guess.

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Better than flying a plane into the bank in protest I guess.

Well, the other guy did torch his house before he flew his plane into the building. So maybe this is the first step. Next, he targets the bank.

[Hack&Lube]

Wow! This is what he levelled.

[NSFL]

Yeah, that would hurt a hell of a lot.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Moscow Ohio.. Sweet story, the bank is SOL from what I can gather. He technically still owned the home.

What an idiot. If you are having problems paying your mortgage for a decade, obviously the guy has some money management issues. What doesn't make sense, if the place was worth 350K he could have fire saled the thing for 220, and at least walked away with 60K or so. He could have emailed me and I would have bought it if that was the actual value, and flipped it for a quick 20 or 30K. Now that he destroyed the home, when the bank auctions the property, all the buyer will get is the land, and he will probably end up owing the bank as opposed to getting a forclosure settlement if it sells for more than the 160K. What a dumb, emotional, childlish response. If the guy thinks he's screwed now, wait till the bank sues him for the loss after foreclosure is completed.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by pylon

What an idiot. If you are having problems paying your mortgage for a decade, obviously the guy has some money management issues. What doesn't make sense, if the place was worth 350K he could have fire saled the thing for 220, and at least walked away with 60K or so. He could have emailed me and I would have bought it if that was the actual value, and flipped it for a quick 20 or 30K. Now that he destroyed the home, when the bank auctions the property, all the buyer will get is the land, and he will probably end up owing the bank as opposed to getting a forclosure settlement if it sells for more than the 160K. What a dumb, emotional, childlish response. If the guy thinks he's screwed now, wait till the bank sues him for the loss after foreclosure is completed.

No. If you read the article, his carpet business went under when his brother sued him and the bank claimed his store and home as collateral. He could not just sell the house because the bank had a claim on it.

The closest was an offer he had for $170K which he would have taken but the bank refused to accept this sale and they had the last say. The bank thought they could get more on the market than the $170K that the buyer offered. Therefore, he had no choice.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Moscow Ohio.. Sweet story, the bank is SOL from what I can gather. He technically still owned the home.

I'm not an expert here, but I'd be surprised if the liens on the property didn't have conditions that would make him liable for the reduced value of the property due to a wilfull act like that.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

No. If you read the article, his carpet business went under when his brother sued him and the bank claimed his store and home as collateral. He could not just sell the house because the bank had a claim on it.

The closest was an offer he had for $170K which he would have taken but the bank refused to accept this sale and they had the last say. The bank thought they could get more on the market than the $170K that the buyer offered. Therefore, he had no choice.

OK, I read the article in full. I failed to see anything that would make me disagree with any of pylon's comments...

[burn_this_city]

I'm pretty sure he offered to pay the remaining $160k on the house. But they wanted to take the whole thing since they could get $330k for it. If he goes bankrupt now what can they really do?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

OK, I read the article in full. I failed to see anything that would make me disagree with any of pylon's comments...

I'm no expert on these matters but he says:

"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."

So that implies to me there was some stipulation that he couldn't sell it off himself?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by NSFL

Yeah, that would hurt a hell of a lot.

Christ... that would be a $1 million house in Calgary.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

No. If you read the article, his carpet business went under when his brother sued him and the bank claimed his store and home as collateral. He could not just sell the house because the bank had a claim on it.

The closest was an offer he had for $170K which he would have taken but the bank refused to accept this sale and they had the last say. The bank thought they could get more on the market than the $170K that the buyer offered. Therefore, he had no choice.

No choice but to destroy his house? He had a choice, let the bank forclose, and let the proceeds take care of his business debts. Thats how an adult handles it, thats how it works when you sign something over as collateral. He had to have secured the business loan with his home consentually with the bank, the bank can't secure a loan without your signature, or a court order.

This is no different than arson, and I am sure there will criminal charges. He destroyed the Banks property, not his. Go throw a a molotov cocktail through the window of your car in broad daylight in front of witnesses and see how that goes if there is a bank loan on it. No different, you would be going to jail or charged with fraud.

This is not that far off of Austin Texas plane crasher guy. Sure they got screwed by a system that isn't percieved as fair, but their solutions are ignorant.

[temple5]

Alot more than that I think - 1 mil house value in Calgary.

Especially with a property like that.

One thing I was thinking, if he owed the bank $160K and the IRS had leins on the property, could the bank accept only $170K if the home was appraised at $350K - wouldnt the IRS have a problem with that.

Is it even legal to sell a property that has leins on it?

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by temple5

Alot more than that I think - 1 mil house value in Calgary.

Especially with a property like that.

One thing I was thinking, if he owed the bank $160K and the IRS had leins on the property, could the bank accept only $170K if the home was appraised at $350K - wouldnt the IRS have a problem with that.

Is it even legal to sell a property that has leins on it?

You just have to satisfy the lien when you sell the property. It's like selling property that has a mortgage on it.

[Peanut]

In addition to all this - definitely sucks to be sued by your own brother.

[NSFL]

Oh, I totally forgot about that part. Get sued by your bother, lose your business, your home. Suuucks. I'm still not sure if I could have just bulldozed my house though.