Okay ..... who is this guy on MSNBC who buldozed his house to spite his bank?

Or some such ...... I missed most of the story. Found this link, though.



Yee-haw! I wonder if he cuts his head off if he gets a bad haircut.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35463243/

Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure
Man Says Actions Intended To Send Message To Banks

WLWT.com
updated 29 minutes ago

MOSCOW, Ohio - WLWT.com

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.

More at the link ......

when, according to this article, the debt was $160,000. I don't condone his actions, but this story is very odd.

You're right, something is very, very odd about this story.

The guy sounds unbalanced, but the bank should have let him pay off the mortgage.

mortgage but saying it and handing over a check for it are two different things. If he had the cash for the balance of course the bank would have to accept it. This guy has a screw loose. You don't bulldoze a $350,000 house over a mortgage balance of $160,000, even if the bank is foreclosing. The bank only gets enough out of the sale to pay off the mortgage plus costs associated with the foreclosure-which would be substantial but there would still be a positive balance which would go to the homeowner. Plus he is now in even more legal jeopardy. A person with a mortgage on a house has a responsibility to protect the value of the house. That doesn't include bulldozing it.

payment, unaware that there was tax lien on the house, foreclosed on the mortgage and lost money on the deal. They would have been much better off had they allowed me to pay the back payments.

I don't understand what the original issue was, that he objected to and lost.

Or, was he just an ordinary tax cheat that got caught not reporting income or not paying taxes due.

His brother sues him for some business issue which is how the tax issues started, but then his house gets foreclosed and the bank refuses a substantial payment. I don't get it. I'm not sure he's a tax cheat, but it's hard to tell.

payoffs - or paying a penelty for early payoffs - that's because the bank already sold the paper to the morgage at the full (plus interest) price to another company...that could add 10's of thousands of $$$ to the final payoff and I'll just bet the 170,000. didn't even come near the penalties for early pay-off...

The IRS placed a lien on his house and was in the process of taking possession of the house. This guy was mad because he had never missed a mortgage payment. He doesn't seem to understand that the lien means it isn't his house anymore if he doesn't settle his debt with the IRS.

life. He's clearly unstable if anyone asks me... bizarre.

...he's a damn Commie socialist nazi!

.... move all your personal possessions out and give the bank back what they think is 'theirs' (sticks, glass, mortar, mud) & then lets see how much profit they can make by shitting all over the people they originally were so nice to.

I've seen ads on craigslist for complete kitchens to be sold before the bank takes the house away. My friend just purchased a condo foreclosure with a stripped out kitchen.

The man in the OP story, on the other hand, doesn't have my sympathy. He seems to be glossing over a few of the important details. It appears the home was put up as collateral for the commercial property so when he says he only owes 160k he is lying. He owes his loan balance PLUS whatever he owes on the commercial properly. Also, why does he have tax liens? Because his brother sued him? That doesn't make any sense. Why did his brother have to sue him?

It's likely the IRS placed huge tax liens on the commercial property and the bank is trying to settle the liens by liquidating both properties. I'm pretty sure IRS liens supersede the bank liens.

My guess is he is a chiseling douche-bag tax cheat. And he isn't too bright if he thinks the IRS will go away. They will hound him the rest of his life.

The homeowner will be charged criminally probably.

Whether we sympathize or not, he destroyed property that wasn't really his.

They just left and let the pipes burst and destroy the interior of the house. WTF is wrong with people?

I guess it's one final measure of spite--and I understand the anger. But I could never damage or destroy my home, even under those circumstances.

Though I've heard that the bank had a total of five branches... and the guy was by no means middle class.

He's not smashing planes into buildings. He is destroying his own house.

and the bank ends up getting the money it is owed from the hazard insurance company.

He did nothing but screw himself, unfortunately.

The bank holds a security interest with the right to foreclose but the house is your do with what you choose.

EXCEPT: the loan contract and mortgage document prohibit you from substantial alterations of their collateral without their approval. I think tearing the house down fits that criteria. LOL.

My point is that what he did was not criminal in nature. It's a violation of his contract with the lender. Their recourse is to call his note due - not criminal prosecution.

That's not to say he didn't violate village/city ordinances by not getting permits. I remember a story years ago when I was in the construction business. Some guy tore his house down to keep his wife from getting it in the divorce. My boss and I got a chuckle out of the fact that he actually obtained the demolition permits.

Anyway, I'm in the mortgage business now. I've had a couple customers express interest in tearing down their homes after purchase to re-build. It's a no-no IF YOU GET CAUGHT in the act. The right way to do it is to get a construction loan so the bank can over-see the project and disburse funds accordingly. They don't want to find out they have the note on a hole in the ground when you took out a conventional mortgage loan. I know a few people who have done it the wrong way. I've heard of one person getting caught in the act. Apparently the person pissed off a neighbor who was smart/vindictive enough to call the lender.

that collateral has to remain in "good" condition...

Not any criminal charges which is the point I was responding to.

charges, including insurance fraud, which is a crime.

Not the home-owner's insurance anyway.

Like the mortgage note and mortgage document, the home-owner's insurance policy has specific exclusions for willful destruction. Furthermore, the policy will have exclusions for non-licensed construction work.

You can't just tear your house down and expect to collect. The lender being the loss payee has no bearing on the matter. Yes, the bank is first in line for any pay-out by insurance but the owner is the ultimate responsible party - and he willfully destroyed the home.

Fraud? I doubt here will be any insurance fraud charges since he didn't try to disguise his actions as some sort of accident or he didn't take out the policy with intent to defraud the ins. company. I'm really doubtful he will even make a claim. The lender might but I doubt the insurance company will pay.


The bank will be out the money. They can go after the owner but it appears he is in or filing bankruptcy. The question I have is will the judge let him wipe out or reduce an obligation seeing as though he intentionally destroyed the collateral.

He really screwed himself as it appears the bank was trying to settle IRS liens on his cross collateralized commercial property.

On the other hand, maybe he screwed the bank more than we know. My assumption is the bank is selling both properties to satisfy IRS liens on the commercial property. Those liens don't go away and I THINK supersede the banks liens. If the IRS forces sale of the commercial property, they get everything off the top and the bank gets what's left over. Presumably, this isn't enough to cover the liens AND the mortgage liens so the bank wants his home too. Maybe the IRS will end up getting theirs and the bank gets screwed. Or maybe the sale of the raw land covers the bank and MR. Bulldozer screwed himself out of any proceeds.

They have contractual rights. They have a contractual right to inspect your home and even a contractual right to make repairs and/or mitigate damage. But none of these rights allow them to prosecute you criminally for damaging "their" property.

That's not to say the lender couldn't get injunctions and have the sheriff enforce them.

If the lender wasn't in court this morning enjoining Mr. Bulldozer from plying his new found hobby they're idiots.

He's just another selfish tax dodger. Since I do pay my taxes I have a problem with this.

At most, he is in violation of his contract not to substantially alter the property without the banks consent.

What's the bank's recourse? Call the note due and foreclose. LOL

But I agree with you. The guy is a lying freeper tax cheat.

If the bank has any brains I assume they are in court getting an injunction against him for any further bulldozer operations. And then hiring a security guard. I'm no lawyer but the demolition act might be enough to get him padlocked out of his other commercial property. He has far less rights to that property as it's not his residential domicile. The judge may lock him out and it would serve him right.

But that doesn't mean it's ok to destroy someone's property.

he should have seen an attorney about whether it's legal for the bank to refuse to let a mortgageholder pay off the mortgage.

It appears he cross collateralized his home with his commercial property. The IRS is probably lien-ing the shit out of his commercial property so the bank probably wants to liquidate both to pay off the IRS.

you should never, ever, ever put your personal assets up as collateral for business matters.

... large real estate businesses from our fathers so we have to personally sign for OUR loans.

or some variation on that theme...

business. He also says the bank turned down "a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house". Was he trying to pay off the mortgage or to get the lien removed?
'

just cause he owed 160k doesn't mean the bank should settle for what he owes....

They have to settle for what he owes. If there is a "surplus," after a foreclosure sale (the foreclosing lienholder and other liens are paid off) the homeowner is next in line, and can apply to the court for the excess sale proceeds. At least that's the way it works here in Florida. Banks can gouge with fees, but they can't collect more than they at least CLAIM to be owed.

Which made me wonder why the guy seemed to be painting a picture of a lender out to get his house to make a huge profit or something, because that's generally not possible.

I think THIS is actully his problem.



He's broke because he got sued. Looks like the mortgage default stems from that.

He may be personally protected from the IRS liens (I'm assuming that is why the IRS didn't slap the liens on his residence) due to incorporation. BUT, since he cross collateralized the personal residence with his commercial property the IRS liens are ultimately affecting his personal property. In other words, the liens on the commercial property put him in an "upside-down" position. Since IRS liens take first place over bank liens, the IRS will get theirs upon sale and leave the bank short. So the bank has to go after the personal home.

He protected himself through incorporation but not his personal loans/assets.

This is all guess work. But that's the only way it make sense that IRS liens are forcing the bank to foreclose.

He owed that much (perhaps) on one loan... he owed far more than that collateralized by the house (or in a tax lien).