• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

Jake

Once a Buckeye, always a Buckeye
‘17 The Deuce Champ
Fantasy Baseball Champ
'18 The Deuce Champ
  • Probably not the smartest move from a legal standpoint, but I love it. :slappy:

    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.

    The Moscow man used a bulldozer two weeks ago to level the home he'd built, and the sprawling country home is now rubble, buried under a coating of snow.

    Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure - Cincinnati News Story - WLWT Cincinnati
     
    the sprawling country home

    Sounds like somebody was living way beyond their means. I feel for a lot of people who've been caught up in this wretched economy, but this guy doesn't seem worthy of any pity. He sounds like a guy who was living beyond his means and when it caught up to him he threw a tantrum.
     
    Upvote 0
    ORD_Buckeye;1663278; said:
    Sounds like somebody was living way beyond their means. I feel for a lot of people who've been caught up in this wretched economy, but this guy doesn't seem worthy of any pity. He sounds like a guy who was living beyond his means and when it caught up to him he threw a tantrum.

    All the stories I've read on this around here have been short on details on how it came to this. Connecting the dots, it seems like the guy went into business with his brother. When the partnership went sour he got sued. It sounds like he lost and refused to pay. It sounds like he had borrowed against his home to fund his business, hence the liens on both the business and his house after he lost the suit. And now that the hammer is finally coming down, he decides to get in one last parting shot.

    I'm not even sure I should be feeling sorry for people who took bad mortgages and are now upside down or losing the house they had no business buying in the first place - but it sounds to me like this guy is not in that category at all. It sounds like he's alot more like the guy who flew the plane into the IRS office than any of the many other folks who are being forclosed upon every day.
     
    Upvote 0
    ORD_Buckeye;1663278; said:
    Sounds like somebody was living way beyond their means. I feel for a lot of people who've been caught up in this wretched economy, but this guy doesn't seem worthy of any pity. He sounds like a guy who was living beyond his means and when it caught up to him he threw a tantrum.
    Yep. Now the deficiency judgment his mortgage company will obtain will be huge - and now non-dischargible in bankructcy because of his intentional acts. Had he lost his job and had little income, he could have discharged all of his debt and started anew. Now he is fucked for life.
     
    Upvote 0
    jlb1705;1663510; said:
    All the stories I've read on this around here have been short on details on how it came to this. Connecting the dots, it seems like the guy went into business with his brother. When the partnership went sour he got sued. It sounds like he lost and refused to pay. It sounds like he had borrowed against his home to fund his business, hence the liens on both the business and his house after he lost the suit. And now that the hammer is finally coming down, he decides to get in one last parting shot.

    I'm not even sure I should be feeling sorry for people who took bad mortgages and are now upside down or losing the house they had no business buying in the first place - but it sounds to me like this guy is not in that category at all. It sounds like he's alot more like the guy who flew the plane into the IRS office than any of the many other folks who are being forclosed upon every day.

    This is what I heard on the news last night. Bad business deal went down awhile ago, and the house was put against it as collateral. He never missed a mortgage payment and was stable otherwise, but the business deal bit him in the ass and they decided to take the house as a result. According to the news, he mostly had a favorable response from the people that saw the story :lol:
     
    Upvote 0
    ulukinatme;1663622; said:
    This is what I heard on the news last night. Bad business deal went down awhile ago, and the house was put against it as collateral. He never missed a mortgage payment and was stable otherwise, but the business deal bit him in the ass and they decided to take the house as a result. According to the news, he mostly had a favorable response from the people that saw the story :lol:

    And that will tell you something about the general populace . . . .
     
    Upvote 0
    sepia5;1663625; said:
    And that will tell you something about the general populace . . . .

    Probably that most of them are pissed off at "the man" for making the economy what it is and their lives what they are (because it's always someone else's fault), and that they probably didn't even think about the story, rather just thought this was someone "sticking it to the man" so that = good.
     
    Upvote 0
    jlb1705;1663510; said:
    All the stories I've read on this around here have been short on details on how it came to this. Connecting the dots, it seems like the guy went into business with his brother. When the partnership went sour he got sued. It sounds like he lost and refused to pay. It sounds like he had borrowed against his home to fund his business, hence the liens on both the business and his house after he lost the suit. And now that the hammer is finally coming down, he decides to get in one last parting shot.
    My understanding is that the lawsuit attached to his home - not that he borrowed against his home in order to fund his buisness.

    Further, the home was worth $350K and he was never once late on his payments. He owed $160K. He recieved an offer to buy the home for $170K, and presented the offer to the bank. The bank then refused the offer knowing they could foreclose on the home, turn around and sell it for $350K after the foreclosure.

    Can't say I blame the guy.. would I do that? Probably not, but I can see his frustration.
     
    Upvote 0
    Bleed S & G;1663712; said:
    My understanding is that the lawsuit attached to his home - not that he borrowed against his home in order to fund his buisness.

    Further, the home was worth $350K and he was never once late on his payments. He owed $160K. He recieved an offer to buy the home for $170K, and presented the offer to the bank. The bank then refused the offer knowing they could foreclose on the home, turn around and sell it for $350K after the foreclosure.

    Can't say I blame the guy.. would I do that? Probably not, but I can see his frustration.

    I don't know exactly how Ohio foreclosure law works, but what you're describing doesn't really make sense as I've interacted with foreclosure law. It sounds like what you're saying is that whomever he was sued by (his brother?) attached his home then got a judgment against this guy, and placed a lien on the property for the amount of the judgment (or however much of the judgment wasn't otherwise satisfied). The homeowner could then either pay off the judgment to release the lien, or the judgment creditor (the plaintiff in the lawsuit) could eventually foreclose on the home. Note that the bank wouldn't be the party foreclosing. The bank would get paid first from the proceeds of the sale, because it issued and presumably recorded the mortgage prior to the lien being recorded. But the party that won the lawsuit against the homeowner would be the one deciding whether to foreclose, not the bank.

    If the bank was calling the shots, what likely happend was the bank paid off the amount of the judgment lien, and then the ball would be in its court. The trouble is, the bank just essentially paid to release the judgment lien on the property, so of course they're still going to want to sell the house for the full amount. If they only sold it for $170k--well below market value--and $160k was still owed on the mortgage, the bank would probably lose money, given that it also has to account for what it spent to pay off the judgment creditor. By the way, under such a scenario, had the dumbass not bulldozed the house, he would have kept any proceeds that remained from the sale after the judgment creditor and remaining portion of the mortgage were satisfied. It's not as if the bank would receive a windfall.

    Either that, or the factual scenario was that the home was used as collateral for some sort of loan for the business, in which case the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit was the bank. But, in such a scenario, I don't see how the bank could foreclose if he hadn't missed any payments.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    sepia5;1663728; said:
    I don't know exactly how Ohio foreclosure law works, but what you're describing doesn't really make sense as I've interacted with foreclosure law. It sounds like what you're saying is that whoever he was sued by (his brother?) attached his home then got a judgment against this guy, and placed a lien on the property for the amount of the judgment (or however much of the judgment wasn't otherwise satisfied). The homeowner could then either pay off the judgment to release the lien, or the judgment creditor (the plaintiff in the lawsuit) could eventually foreclose on the home. Note that the bank wouldn't be the party foreclosing. The bank would get paid first from the proceeds of the sale, because it issued and presumably recorded the mortgage prior to the lien being recorded. But the party that won the lawsuit against the homeowner would be the one deciding whether to foreclose, not the bank.

    If the bank was calling the shots, what likely happend was the bank paid off the amount of the judgment lien, and then the ball would be in its court. The trouble is, the bank just essentially paid to release the judgment lien on the property, so of course they're still going to want to sell the house for the full amount. If they only sold it for $170k--well below market value--and $160k was still owed on the mortgage, the bank would probably lose money, given that it also has to account for what it spent to pay off the judgment creditor. By the way, under such a scenario, had the dumbass not bulldozed the house, he would have kept any proceeds that remained from the sale after the judgment creditor and remaining portion of the mortgage were satisfied. It's not as if the bank would receive a windfall.

    Either that, or the factual scenario was that the home was used as collateral for some sort of loan for the business, in which case the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit was the bank. But, in such a scenario, I don't see how the bank could foreclose if he hadn't missed any payments.

    Thanks for the clarification. I have little idea how this went down and I'm by no means an expert in this area. My post was mostly speculation. This explanation makes sense to me.
     
    Upvote 0
    Back
    Top