Ohio man bulldozes $350K home to avoid foreclosure

• I Wear Pants

  It's terrible any time someone loses their home.
  
  The bank isn't evil here though, he failed to pay on something be it personal or business for which the collateral was his house. The other party isn't doing anything wrong by taking what is now theirs.
  
  If I stop paying my school loans and my car is collateral the bank isn't wrong for taking my car. Yes they make millions and I make little but I agreed to the terms of the lending arrangement. I was not forced to take out a loan just like this man and his company were not forced into any sort of borrowing.
• eersandbeers

  Yes, but would you not agree that if the man wanted to sell or pay off his debt the bank probably could have been a little more lenient with him?
  
  It's just disgusting to think that a small bank would screw over the man and not let him pay off his home just so they could make a small profit. Sad days we live in.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "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."
  
  No, he apparently owed money on other funds secured by the house...why is this guy sympathetic? And are you sure he truly offered to "pay it off"? This story stinks more than limburger cheese that's been aged for 30 years.
• eersandbeers

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "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."
  
  No, he apparently owed money on other funds secured by the house...why is this guy sympathetic? And are you sure he truly offered to "pay it off"? This story stinks more than limburger cheese that's been aged for 30 years.

  
  Yes, the man's friend offered to pay off his house, and he even said he would sell the house for about $170k to pay off the debt. The bank refused because a greedy banker saw a chance to take advantage of him.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Ok, can you provide a link that explains any of that post? Why does the bank want a depreciating asset like most real estate assets are? This is so confusing it is making my head spin.
• I Wear Pants

  eersandbeers wrote: Yes, but would you not agree that if the man wanted to sell or pay off his debt the bank probably could have been a little more lenient with him?
  
  It's just disgusting to think that a small bank would screw over the man and not let him pay off his home just so they could make a small profit. Sad days we live in.

  No, I don't agree.
  
  He should have paid off the debt or sold assets within the time frames of his agreement with the bank.
  
  Why is it okay for this guy to renege on an agreement but if the bank were to do it they would be Satan's minions?
• eersandbeers

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  eersandbeers wrote: Yes, but would you not agree that if the man wanted to sell or pay off his debt the bank probably could have been a little more lenient with him?
  
  It's just disgusting to think that a small bank would screw over the man and not let him pay off his home just so they could make a small profit. Sad days we live in.

  No, I don't agree.
  
  He should have paid off the debt or sold assets within the time frames of his agreement with the bank.
  
  Why is it okay for this guy to renege on an agreement but if the bank were to do it they would be Satan's minions?

  
  He didn't renege on his house debt. The man was current on his house payment and then tried to pay it off or sell the house. The disgusting bankers saw a change to make a profit.
  
  Sad profit and corporatism has overruled basic human compassion in this country.
• eersandbeers

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Ok, can you provide a link that explains any of that post? Why does the bank want a depreciating asset like most real estate assets are? This is so confusing it is making my head spin.

  
  If the property was valued at $350k, and the man only owed $160k on the home, then the bank was making a huge profit by foreclosing and then reselling the house.
  
  Or as a previous poster mentioned, one of the bankers had already put in the first bid.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Does the bank exist in never-never land? Where is the profit coming from? The guy should have $170,000 of equity in the house, right?
  
  Maybe I'm fucked up (pardon the expression), but we live in a house that we bought for $550,000, we have about $150,000 in equity and we owe $400,000. If we turn around and sell the house tomorrow for $600,000 (yeah right in this market), we pay off the loan and we take the $50,000 as a gain. The bank doesn't get that...if this house in question can sell for more than what was borrowed why is foreclosure even an issue?
• majorspark

  

  We need to know what the man owes the bank on his business before we know if the bank is making a profit.
• I Wear Pants

  eersandbeers wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  eersandbeers wrote: Yes, but would you not agree that if the man wanted to sell or pay off his debt the bank probably could have been a little more lenient with him?
  
  It's just disgusting to think that a small bank would screw over the man and not let him pay off his home just so they could make a small profit. Sad days we live in.

  No, I don't agree.
  
  He should have paid off the debt or sold assets within the time frames of his agreement with the bank.
  
  Why is it okay for this guy to renege on an agreement but if the bank were to do it they would be Satan's minions?

  
  He didn't renege on his house debt. The man was current on his house payment and then tried to pay it off or sell the house. The disgusting bankers saw a change to make a profit.
  
  Sad profit and corporatism has overruled basic human compassion in this country.

  That's clearly not what happened.
  
  He was current on his house payment but he reneged on some other payment related to his business for which the house was collateral. Wouldn't have mattered if the house was paid off or not the bank could have taken it.
• Glory Days

  

  So why doesnt this guy use the money he was going to pay off the house with and use it to deal with the IRS. to me it seems like if he solves the problem with the IRS, the bank leaves him alone.
• I Wear Pants

  Probably should have set the company up differently too. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this sort of situation the reason LLCs exist?
• fan_from_texas

  I don't understand this. We've gotta be missing facts here.
• Cat Food Flambe'

  

  ^ Ditto. Sounds like we're not getting the whole story about this guy. Somewhere, somehow, it sounds as if this guy may have double-dipped on his assets.
• Sykotyk

  

  Try this,
  

  MOSCOW, Ohio – An Ohio man says he killed his wife to keep his wife from leaving him.
  
  Terry Hoskins says he has struggled with his marriage for years and had problems with infidelity. He says the divorce was causing problems for him in his business ventures
  
  Hoskins says he would owe alimony to his wife. He says he spent a lot of money on attorneys and finally had enough. About two weeks ago he killed her 25 miles southeast of Cincinnati.
  
  Messages were left for the wife's family and its attorney.

  Doesn't seem as apropos in that context, does it?
  
  Sykotyk
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: No, he apparently owed money on other funds secured by the house...why is this guy sympathetic? And are you sure he truly offered to "pay it off"? This story stinks more than limburger cheese that's been aged for 30 years.

  Yeah, we don't have enough info. But I'm thinking he owed more than his house was valued at on a business loan thru the bank, and this collateral may have been 50% or less than the value of the loan. In comes the IRS to seize assets and the bank realizes it's going to be taking a loss on that business loan. He offers to pay off the collateral value (basically buy his house back from the bank at below market value) and the bank denies it because the market value of the house is higher.
• majorspark

  

  gut wrote:

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: No, he apparently owed money on other funds secured by the house...why is this guy sympathetic? And are you sure he truly offered to "pay it off"? This story stinks more than limburger cheese that's been aged for 30 years.

  Yeah, we don't have enough info. But I'm thinking he owed more than his house was valued at on a business loan thru the bank, and this collateral may have been 50% or less than the value of the loan. In comes the IRS to seize assets and the bank realizes it's going to be taking a loss on that business loan. He offers to pay off the collateral value (basically buy his house back from the bank at below market value) and the bank denies it because the market value of the house is higher.

  More than likely this is the case. The bank is just trying to limit their losses.
• dwccrew

  

  First off, even if the man had the money to pay the house off, that is not relevant. The house was used as collateral for the loan he had for his business. The loan on the house is not the reason the house would be foreclosed on. So if the house was paid off free and clear, it could still be foreclosed on since it was used as collateral. This means that the money he was willing to use to pay it off makes no sense.
  
  Secondly, he can't sell the house when it is used for collateral. The bank, justifiably, put a lien against it so he couldn't sell it.
  
  This is simple business, how do some not understand that you can't do this legally? Also, I am not even sure you can use a house that still has outstanding debt on it as collateral, but I could be wrong about that.
  
  Sounds like he owed more than what he could pay. So I don't agree with what the man did. He used his house as collateral and still couldn't come up with the money.