Man Destroys Home With Bulldozer

[cletus8269]

Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

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.

"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.

View Slideshow

Hoskins said the Internal Revenue Service placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property on state Route 125 after his brother, a one-time business partner, sued him.

The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.

"The average homeowner that can't afford an attorney or can fight as long as we have, they don't stand a chance," he 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.

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.

"As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was," Hoskins said. "I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground."

Hoskins' business in Amelia is scheduled to go up for auction on March 2, and he told Fuller he's considering leveling that building, too.

RiverHills Bank declined to comment on the situation, but Hoskins said his actions were intended to send a message.

"Well, to probably make banks think twice before they try to take someone's home, and if they are going to take it wrongly, the end result will be them tearing their house down like I did mine," Hoskins said.

Hoskins said he's heard from people all over the country since his story first aired Thursday, and he said most have been supportive.

He said he sought legal counsel before tearing down his home and understands the possible consequences, but he has never doubted his decision once he made it.

"When I knew I was going to lose it, I decided to take it down," Hoskins said.

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

[PurdueGuy]

I guess if he takes all his real estate value to zero, then goes bankrupt, he's going to be in about the same end position as if the bank took them and he still had to go bankrupt. This just makes a point, though it's terribly wasteful. It's just terrible that the bank wouldn't let him pay it off, that's evil.

[GMTruckGuy74]

In town next to mine, a woman who was going into foreclosure on her townhouse did a similar thing in the middle of January - she set it on fire (and what a jo she did too - the entire end unit is gone). She also tried to commit suicide at the same time, by dumping the leftover gasoline all over her SUV and herslef, but was pulled out of the SUV before she could light the match. While I understand that people's state of minds are not in the right place during these hard financial times, her effect had negative causes on her neighbors - the unit next to her's was severely damaged (unlivable), and the unit next to that one has damage but they were unable to return. The opposite end unit is still inhabited, but I think they'll have to tear the whole structure down and rebuild (an inconvience to the other homeowners, but they'll make out in the long run with a brand new unit vs their 15-20 y-o unit now). These are desparate times we live in for sure.

[daves87rs]

Not sure how I feel on that one.......

[PurdueGuy]

In town next to mine, a woman who was going into foreclosure on her townhouse did a similar thing in the middle of January - she set it on fire (and what a jo she did too - the entire end unit is gone). She also tried to commit suicide at the same time, by dumping the leftover gasoline all over her SUV and herslef, but was pulled out of the SUV before she could light the match. While I understand that people's state of minds are not in the right place during these hard financial times, her effect had negative causes on her neighbors - the unit next to her's was severely damaged (unlivable), and the unit next to that one has damage but they were unable to return. The opposite end unit is still inhabited, but I think they'll have to tear the whole structure down and rebuild (an inconvience to the other homeowners, but they'll make out in the long run with a brand new unit vs their 15-20 y-o unit now). These are desparate times we live in for sure.

I agree it's certainly wrong to do when it's an apartment attached to other peoples' homes. I'm not sure I agree with doing it with the house, but it's much more reasonable.

[CSpec]

This guy is a common criminal.

[Drew Dowdell]

This guy is a common criminal.

I would argue that the bank is the criminal here. The man destroyed his own property. It's crazy, but it's not illegal. The bank doesn't own it (yet).

The man owed $160k to the bank. The bank received $170k offer for the property. The bank got greedy and said no since they felt they could probably sell a $350k house for $250k and make $90k profit on it. THE BANK SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FORECLOSE ON THE PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE A PROFIT ON IT. In fact, I think the bank should probably be put under investigation and ALL of it's foreclosure proceedings put on hold.

I've read story after story of people having foreclosure proceedings started against them despite their willingness and renewed ability to pay or that they've found a buyer who would pay off the loan. I've heard of banks foreclosing on the wrong house. There was a couple in Florida who got foreclosed on..... who paid for their house in cash. Never even HAD a mortgage. The bank sent someone to their house who cleaned out all their stuff, hauled it away, and then bolted the doors.

The banks deserve ZERO benefit of the doubt here.

This guy may be crazy... but at least he's thinking. The banks are mindless zombies.

[PONTIAC06]

I agree with Olds on this one...if he found a buyer and was going to repay the loan, the bank had ABSOLUTELY no right to foreclose on him. Trying to make a (bigger) profit off of him instead of just taking what they originally had agreed to is bull$h!.

[Z-06]

I would argue that the bank is the criminal here. The man destroyed his own property. It's crazy, but it's not illegal. The bank doesn't own it (yet).

The man owed $160k to the bank. The bank received $170k offer for the property. The bank got greedy and said no since they felt they could probably sell a $350k house for $250k and make $90k profit on it. THE BANK SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FORECLOSE ON THE PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE A PROFIT ON IT. In fact, I think the bank should probably be put under investigation and ALL of it's foreclosure proceedings put on hold.

I've read story after story of people having foreclosure proceedings started against them despite their willingness and renewed ability to pay or that they've found a buyer who would pay off the loan. I've heard of banks foreclosing on the wrong house. There was a couple in Florida who got foreclosed on..... who paid for their house in cash. Never even HAD a mortgage. The bank sent someone to their house who cleaned out all their stuff, hauled it away, and then bolted the doors.

The banks deserve ZERO benefit of the doubt here.

This guy may be crazy... but at least he's thinking. The banks are mindless zombies.

+1.

[Intrepidation]

I would argue that the bank is the criminal here. The man destroyed his own property. It's crazy, but it's not illegal. The bank doesn't own it (yet).

The man owed $160k to the bank. The bank received $170k offer for the property. The bank got greedy and said no since they felt they could probably sell a $350k house for $250k and make $90k profit on it. THE BANK SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FORECLOSE ON THE PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE A PROFIT ON IT. In fact, I think the bank should probably be put under investigation and ALL of it's foreclosure proceedings put on hold.

I've read story after story of people having foreclosure proceedings started against them despite their willingness and renewed ability to pay or that they've found a buyer who would pay off the loan. I've heard of banks foreclosing on the wrong house. There was a couple in Florida who got foreclosed on..... who paid for their house in cash. Never even HAD a mortgage. The bank sent someone to their house who cleaned out all their stuff, hauled it away, and then bolted the doors.

The banks deserve ZERO benefit of the doubt here.

This guy may be crazy... but at least he's thinking. The banks are mindless zombies.

I agree completely.

[CSpec]

So the bank should take an opportunity cost just because?

[Drew Dowdell]

So the bank should take an opportunity cost just because?

The bank is illegally taking the home when someone has offered to pay the balance of the mortgage.

"Bank, you haven't paid the mortgage. We're taking your home."

"Wait, I have the money for you! In FULL!"

"Too bad, we're taking it anyway."

Not only should the bank take an opportunity cost. They should be investigated and if there is probable cause, indicted, and shut down by federal regulators.

Banks seem to think they can do anything they want in this country.... even break their own contracts. In the rules of foreclosure, "At any point during these proceedings, the borrower is usually in the position to keep the property if the loan is paid off and the lender is reimbursed for any foreclosure costs."

This wasn't even a short sale situation where the bank would have taken a loss. The balance was $160k, the purchase offer was for $170k which would have more than covered any foreclosure costs + balance of the loan.

If you feel the bank can do anything it want's to this man, then the man can do anything he wants to his house, even if his mortgage contract has a "do not devalue" clause.... if the contract doesn't apply to the bank, then it doesn't apply to the property owner either.

[PurdueGuy]

So the bank should take an opportunity cost just because?

Yes, they agreed to the home loan, and the homeowner ought to be able to pay off his freaking loan. For the homeowner to be left with NOTHING to show for paying $175k on his house is just immoral. Something being legal (bank foreclosure under conditions like this) does not make it moral. The guy bulldozing his house sends a message to the bank that if they're going to start making consistently immoral business decisions, people will eventually do something about it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Cspec, do you believe the bank took no improper action here?

[CSpec]

Considering this guy "understands the consequences" of his action, I would say the bank is in the right. There is always more to a story than meets the eye. However if the bank actually did something illegal or broke a contract, then obviously they're not entitled to anything. But there is no mention of that in the story.

[Drew Dowdell]

Wow...

[Drew Dowdell]

This doesn't bother you CSpec?

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.

[CSpec]

Again, there is obviously more going on in this story. I would wait for a more professional news outlet than a local TV station to reveal all the facts before condemning every bank in existence.

[Drew Dowdell]

Sorry, banks are way worse than Toy Motor Company in my mind's eye. The only reason I ever deal with them is to pit them against each other to my advantage.

[cletus8269]

"As far as what the bank is going to get, I plan on giving them back what was on this hill exactly (as) it was," Hoskins said. "I brought it out of the ground and I plan on putting it back in the ground."

seems the man bought the land then built the house. i dont know if he used land as collateral for his home's down payment but thats how it sounds to me. sure, i agree with him. be kind rewind hehehehe.

[CSpec]

Ah ha! As I suspected, this sob story leaves out some trivial details. I'll post from the Louisville Mojo's account.

Man Bulldozes House, but Media Only Tells Half the Story

The internet is abuzz with stories about Terry Hoskins, the man who bulldozed his house to prevent his bank from seizing it in foreclosure. People are cheering him, calling him a hero, and telling him "Way to stick it to the banks!"

There are several basic points, however, that most of these articles, and, it seems, most of the readers, are missing.

He claims that the bank was going to foreclose on $160,000 worth of mortgage, on a $350,000 house, that he was current on. Last I checked, though, banks can't just do that. Passing mention of his business debt is made, but no mention of several relevant details; the loan on the two properties (commercial and residential) appears to be cross-collateralized. Total amount he owes the bank = 1.1 million.

No mention is made of the fact that he is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and while the IRS is mentioned as having contributed to the situation, I have also read that he is 6 or so years behind on both state and federal taxes.

No one seems to be taking into consideration that we're not exactly dealing with Citigroup here, either. I looked up his bank, and it's a small community bank with fewer branches (5) than my little credit union. Sticking it to the guys who might be the ones to help you out and treat you like a person when the big banks won't, isn't exactly my idea of "Getting back at THE MAN," if you know what I mean.

There are also no details available about the lawsuit referenced with his brother - it's possible that the lawsuit was totally bogus, but there's also the possibility that he royally screwed his brother over and deserved to lose it...but none of us really know the details.

Finally, while he's portraying himself as "the little guy who wouldn't take it anymore from the banks," he's, well, not the average guy affected by this mortgage crisis. You know, the guy who lost his job, got behind on his mortgage, and found his bank refused to work with him. From published reports, he claims to have spent millions on legal fees over the past decade or so. Kind of makes you wonder how much his total debt is, doesn't it, if spending millions of dollars to fight it makes financial sense?

I'm not saying the guy was shady in his business dealings - I've never met him, do not have inside knowledge of his business affairs, other than what I've been able to dig up on the internet, nor have I ever done business with him personally. All I am saying is that until we know the WHOLE story - it's way too soon to proclaim the guy a hero.

So far, the only media outlet that I have seen questioning the story is Reason - all the others seem to just be running with the story as he told it, because it's the kind of story that generates outrage...and page views. How disappointing.

Big media fail on this one.

[CSpec]

So, don't you all feel a bit foolish for assuming a pretty unlikely scenario, that a bank run by bankers would just up and do something so obviously illegal? Maybe you should stop to consider that some loudmouth with nothing to lose is probably not telling the whole truth. It was obvious even from the biased first account that things were not as they seemed. Logic rules the day, though I fear the populist nonsense from this story will lead to some bad outcomes.

[daves87rs]

The bank is illegally taking the home when someone has offered to pay the balance of the mortgage.

"Bank, you haven't paid the mortgage. We're taking your home."

"Wait, I have the money for you! In FULL!"

"Too bad, we're taking it anyway."

Not only should the bank take an opportunity cost. They should be investigated and if there is probable cause, indicted, and shut down by federal regulators.

Banks seem to think they can do anything they want in this country.... even break their own contracts. In the rules of foreclosure, "At any point during these proceedings, the borrower is usually in the position to keep the property if the loan is paid off and the lender is reimbursed for any foreclosure costs."

This wasn't even a short sale situation where the bank would have taken a loss. The balance was $160k, the purchase offer was for $170k which would have more than covered any foreclosure costs + balance of the loan.

If you feel the bank can do anything it want's to this man, then the man can do anything he wants to his house, even if his mortgage contract has a "do not devalue" clause.... if the contract doesn't apply to the bank, then it doesn't apply to the property owner either.

+2

[SAmadei]

Considering this guy "understands the consequences" of his action, I would say the bank is in the right. There is always more to a story than meets the eye. However if the bank actually did something illegal or broke a contract, then obviously they're not entitled to anything. But there is no mention of that in the story.

Well, I imagine that the guy is looking at two consequences... many three.

1. After foreclosure is over, he could be on the hook for the balance of the mortgage... but he said the land itself is worth about 160K, IIRC. Bankruptcy show fix that.

2. There may be some township rules about leaving a pile of wreckage behind.

3. Demolishing a house without a permit. Though, I suppose he could have gotten one.

Umm... what other consequences could there be?

I'm trying to figure the insurance angle... To the best of my knowledge, the bank probably requires pretty basic stuff... enough to cover their loss... 160K? As long as he doesn't file a claim, it wouldn't be fraud. assuming insurance was even in effect.

[Lamar]

CSpec, good investigation there with the other side of the story.

It does weaken the man's position somewhat (read: "entirely").

[SAmadei]

So, don't you all feel a bit foolish for assuming a pretty unlikely scenario, that a bank run by bankers would just up and do something so obviously illegal? Maybe you should stop to consider that some loudmouth with nothing to lose is probably not telling the whole truth. It was obvious even from the biased first account that things were not as they seemed. Logic rules the day, though I fear the populist nonsense from this story will lead to some bad outcomes.

I missed your post the first time through... am your rebuttal certainly changes things a bit... but the original story is not too far off, even if this guy is manipulating the media.

Let me ask this... Have you been through a bankruptcy? Or a foreclosure? How about a bankruptcy thats screwed up by lawyers three times on a property with three mortgages and the bank ignores the orders of the court to proceed to foreclosure anyway... on a $15K balance on a $200K property. Then the property owner dies suddenly and dumps the entire situation into the the survivors to sort out. Of course, no lawyer wants to touch it.

Yeah... that's what I've spent years sorting out.

Without going into detail, let me just say the crap the bank pulled makes this guys original story MORE than plausible.

[Drew Dowdell]

So, don't you all feel a bit foolish for assuming a pretty unlikely scenario, that a bank run by bankers would just up and do something so obviously illegal? Maybe you should stop to consider that some loudmouth with nothing to lose is probably not telling the whole truth. It was obvious even from the biased first account that things were not as they seemed. Logic rules the day, though I fear the populist nonsense from this story will lead to some bad outcomes.

I don't feel a bit foolish at all. MediaFAIL for failing to provide the complete story. So, now the score is something like Bank Customer BaD - one, Bank Bad - eleventy thousand.

[cletus8269]

So, don't you all feel a bit foolish for assuming a pretty unlikely scenario, that a bank run by bankers would just up and do something so obviously illegal? Maybe you should stop to consider that some loudmouth with nothing to lose is probably not telling the whole truth. It was obvious even from the biased first account that things were not as they seemed. Logic rules the day, though I fear the populist nonsense from this story will lead to some bad outcomes.

not in the least bit. i just posted the story cause i thought it was funny, maybe brash, but considering all thats going on funny none the less. it was still his house and his property. if he wanted to do what he did so be it. my aunt is a branch manager at a bank i have neither side to take but can see why both sides are at each others throats.

[Camino LS6]

Banks are evil, and they do illegal things with a frightening frequency. I intend to limit my dealings with them as much as possible for the balance of my life.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Camino LS6

[RjION]

Who really cars what he did ?