bank repos wrong house, gets rid of property, refuses to make restitution

[littlewolf]

http://www.10tvtogo.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=40&nid=3355439430&cid=21017&scid=-1&ith=4&title=Local+News&headtitle=Local+News


An Athens County woman is looking to get her belongings back after a bank incorrectly broke into her house and took them.
Katie Barnett says that the First National Bank in Wellston foreclosed on her house, even though it was not her bank.

"They repossessed my house on accident, thinking it was the house across the street," Barnett said.
Barnett, who had been away from the house for about two weeks, said she had to crawl through the window of her own house in order to get in after she used her own key that did not work.

Barnett said that according to the bank president, this was the first time something like this has happened.
She presented him with an $18,000 estimate to replace the losses, but the president refused to pay.
"He got very firm with me and said, 'We're not paying you retail here, that's just the way it is,'" Barnett said. "I did not tell them to come in my house and make me an offer. They took my stuff and I want it back."

The shock of having her house broken into and belongings taken by mistake has now turned into anger.
"Now, I'm just angry," Barnett said. "It wouldn't be a big deal if they would step up and say 'I'm sorry, we will replace your stuff.' Instead, I'm getting attitude from them. They're sarcastic when they talk to me. They make it sound like I'm trying to rip the bank off. All I want is my stuff back."
No one from the bank would go on camera with 10TV about the incident. The bank vice president told 10TV News that the bank is trying to come to terms with Barnett.


I hope she sues the dog s*** out of this bank.
and then after the loss in court the shareholders
toss him and the VP out on their ear.

[hollysmom]

1. wait until the pain and suffering law suit

If they broke into my house and took my stuff, most of it is replaceable family remembrances. I have photos pf my family since my grand parents were young, I have framed documents of their lives, that framers offered me hundreds of dollars for and it wasn't even their family. Then there is furniture of solid wood like they don't make anymore.
Not to mention all my financial information here and in my computer (in my own secret code)
I would kill these people.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Good Lawyers Have To Be Standing In Line!

Not ambulance chasers! Good, solid lawyers with winning reputations. This is a slam dunk.

First question: How are they not guilty of breaking and entering, at least? The repossession order applied to someone else's property. They had no legal right to enter her premises.

Second question: Why isn't this burglary? They broke into a house, took the possessions out of the house, did not intend to return them, and now refuse to return them after admitting it was the wrong house. That's burglary, by any definition.

So, they committed a crime and now all the lady's stuff is gone. Methinks the bank manager will be looking for a new job when corporate gets a hold of him.

[RC]

3. Looking for a new job? Ha, they'll probably promote him and double his salary.

Wall Street will welcome him with open arms.

[exboyfil]

11. The sit on your hands police force decided to

give it a pass. They should be the next stop for the journalists along with the local DA.

[former9thward]

61. Burglary requires intent in criminal law.

Usually an intent to commit a felony on the property. The bank had no intent to commit a felony when they entered the house. This is civil not criminal.

[Sanity Claws]

70. That is correct

This is a matter of torts: trespass on real property and conversion of personal property. These torts allow her to recover general damages, i.e. emotional distress. She may be eligible for punitive damages too, depending on the state.

[Heywood J]

123. What about theft, unlawful taking, or whatever that jurisdiction cares to call it? (NT)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

87. It's not burglary because burglary is a specific intent crime.

[Lancero]

107. There was intent though...

Intent to break into the house and remove the belongings.

Interesting thought though... If she reports the items as stolen, which they technically were, would she be able to recover them? Some were sold and given away, and as it was the bank that did the selling and giving then they should have records that show what happened to the items and where or who they went to.

Funny though about intent - A person can be charged with posession of stolen goods even though they never suspect that they had stolen goods.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

115. A conviction for burglary requires proof of specific intent, not proof of a general intent.

[Lancero]

122. They specifically chose that house...

And the bank agreed with their decision despite them having records that, if they cared enough to check, would have shown that to be the wrong house.

Choosing a specific house to break in and take everything from sounds like proof of specific intent to me. It doesn't matter that it was accidental - When the bank ok'd the decision it created specific intent, as well as when she informed them and they refused to provide restitution.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

124. Do you have the prosecutor's phone number? Why not give him a call and explain it to him?

[awoke_in_2003]

29. I hate to say it...

but the rich and their lackeys will continue to keep screwing us until we start stringing them up.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. This is not the type of lawsuit for which pain and suffering are compensated.

[hollysmom]

132. why not?

the aggravation and irreplaceable stuff should indicate reckless abandon causing pain and suffering.
Not to mention inconvenience and possible ill health due to caused stress.

[robinlynne]

4. How many years in jail would it be for stealing everything out of a house?

[TroglodyteScholar]

23. Zero! Corporations are people when it benefits them...

But you won't ever see these guys charged with a B&E.

[former9thward]

62. This is a civil matter not criminal.

There was no intent to commit a felony on the property by the bank. That would be an element of the crime of burglary.

[ladjf]

67. They might not have intended to burglarize the home but they did intend to remove the contents

of the house without using diligence in the operation. That was a case of malfeasance.

[Fla Dem]

127. Whether they intended to steal her propert or not, the end result is THEY STOLE HER PROPERTY!

To say they did not "intend" to steal her property is ludicrous. They entered her home to take her property without her permission. How is that not stealing with intent?

[former9thward]

130. You can shout all you want.

It does not change the law. The bank (or its agent) entered the property thinking it was theirs. It was a mistake. In our legal system you are allowed to make an honest mistake and not be held criminally liable. It is a civil matter and the bank will pay for its mistake in a civil court.

[Rex]

5. Fucking banksters!

Of course they won't admit to fault, I hope she sues the bank back into the stone age.

[Trillo]

6. There's a huge issue being mentioned, the retail vs. wholesale paradigm

It far exceeds just this theft incident. It seems to be one of our corporatist-economic pillars, so to say.

It could be construed as giving different groups, different prices. How would you feel if, when you go to the grocery store, the prices of the food were variable depending on, say, the color of your skin or the type of clothes you wear? Well that's what business has. They get preferential pricing treatment over citizens, they may purchase the same things at wholesale prices which are not available to the average human citizen.

The bank is being completely unreasonable, to "discuss" but be unwilling to pay retail to this person. If she needs to replace her things, she'll have to pay retail, but the bank only wants to compensate her at wholesale. Just that fact alone demonstrates the bank lacks good faith in the negotiations.

[littlewolf]

7. all the more reason a jury should do the negotiations

civil and criminal suits.

[Jenoch]

57. The bank needs to come up with the

'replacement' value. Replacement insurance is usually more expensive, but in this case the woman did nothing wrong. I bet that bank is getting a lot of telephone calls from angry people.

[PowerToThePeople]

8. Breaking & entering, grand larceny. Who is going to jail? n/t

[Beearewhyain]

10. Exactly!

This is what kills me about things like this. Under any other circumstance someone would be facing criminal charges but a "Whoops we stole from the wrong house, but we are a bank and have complicated paperwork so let it go" gets them at worst a drawn out civil lawsuit. As I heard from a friend when we were trying to distill what is really wrong in our country - "It is the unequal application of law and rights"

[Orrex]

13. Exactly!

If I "accidentally" broke into the bank president's home, I sure as hell wouldn't get to dictate the terms of reparation. I'd be doing my negotiations from behind bars in an orange jumpsuit.

[pa28]

33. She needs to go to the police and make a criminal complaint.

[former9thward]

63. And they would correctly tell her to file a suit.

For criminal matters you have to be able to prove intent. There is no intent here.

[blackspade]

66. You keep using the word "intent".

They intended to break into a building with the intent on removing the articles within.
Then they intended to dispose of them.

Unfortunately for this poor woman, they carried out their intent on the wrong house, one that they had no business being within.

It's like me breaking into somebody's house just to look around. I had no intent to steal, I was just curious what kind of stuff they had. I somehow don't think that would work out in my favor......

[former9thward]

74. The minute you break into property you know is not your own you have committed a crime.

The bank thought it was their property. It was a mistake and so they must pay but not a crime. The law does not criminalize mistakes but you have to pay damages.

[blackspade]

75. I don't think that is true.

If I get confused one night and break into someone else's house thinking it's mine I will still go to jail for breaking and entering.
I can say "oops" all I want and it will not make a bit of difference.

[former9thward]

76. If it was reasonable you will not be charged -- or at least convicted.

But it is rarely a "reasonable" mistake that you don't know your own house.

[blackspade]

78. OK, so it was a friends house.

And it is highly unlikely that I wouldn't get a visit to the jail.

What we have here is a two tiered justice system, where a 'company' can make a mistake and get off scott-free, while actual people do time.

One thing that should be revealed is the specific destinations of all of her property. How it was disposed of etc. It should be up to the companies to turn over this info and go through the process of getting her stuff back at their expense. If they sold it, they should have to buy it back. If it went in a dumpster, they should go to the landfill and attempt to recover her stuff, etc....
Anything else shows ill intent.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

88. Proof of a general intent is not sufficient. A specific intent is required.

E.g., if homeless couple caught in a snow-storm (say Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman) break into a house to escape from the storm, they've committed a trespass but not a burglary.

[Beearewhyain]

72. So this guy should not be charged

because there was no intent, just a silly misunderstanding?

Police: Drunk Man Breaks In, Takes Shower in Wrong Chesterfield House
http://chesterfield.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/police-drunk-man-breaks-in-takes-shower-in-wrong-ches6c2c03d2ee

[former9thward]

73. Courts rarely allow the "I was too drunk to know what I doing" defense.

Nevertheless I suspect that down the road if the defendant agrees to pay for the damages the charges will be dropped.

[Beearewhyain]

79. Regardless of what the courts may or may not do in the future

The man was arrested and charged, as he should have been IMHO. However, the bank or its agents were not arrested or charged for a similar occurrence. If business entities are afforded the same rights as individuals then criminal trespass, at the least, does not seem out of the question.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

89. He was charged with trespassing and destruction of property, not burglary.

[Beearewhyain]

95. Never said burglary

though I would not be opposed if the bank was charged with that. However, as I said up thread, criminal trespass seems to apply to both.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

96. You did say, while apparently being confused over the intent issue, "So this guy should not be

charged because there was no intent, just a silly misunderstanding?"

There are two types of intent in the criminal law. One is general intent. The second is specific intent.

You say that you "Never said burglary." You also never said "destruction of property." I never said that you said "burglary," nor did I say that you ever said "destruction of burglary."

Instead, I covered both general intent and specific intent - in response to your "So this guy should not be charged statement - by saying that "He was charged with trespassing and destruction of property, not burglary."

[Beearewhyain]

99. Ok then...

Admittedly I am not an expert on criminal law or its terms. However, do you think the bank should/could be charged with trespassing and/or destruction of property? Why or why not from a personal as well as legal perspective?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. The bank should be. But you can't force the police to do anything that they don't want to do.

None of us can even force reluctant prosecutors, such as the one in the Zimmerman case, to do their job, object to defense attorney questions calling for speculation, or showing that it is inherently absurd for an armed stalker who kills the person that he was stalking to claim self-defense.

If the police and the prosecutors don't do their jobs, the only recourse is a civil suit.

[Beearewhyain]

102. Cool, cool, cool

I think we have found something we agree on.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

114. Isn't that against the rules or something?

[cascadiance]

80. If there was "no intent" the bank should have bent over backwards to fix things...

But they didn't, and I would contend that there was CRIMINAL intent. Is there a three strikes your out law there? If there are two other incidents of this, then either execs need to go to prison for life, or the bank as a "person" needs to be PUT AWAY FOR LIFE and SHUT DOWN!

[pa28]

83. But they still have her property. Right?

If they just returned the property I suspect she'd drop the matter.

If they no longer have the property, will not replace it and it was sold for cash proceeds that sounds to me like any other burglary. Maybe there was intent.

[Sheepshank]

128. Clearly, Trespassing is a criminal and not a civil issue

Banks generally hire companies to clean out repossessed homes. There may have been some criminal intent on the part of the company if they mishandled personal posessions or decided to keep things like jewelry, antiques etc.

[former9thward]

131. It depends on what was taken.

Also it depends on what the contract says between the bank and the clean up company. The contract may say the company can keep anything in the home. The bank just wants it empty. If a home is correctly foreclosed any property inside is considered abandoned. The bank is to blame civilly here. I doubt the clean up company has any fault.

[HillWilliam]

34. Butbutbutbutbutbut.... corporations are people, my friend

except when they're not.

[tallahasseedem]

9. I hope she sues...

and takes this bank to bankruptcy.

I couldn't even imagine if something like that happened to me. I would be devastated! Maybe even in jail for assault on the bank president who was a complete asshole.

This cannot continue!

[oneshooter]

12. The bank hired a company to do the deed.

Go after them, charge each and every person that entered the house with theft, breaking and entering, and destruction of private property. Sue the company under the RICO statutes, put the owner in jail for working with the bank.

Shotgun approach, a wide band of shot to hit everyone involved.

[cab67]

38. it's even broader

Anyone who bought the items taken from her home is in possession of stolen property. This is a crime. If I were her, I'd contact each and every one of them, point out the circumstances under which they obtained their goods, and go from there. I'd bet most of them would immediately return the items and go after the bank for the costs.

[pnwmom]

43. Welcome to DU, cab 67! But how could she find out where her stuff is? n/t

[haele]

50. Most of the time those items are just thrown in a dumpster.

And/or the people who actually went into the house to clear it might have five-finger discounted any items they saw and liked, but since the people hired to clear the house are usually minimum wage day-laborers, the family treasures, irreplaceable antiques, family documents, Fluffy's (or Mom's) ashes, Grandpa's WWII Medal of Honor and Purple Heart, Great-Great-Great-Grandma's china that was rescued from the burning of Atlanta - and other items that might also be worth something - ended up in the dumpster along with the Laz-E-Boy, the mattresses, and the DVD collection. Perhaps this lady's jewelry and any coins in the piggy bank were saved from the dumpster, but chances are even those items are far gone.

Being someone who doesn't believe the worst of people and consider those foreclosed on as rat-scum slackers, I would have hoped that when they broke in and noticed it looked as if someone was still living there with no apparent planning to move out (as in, this was fully furnished house that wasn't trashed and half-emptied like most abandoned foreclosures are), they might have double-checked find out what was going on and then held off until they could get to the resident/owners of the stuff to "force a move" with them present. You know this wasn't the first time something like this happened...heck, people who don't have mortgages have been "foreclosed on" speciously by someone who claimed to have a lien or erroneously (illegally) put a lien on their house.

I don't believe in just tossing stuff out on the street without an owner there, even if one is evicting or foreclosing on "a lazy scumbag scam artist". Bring the police or sheriff if there's a potential for danger.

Otherwise, it's just blatantly punishing someone who is in debt by stealing from a family who's already got problems under a weak veneer of "property rights" laws.

Haele

[pipi_k]

125. If the bank hired a company...

maybe the company was given the wrong address by someone at the bank.

In that case, how would anyone at that company be responsible for wrongdoing?

In fact, if someone made a legitimate error anywhere along the line, how can anyone be held responsible for wrongdoing?

I'm sure nobody intended to break into the wrong house and take the wrong stuff, even if the information given to them was correct.

If it wasn't correct, then they're even less to blame for what happened.

although, from a moral POV, it would be excellent for the bank to make a generous goodwill gesture to this poor woman.

[LaydeeBug]

14. She should press charges for breaking and entering and grand larceny. This is THEFT, not a mistake.

nt

[exboyfil]

15. She tried

The police closed the investigation without taking any action. That should be the next stop for the journalists.

[LaydeeBug]

17. That's *Crazy*. She should dial 911 and record it. There should be cameras there when the police

arrive. "Corporations are people, my friend", so who gets cuffed?

I think her friends could get it on their camera phones.

This is crazy.

[awoke_in_2003]

30. Police are there to protect the wealthy. nt

[Go Vols]

133. +1

[Omar4Dems]

31. Ya think maybe the local police is more friendly with the bank?

Nahh...

[LaydeeBug]

32. Equal Protection and all that. Daylight is the best disinfectant. nt

[quakerboy]

65. Not anymore

I think we've reached a point where they are caring about being exposed less and less. daylight is only effective on those who are ashamed of their actions or who fear the potential repercussions of having their actions known. Fewer and fewer seem to have that shame over their misdeeds. And the likelihood of repercussions grows slimmer by the day.

[lark]

45. This is why my generation started calling them "pigs"

They passed the duck test. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, it's generally a duck. The cops in this story were true pigs, agents of injustice rather than justice. Upholding the corporotacrcy (sp?) rather than the law. MF*ers.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. She said it was a mistake. The bank said it was a mistake.

[LaydeeBug]

110. I'm coming to your house while you're gone, and after I pillage all of your possessions, I'm going

to just shrug and say, "My bad. I thought I bought this in a tax sale". Which *might* be kosher, were they to have already returned the stolen, er, "mistakenly taken" possessions, but they're getting cute, so....

[LaydeeBug]

111. except I am not *really* coming to your house, just sayin'. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

116. That would be a mistake. If you do come, however, feed the dog.

[Jenoch]

16. Banks have liability insurance

for situations such as this. This woman needs to sue and get more than the value of her stuff. She needs to get damages plus attornies' fees and court costs. she needs to sue the bank president and every single officer of the bank and its board of directors.

[littlewolf]

21. yup, as well as the company hired to do the deed. nt

[theHandpuppet]

18. Wow -- that's nuts

That stupid fukking bank is LUCKY this woman just wants her stuff back. What she needs now is a good lawyer, cause if it were me I'd sue them for a LOT more than the cost of stolen belongings.

[dusty trails]

19. Cops aren't interested ?

What would the cops do if you or I broke into her house and took her possessions ?

[MsPithy]

20. She definitely needs to sue everyone involved, including

the guy who drove the truck, and whoever owns the place where her stuff ended up. (she can find out where her stuff is, during discovery)

Including, the police for not investigating this as a robbery with the bank directors being arrested.

This is the only way to prevent the banksters from blaming everyone else involved, and it always happens that the groups of perpetrators turn on each other.

And, don't forget tens of millions in punitive damages.

[littlewolf]

22. not sure if she can sue the police.

but she sure can sue everyone else.

[avaistheone1]

24. The banks are literally worse than terrorists.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

97. Some think that the police are too.

[Savannahmann]

25. Might I suggest she follow this example?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638

In Florida an angry homeowner whose home was wrongfully foreclosed on by Bank of America gets revenge by foreclosing on the bank's local branch

It may take a while, but I'm sure that the outcome would be about the same.

[hughee99]

26. Not only all the other stuff but an AWFUL business decision as well, the difference between

the retail and wholesale prices I guarantee you is FAR less than the cost of the lawyers they'll have to pay and the public relations team they'll have to bring in to fix the mess.

[blackspade]

27. I read this last night.

Ridiculous that there were no criminal charges filed.

[arely staircase]

28. how is this not burglary? seriously

if I go in someone's house and take their stuff without permission I'd be charged with a felony.

[unblock]

36. i suspect they get out of criminal liability based on lack of criminal intent.

many crimes require criminal intent. lacking criminal intent, there may be a lesser, "negligent" version of the crime, e.g., negligent homicide vs. murder.

but i've never heard of a crime call negligent breaking and entering or negligent theft.


that said, they certainly have civil liability which could include extras such as compensation for lost time, hassle factor, interest, hotel costs if applicable, etc.


in theory, i think they're only liable for the fair market value (as opposed to the replacement cost) of the lost items if they can't return them. if they took a damaged, 30 year old sofa, i don't think they're liable to replace that with a brand new sofa. commercially, though, they should be bending over backwards to settle this sort of thing, it's a p.r. nightmare.

[zipplewrath]

42. Yes you're right

Sadly, they won't be held to full retail anymore than anyone of us would be if we were at fault in an auto accident with a 10 year old car. You're liable for the value of a 10 year old car, not a brand new one.

That said, there are a boat load of costs associated with getting all of this stuff replaced, as well as the costs incurred while replacing them (rentals, etc.). And since lawyers are apparently going to be required, there are costs there too. It could be much cheaper for them in the long run if they just go ahead and settle now, which a good lawyer could probably explain to them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

91. Seriously, burglary requires a specific intent and none can be shown. She even said it was a mistake

which the bank refuses to rectify, but a mistake nonetheless.

[Dustlawyer]

35. The Wholesale/Retail argument is an example of why the number of lawsuits go up.

You have to actually sue them and then they delay to wait you out and make you desperate. They use the increase in the number of lawsuits to show why they need more Tort Reform! This was not a crime because the Bank can argue that there was not the specific intent to break and enter, it was a mistake. That makes it civil only unless you can prove this was a scam to sell her stuff from the beginning.

[dbackjon]

37. Why haven't the local police arrested the bank officers?

This is theft.

[Jenoch]

59. It is an obvious mistake that is now a civil matter.

[dbackjon]

60. And the refusal to compensate?

[Jenoch]

64. Yeah, that bank is now in a shitstorm.

I bet he and the owners of the bank wish they would have played nice with this lady so the media did not get this story. I looked up their telephone number and am contemplating calling them and asking "are you getting a few telephone calls today?". My guess is they are letting it go to voicemail with an outgoing message saying they are taking care of the matter. I would hope so.

[blackspade]

68. Right.....

So if I went to this bank's ATM and it gave me $18,000 by mistake and I then gave it to charity I could only be taken to civil court?
It was a mistake and I had no intent to steal, so the cops would close the case without charges?

[Jenoch]

71. Nope, you cannot make that comparison.

That is a different situation entirely.

The cops are not likely making the decision, it is likely the county attorney.

The bank did not intentionally go to the wrong house. The real foreclosed house was sitting for at least 6 months. The people probably walked away from it. That is what the bank expected, but somehow got the wrong address. Somebody is an idiot for relying on GPS to get to the correct house.

[blackspade]

77. And why not?

The result is the same.
I acquired something that was not mine and disposed of it without intent to steal it.

The GPS excuse is bullshit anyway. The reporter used a GPS and went to the correct house and the house #s were clearly visible on the mailboxes.
The buildings do not even look the same.
They had to have realized it was the wrong house at some point during the looting of the property.

[Jenoch]

84. It would be obvious to you that

all that cash coming out of the ATM was not yours. It would not necessarily be obvious until after the fact that some idiot got the wrong address. There would be no reason for a bank to do something like this on purpose as there is no real motive.

"They had to have realized it was the wrong house at some point during the looting of the property." The kink of guys hired to do this sort of thing are not there because of their brains. People walk away from a furnished house all the time. You are right of course that there are usually some personal things missing and house hold goods taken along, but it is not unusual for a foreclose house to be full of stuff. I do not believe the bank did this on purpose. This is a civil matter to the cops and prosecutor.

[blackspade]

103. That is a good point.

But that doesn't change the outcome.

The fact that the 'moving' company didn't do due diligence and double check the address is ridiculous.
The GPS excuse is bullshit and the fact that the address is plainly visible on the mailbox does not absolve the movers or the bank from liability, or to me, criminality. They had to have realized that they had the wrong address at some point, and when they did, they crossed into criminal territory when they didn't return her possessions.

Honestly, I don't think that most foreclosures have tons of valuables left in them. If you are walking away, you will take your best things and leave the trash. I checked with a realtor friend of mine and he stated that most of the stuff left in a foreclosed home is crap. So that excuse doesn't wash either.

[Jenoch]

105. I do agree

with you about the stuff left behind. I should have said full of shit. On the other end of the spectrum, I once bought a foreclosed townhouse and they took everything that wasn't nailed down inluding light bulbs and the glass globes from the light fixtures.

[blackspade]

118. I can see that.

I looked at a house last year that they had even pulled the copper pipes and wiring out of the walls.
It was a fucking wreck. Our Realtor was pissed (at the selling realtor) that we even wasted time looking at it.
My wife never went past the front door!

[Jenoch]

119. I might suggest

that it is likely that the copper may have been stolen by thieves rather than the foreclosed former owners of the home.

[blackspade]

120. Very possible.

[Catherina]

39. With the mounting anger at their callous injustices, it's no wonder they need to monitor us n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

93. x2

[TeamPooka]

40. Theft is a crime Mr. Bank President and you and your accomplices should be arrested.

[Aerows]

41. I would sue anybody and everybody involved

Maybe that would cause them to think twice before making such "mistakes".

[TBF]

52. I would as well - including the police dept that closed the case. nt

[Aerows]

58. Yep, them too n/t

[BlueNAlabama]

44. Settlement With a Non Disclosure Agreement

I think the bank will pay up without having to admit any wrong doing and she will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

[mainstreetonce]

46. There is a great book. House of Sand and Fog

That is a fictional account of such a mixup and the horror that follows. It is also a movie,but the book is better.

[Phentex]

104. I forgot all about that book...

but now that you mention it, it WAS one mistake after another that nobody wanted to take responsibility for. Sad.

[stlsaxman]

47. minimum settlement after treatment like that... 1st- pay remaining mortgages on house

2nd- refund at TWICE retail price all her belongings and

3rd- a cool 10 million spending money.

NOW we're talkin'!

[Poll_Blind]

48. Good fucking lord, does the bank not understand what a goodamned jury would do to them?

Holy shit, I'd be writing out that $18k cheque lickety-fucking-split.

PB

[closeupready]

49. This is what God made Punitive Damages for.

IMHO.

[alfredo]

51. When a CEO gets the "needle" for his crimes against America, then I would consider

a corporation is a person.

[mountain grammy]

53. Unbelievable, shameful and sickening...

Go get em Katie! If you robbed the bank they would sure as hell come and get you!

[xocet]

54. Amazing....

Here is the video of the news report and an interview with the owner:

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/07/22/athens-county-woman-wants-possessions-back-after-bank-tried-to-repossess-wrong-house.html

I hope that she sues the bank into oblivion.

[Eleanors38]

55. She'll have due process through our regulated banking system.

[pansypoo53219]

56. why is this not FELONY theft?

[cascadiance]

81. Just wait... This ASSHOLE will laugh it off and do another house next to the one he was supposed to

... go after.

And laugh because our two tier justice won't put him behind bars for being the FUCKING CRIMINAL he is!

[lpbk2713]

69. Usually banks have contractors do this sort of thing.

It makes it easier for the banks to attempt to wipe their hands
of the whole mess when things go wrong as it did here. It isn't
always succesful for them but it gives them another loophole.

[liberal N proud]

82. The rich are out of control

[kestrel91316]

85. Time to start eating banksters........

with fava beans and a nice chianti.

[SnowSakura0813]

92. Honestly...

Honestly I think she is kinda lucky. Other than loosing all of her stuff, which sucks, now she is probably going to be paid a whole lot of money because the bank made a mistake. On top of that she will get her stuff back. And so now she will live with money, new stuff, and probably have her mortgages paid off. I'd be pissed at first, til my lawyer fixed it and I won the lottery XD

[Fantastic Anarchist]

94. Call the police.

They fuck with everyone else. Might as well fuck with the banks.

[NutmegYankee]

108. The police already closed the case.

They don't arrest bankers...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

113. Seems to be the law of the land. nt

[dsc]

98. this bank should lose its entire profit for each and every day they make this woman wait

before they pay her replacement value for every single thing they took. I bet if she accidentally took 10k from that bank and said she would only give them 8k back her ass would be in jail.

[kelliekat44]

100. Can the new consumer agency do anything about this? Isn't there a law to protect the woman?

This is so sickening!!!

[Gormy Cuss]

109. Exactly. This isn't the first time a bank has foreclosed on the wrong house.

The innocent owner and/or tenants should get retail value for their lost belongings as well as other damages related to the screwup without the delay and expenses associated with negotiating a settlement or suing./

[Sivafae]

106. Why aren't they in Jail? They broke into a house and took some else's belongings.

They need to be held criminally liable for such behaviour.

[on point]

112. Yes, sue. But press charges for breaking and entry, and theft

[KentuckyWoman]

117. I clicked expecting this to be Bank of America

Doesn't help get her family memories back but hopefully with the smaller bank she'll actually see the money from the eventual jugdement instead of dying before all the bank's appeals lumber their way through the court calendar.

[woo me with science]

121. K&R

[Blue_Tires]

126. For just retribution, she should be allowed to raid the bank vault...

[Small Accumulates]

129. First National Bank in Wellstone is an unhealthy bank

It has a very high troubled asset ratio: http://banktracker.investigativereportingworkshop.org/banks/ohio/wellston/the-first-national-bank-of-wellston/

Obviously, it's being poorly managed in every respect.