"I'll Tear it down before I let you take it." Man Bulldozes home before Foreclosure

Overheal

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

This is just the best, ballsiest thing I've read in some time. Video in the Link: http://www.wlwt.com/video/22605945/index.html

MOSCOW, Ohio --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.

Bulldozed Home Photos

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.

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.

So the guy figures rightly, 'If you want the land back, I'm giving it back the way I got it.' And as far as I can tell, this is all perfectly legal erm, for the moment.

OutlawPete

Bull McCabe syndrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRKphNogJ3g

bigeasyeah

He should have torn down the bank.

Hank_Jones

bigeasyeah wrote: »

He should have torn down the bank.

I don't think people would be as sympathetic if he tore down the bank.
He's didn't own that.

bigeasyeah

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I don't think people would be as sympathetic if he tore down the bank.
He's didn't own that.

I would.

m@cc@

Ballsy in the short term. In the long term, it's going to be more trouble than it's worth.

Hank_Jones

The Bull McCabe will dance with ya!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjHZZCdvwNc

Sorry about being slightly off topic, rarely get a chance to post stuff like this.

brendansmith

Capitalist Moscow < Communist Moscow

DamoDLK

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I don't think people would be as sympathetic if he tore down the bank.
He's didn't own that.

Didn't own the house either.

m@cc@

DamoDLK wrote: »

Didn't own the house either.

Exactly. The bank will get their pound of flesh, plus it's $190k of his own money gone.

OutlawPete

Makes me think about poor old Johnny99

"Well a fist fight broke out in the courtroom they had to drag Johnny's girl away
His mama stood up and shouted "Judge don't take my boy this way"
Well son, you got any statement you'd like to make
Before the bailiff comes to forever take you away

Well Judge, Judge .. I had debts no honest man could pay
The bank was holdin' my mortgage they were gonna take my house away
Well now I ain't sayin' that makes me an innocent man
But it was more than all this Judge, that put that gun in my hand

Now your honor I do believe I'd be better off dead
So if you can take a man's life, for the thoughts that's in his head
Then sit back in that chair and think it over Judge one more time
Let 'em shave off my hair and put me on that killing line."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9VZFyLQzok

m@cc@

It's the term 'if you want the land back', he doesn't own anything. Mortgages are effectively hire purchase agreements. If you can't pay your bills, that's your problem.

K-9

Eh!

Terry Hoskins wrote:

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

Now you just have the site. No house worth $350,000. Moron.

Anyway, don't go into partnership with anybody, particularly family!

OutlawPete

K-9 wrote: »

Eh!



Now you just have thesite,. No house worth $350,000. Moron.

Anyway, don't go into partnership with anybody, particularly family!

Terry Hoskins posted here??? I call sham on that Sir!!!

:pac:

I get him though.

It's like if you built half a house and some bastard wanted to take it,

I'd rather knock it than let them have it.

m@cc@

K-9 wrote: »

Eh!



Now you just have the site. No house worth $350,000. Moron.

Anyway, don't go into partnership with anybody, particularly family!

Furthermore, I'm sure the bank would have some insurance against that kind of thing so they'll be ok out of it.

OutlawPete

Thread needs a Poll.

Right or Wrong.

He's my hero, so I say he was right.

m@cc@

OutlawPete wrote: »

Thread needs a Poll.

Right or Wrong.

He's my hero, so I say he was right.

I like the idea of taking on big business, but don't chop off your arm to whack them on the head with it.

Duggy747

Well, if the bank do take legal action against him is it going to hurt him more than forking over all that money or losing his home?

I say fair play to him, especially if he built the house!

Mahatma coat

m@cc@ wrote: »

Furthermore, I'm sure the bank would have some insurance against that kind of thing so they'll be ok out of it.

The Bank have Insurance agains this hapening Occasionaly, for it to be an effective position to take Thousands of people have to buldoze their homes, so as to make the bank and insurance companies Hurt.

but the IRS are the issue in this problem, they can seize your assets before you have had a chance to argue your case in court, its highly unconstitutional but the Yanks dont seem to notice.

m@cc@

Duggy747 wrote: »

Well, if the bank do take legal action against him is it going to hurt him more than forking over all that money or losing his home?

I say fair play to him, especially if he built the house!

I guess he'll write to you and tell you the answer from behind bars.

OutlawPete

m@cc@ wrote: »

I like the idea of taking on big business, but don't chop off your arm to whack them on the head with it.

I can understand it, that's all.

It was his home, not just a house.

m@cc@

OutlawPete wrote: »

I can understand it, that's all.

It was his home, not just a house.

I understand it too, but I'm saying he's gonna regret it in the long run.

DamoDLK

Duggy747 wrote: »

Well, if the bank do take legal action against him is it going to hurt him more than forking over all that money or losing his home?

I say fair play to him, especially if he built the house!

Yes, he built the house with a loan from the bank, he entered an agreement with the lender in good faith, he was not able to fulfill his end of the bargain, and to effect he essentially did the adult version of throwing his toys out of the pram. Thats not the way business works in the real world, I'm all for the David and Goliath battle, but there are proper ways and means.

OutlawPete

m@cc@ wrote: »

I understand it too, but I'm saying he's gonna regret it in the long run.

DamoDLK wrote: »

Thats not the way business works in the real world, I'm all for the David and Goliath battle, but there are proper ways and means.

Ah, but sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire and say "what the fcuk".

He's after giving them a massive headache and maybe cost some suit his job.

He's not just a number now, he's Terry fcuking Hoskins, the guy who took no ****.

Come on, it tooks balls to do that.

m@cc@

OutlawPete wrote: »

His not just a number now, he's Terry fcuking Hoskins, the guy who took not ****.

Come on, it tooks balls to do that.

Yeah, he didn't pay his bills and didn't like it when the bank played hard ball. He's got plenty of **** coming his way. More balls than brains.

anonymous_joe

m@cc@ wrote: »

Exactly. The bank will get their pound of flesh, plus it's $190k of his own money gone.

Banks tend not to want houses. Hard to sell them.

There's far too many people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford. And plenty who've lost jobs etc who are just unlucky.

m@cc@

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Banks tend not to want houses. Hard to sell them.

Well there you go, he's saved them the bother of selling it. Much easier to claim the insurance.

Doc

"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.

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.

This wasn’t a case of him being unwilling or unable to get them there money back it was a case of them wanting to maximize there profit from his misery. They could have let him sell the house to pay off what he owed but were greedy and wanted more. He may not have done anything illegal by bulldozing the house if he still legally owned it.

He was dead right to do what he did and the bank will lose money on this if he declares himself bankrupt. Fcuk the bank.

m@cc@

Doc wrote: »

He may not have done anything illegal by bulldozing the house if he still legally owned it.

He was dead right to do what he did and the bank will lose money on this if he declares himself bankrupt. Fcuk the bank.

He didn't own it and the bank will get their money. He has played right into their hands.

Doc

When a bank forecloses a house, it is still legally owned by the buyer for a given amount of time, which is apparently enough to destroy it with a bulldozer. Since it was still his property, the bank can't do anything but regret the decision to take a house from someone who never missed a payment.

m@cc@

Doc wrote: »

When a bank forecloses a house, it is still legally owned by the buyer for a given amount of time, which is apparently enough to destroy it with a bulldozer. Since it was still his property, the bank can't do anything but regret the decision to take a house from someone who never missed a payment.

Mortgage insurance.

old_aussie

If only he had a pilots licence, he could have flown a plane into the bank to teach the bank a lesson.

He could then apply for bankruptcy

Doc

m@cc@ wrote: »

Mortgage insurance.

True but they will only get the value of the remander of the loan not the extra they wanted.

old_aussie wrote:

If only he had a pilots licence, he could have flown a plane into the bank to teach the bank a lesson.

He could then apply for bankruptcy

Its not like he killed anyone is it? He knoked down his own house.

This Bank = Scum

DamoDLK

Doc wrote: »

This Bank = Scum

Doc it happens every day in the States, the only difference here, is that he demolished his gaff.

This Bank = No different to any normal bank.

cafecolour

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but the IRS are the issue in this problem, they can seize your assets before you have had a chance to argue your case in court, its highly unconstitutional but the Yanks dont seem to notice.

It's not just the IRS. In fact they're probably not even the worst. In a number of states, the police just have to claim your car/property/cash is related to drug crime and they can seize it from you and hold it before you go anywhere near the court.

One of many articles on it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2243428/

Doc

DamoDLK wrote: »

Doc it happens every day in the States, the only difference here, is that he demolished his gaff.

This Bank = No different to any normal bank.

Okay then

All banks = Scum

Deki

When he built the house he had no reason to think he wouldn't continue to have a job. There have been lots of people in this area lose their jobs due to moving of a major employer to another state. But this is Southern Ohio and folks here do some odd things sometimes:p
And police can confiscate your property if you're found guilty of a drug crime.
Usually they don't. No one wants a house contaminated by meth lab.

DamoDLK

Doc wrote: »

Okay then

All banks = Scum

lol! fair enough!

Joey the lips

I live in a semi D..... i dont think my neighbour would be happy but this might solve some of my problems

FlutterinBantam

One of them maybe, the rest seem too ingrained and deep seated:cool:

I'd like to know the law for russia.. Here, we owe the difference if it's sold by the banks for less than the outstanding mortgage.. In america, you just give them back the house and it's done. Big big difference.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

That scummy bank wanted to make a nice profit. They were not sympathetic, they do not give a damn about it's customers one bit and all they think about is money. Scum of the earth.

Bootsy.

What a legend. I'm delighted there's people out there with the balls to stand up these cnuts.

I can't stand it when people take the side of financial institutions over real people

hooradiation

Vivaan Modern Somewhere wrote: »

That scummy bank wanted to make a nice profit.

That's what businesses do, why does this constantly seem to fucking surprise people.

Sleepy

I've heard of a guy who discovered his wife was having an affair and convinced her that they should knock their house which was owned in both their names but built on his father's land.

He told her he wanted to knock the house so he could build a bigger, better one for her on the same site. Greedy bint fell for it hook line and sinker so he transferred all his assets to his brother's name, demolished the house and then told her to sling her hook because he knew about the affair!

Way better than getting one over on a bank imho!

pickarooney

He didn't just default on his mortgage, his brother sued him for a boatload of wonga, effectively making his own sibling homeless. Why is the bank getting all the flak?

karma_

pickarooney wrote: »

He didn't just default on his mortgage, his brother sued him for a boatload of wonga, effectively making his own sibling homeless. Why is the bank getting all the flak?

So the bank couldn't have handled this any better? Does it not strike you as scummy that they wanted to sell for full value even when he could have paid back what he owed them, and offered to?

Just why the fvck are people even defending these bástards? Fair play to him, hopefully more people take the hint and do the same.

pickarooney

karma_ wrote: »

So the bank couldn't have handled this any better? Does it not strike you as scummy that they wanted to sell for full value even when he could have paid back what he owed them, and offered to?

Yeah, but that's been mentioned in almost every post so far. I was just surprised that the brother has not come in for any abuse.

Keano

The photo's look like 2 different houses.

smegmar

just to clear things up, while in mortgage in america the bank never owns the house or property. For a loan agreement to be legally binding both parties must give what is called "consideration". in the home owners part it's the house, on the bank's part it is money, but due to the fractional reserve practice that banks operate they never give this consideration.

In 1969 there was a man named Jarone Daily, who's challenging the foreclosure of his home by the bank which provided the loan to purchase it. His argument was that the mortgage contract required both parties, being he and the bank, each put up a legitimate form of property for the exchange(what is known as consideration). Mr Daily explained that the money was not the property of the bank as it was created out of nothing by the bank as soon as the loan agreement was signed. As the court case progressed the banks president took the stand and in the judges memorandum he stated that "the plaintiff (bank president) admitted that the bank did indeed crate money through the fractional reserve practice. No law or statute gave him the right to do this. The jury found lawful consideration did not exist and I agree.

On this the court rejected the banks claim for foreclosure and mister daily kept his house

InReality

And that hasn't changed since 1969 ?

If thats correct then like no mortage in america would be valid since then !