Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek

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.



Read More


Simply awesome.
HAS ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE?
I just blasted through the thread looking for three magic letters, and I didn't see them..... IRS!
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.
then this....
The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.

I say the IRS shares a part here.




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scarcer
GREAT FIND!

Stupid bankers just lost out.


No, stupid borrower destroyed a property he did not own.

People are not loosing "their" homes. They do not own them yet. They borrowed money under specific terms and now are not paying back the money. The bank coughed up the money to pay the previous owner or developer.

Yes, the banks were wrong to make loans to these people to begin with. Yes, these people were ridiculous to buy homes they knew they could not pay for.

None of this matters in foreclosure. It's simple really. The person evicted is living in a house they no longer own, they never paid for and now they want to keep this house? Get real.

This person is acting like an illiterate child and those who support him are doing the same. It's amazing the number of people who think the world owes them anything they did not earn and pay for. It's the same argument used by thieves.

Let me put this in a way even a child could understand.

OK, you are now the bank. I come to you and say hey man, they got a new gaming computer over at Best Buy on sale. I want it really bad but I don't have enough money and I know you have lots of money in your Piggy Bank. If you loan me the thousand dollars I need, I'll pay you back $100 a month for 12 months and you make $200.

You say OK, but if you don't pay me, I get the computer since I'm buying it and it is me who really owns it.

Two months later I stop paying you because I don't have any money. You say OK, I'll give you a pass for three months, but then you must pay me. I say OK and I keep using the computer for the three months and then I don't pay you again.

You tell me, I'm sorry but I'll have to take the computer and sell it because I need the money really bad and I own it because you did not pay me.

I throw a temper tantrum and destroy YOUR computer with a hammer and tell you to go to #### because I'm not going to pay you the money I borrowed.

Same thing exactly. I'm the bad guy, your the innocent victim.

Anyone who can't see that is not mature enough to own a home or have credit to begin with.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


2)The argument of "Don't take money out if you can't repay" is just plain stupid.


Reminds me of when our own government cheated people out of their silver certificates. I used to have some of these. Since our currency isn't backed by gold and silver anymore you cant redeem them to the banks for silver.

These things were cool money. If you needed the silver as a more stable way to keep your money you could get it .

Check them out.
en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting to note is our founding fathers were dead set against paper money that wasn't backed by gold. They never wanted that system for US and they were right.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
What a stupid little man, lol. If he had a mortgage on his house, his house acts as collateral in case he can't pay his fees...which is what happened. Even if he destroys the house, he still owes the bank a house.


The bank defrauded him by using his signature to 'create' the credit. The money is his in the first place, the bank only acts as the middle man between our signatures and the treasury.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon
So, now that the house is destroyed, wouldn't that mean that the bank would make less profit by foreclosure than collecting on the $170,000 that Hoskins owes?

So, now it's in the bank's favor to just take Hoskin's 170k.

Before, he would have been down a house. Now, he's down a house and 170k.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong?


No, you're reading it exactly right. Hoskin is an idiot, along with all the people in this thread commending him for his action. This only EMPOWERS the bank to take more of his money and sends no message except that he has no idea how home mortgage loans work.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


This x1000! You don't own anything until you've fully repaid it.

I can't believe so many people on here support this guy's actions. Yes the banks handed out ridiculous loans out of greed, but NO ONE forced the people to actually take loans with those banks. They ACCEPTED a risk. It's not the banks fault if they suddenly can't pay anymore, no matter the reasons, so the bank DOESN'T owe them anything.

It's basic economics and business sense imo. Can't handle it? Move to a communist country. Can't believe I'm saying that, because I'm definitely left on the political spectrum. But even I accept the basic rules of doing business.

Learn how the mortgage system works, especially if you take a mortgage! It's not the bank's responsibility to educate the stupid.

Tbh, if I were the bank, I'd sue the guy until I got back every last cent he owes me.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized

Originally posted by MrXYZ
What a stupid little man, lol. If he had a mortgage on his house, his house acts as collateral in case he can't pay his fees...which is what happened. Even if he destroys the house, he still owes the bank a house.


The bank defrauded him by using his signature to 'create' the credit. The money is his in the first place, the bank only acts as the middle man between our signatures and the treasury.


No the money isn't his in the first place.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by paradigm619
 


I think it may be a bit overboard to call people agreeing with this mans actions, idiots. We by no means have all the facts in this story. A couple issues that I noticed

1. 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.

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

3. 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.

We don't know why the bank would go after his private property when the IRS put liens on his business property. Seems sneaky to me.

We do know that the bank was willing to send his property into foreclosure so they could make a PROFIT from his property upgrades ie: He built the house on the property making it worth much more than the bank loaned him.

So it looks to me like dude is returning to the bank what is rightfully theirs, the land. $160000 worth, not $350000.



"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."


Do people even bother reading the articles linked in OP's before they jump on the insult bandwagon? I'm far from an idiot but I tend to find this guys actions appropriate.

The bank had its chance to be repaid its "debt", but instead they chose to drag this out for years trying to make huge profits. And that is the problem with the banking industry, using government agencies like the IRS to further their profits or as an excuse to go after a citezen's property.

JohnnyR



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Oh that's smart, let's all bull doze our house! Two wrongs make a right it seems.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The guy should have put the home up for sale by owner. Paid off what was owed to the bank and keep any equity built up. He would have had money in his pocket.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Ionized
The bank defrauded him by using his signature to 'create' the credit. The money is his in the first place, the bank only acts as the middle man between our signatures and the treasury.


No the money isn't his in the first place.


The money is fiat, it is credit created by his signature in blue ink. Again, the bank is simply the middle-man between our signatures, and our Treasury accounts created for us at birth. The fraud is that we are led to believe we are borrowing the banks money, the reality is that the banks are giving us our own money, claiming it is theirs, and then charging extra interest.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So everyone who is having problems refinancing or paying their mortgage were idiots who didn't understand "the mortgage industry" and deserve what they're getting? I don't think this guy falls into that category, the article clearly shows its not a matter of him not wanting to pay for his debt, or that he didn't understand his obligations.



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.


He tried. The bank refused. Now they get back what they're owed, the property they gave him the loan for, not the house he built with his money.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by amance
Wow, two solid shots of the revolution on the same day: the Austin Protest-by-Plane and this.

It is going to be an interesting year

that russian professor may be right...



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperFoxBat
The guy should have put the home up for sale by owner. Paid off what was owed to the bank and keep any equity built up. He would have had money in his pocket.


Seriously?



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.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Ionized
The bank defrauded him by using his signature to 'create' the credit. The money is his in the first place, the bank only acts as the middle man between our signatures and the treasury.


No the money isn't his in the first place.


The money is fiat, it is credit created by his signature in blue ink. Again, the bank is simply the middle-man between our signatures, and our Treasury accounts created for us at birth. The fraud is that we are led to believe we are borrowing the banks money, the reality is that the banks are giving us our own money, claiming it is theirs, and then charging extra interest.


"Our treasury accounts"? Dude, have you ever opened an economics book? There is so such thing, we live in a capitalistic world, not a communist world where the government "provides for you".

It's not like the bank goes to the treasury and they just get $100bil to play with...except for the recent bailout, and even that had to be repaid.

Go to the bookstore, and buy an economics book. There is no "fraud" or consipracy here. It's all basic economics.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Ionized

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Ionized
The bank defrauded him by using his signature to 'create' the credit. The money is his in the first place, the bank only acts as the middle man between our signatures and the treasury.


No the money isn't his in the first place.


The money is fiat, it is credit created by his signature in blue ink. Again, the bank is simply the middle-man between our signatures, and our Treasury accounts created for us at birth. The fraud is that we are led to believe we are borrowing the banks money, the reality is that the banks are giving us our own money, claiming it is theirs, and then charging extra interest.


"Our treasury accounts"? Dude, have you ever opened an economics book? There is so such thing, we live in a capitalistic world, not a communist world where the government "provides for you".

It's not like the bank goes to the treasury and they just get $100bil to play with...except for the recent bailout, and even that had to be repaid.

Go to the bookstore, and buy an economics book. There is no "fraud" or consipracy here. It's all basic economics.


Then where does the bank get the money to loan to people?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Bonds. To be returned at 18 for women, and 22 for men after the selective service period. Did you get yours? I didn't think so. Roosevelt in 1933 gave us this remedy when the fiat money system was finally put into place. Take away our gold/silver, give us credit bonds in return. IRS is the gatekeeper, banks are the middleman. Uniform Commercial Code describes access to these remedies.

My economics textbook is one of the few that I did not keep after leaving university. A UCC book is probably the more important thing to study.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
that homeless man is a hero.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyR

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Ionized

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Ionized
The bank defrauded him by using his signature to 'create' the credit. The money is his in the first place, the bank only acts as the middle man between our signatures and the treasury.


No the money isn't his in the first place.


The money is fiat, it is credit created by his signature in blue ink. Again, the bank is simply the middle-man between our signatures, and our Treasury accounts created for us at birth. The fraud is that we are led to believe we are borrowing the banks money, the reality is that the banks are giving us our own money, claiming it is theirs, and then charging extra interest.


"Our treasury accounts"? Dude, have you ever opened an economics book? There is so such thing, we live in a capitalistic world, not a communist world where the government "provides for you".

It's not like the bank goes to the treasury and they just get $100bil to play with...except for the recent bailout, and even that had to be repaid.

Go to the bookstore, and buy an economics book. There is no "fraud" or consipracy here. It's all basic economics.


Then where does the bank get the money to loan to people?


The FED does 2 things:

1) Replace coins/bills (because they wear out).
2) Increase the amount of $$$ under specific circumstances...rarely, because it leads to inflation.

If they replace the money, the bank has to give the FED old coins/bills. So technically, the bank doesn't get anything


If they increase the amount of $$$, they do it through government projects, like hiring a company to patch up some road. They then pay that company with new money. Guess where the company puts that money they earned? Yes, into a bank account.

So no, the bank doesn't just get free money from the treasury, lol.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Dude coulda just refinanced? But I mean, I do see his point of view.. just seems kinda drastic to bulldoze your home. I think what some people don't understand is "value of your home" is hypothetical .. a lot of times people think their home, being their castle, really is a castle and should be priced as such. The only thing that matters is LTV: Loan to Value.

Also.. when you buy your home, you are renting from the BANK, who in fact owns your home. Unless you have a deed in hand, you don't own your home. So the guy didn't bulldoze HIS house.... he bulldozed the BANKS house. Way to go jerk.


We demand responsible and reasonable banks.. yet we don't want to be responsible and reasonable consumers.. just like we want the world on a silver platter from the Government, but don't want to pay taxes for it.

But whatever, I digress.





new topics
top topics
 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum