It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House, Now Owner Wants her Property Back

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
When companies majorly screw up like this they will try and bully a settlement rather then face paying any real reparations. This bank realizes its in deep trouble, has convinced the police department that its a civil matter, has lawyered up, and is trying to get her to settle based on what rules they say apply. They figure that she doesn't have the knowledge or income to pose a threat to them legally, so if they bully her into a settlement, and if she accepts, they are off the hook almost scott free.

I had a family member get hurt at a large retail chain due to negligence on their part, and them (incorrectly) repackaging and restocking used returned items as though they were new. The store (mind you this was a huge company that you can find in almost any US mall), actually had their legal department call my house and tell me that we “couldn't legally sue them”, my answer to them was “well, since you paid the doctors bill we weren't, but this phone call has changed my mind and tells me you know you're in deep trouble here”.

I HATE when companies try and pull this BS to con the “little guy” because they think they can get away with it.




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackz28

Originally posted by schadenfreude

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good sometimes.. And no banker is going to disrespect me like that and get away with it.. He would suffer my wrath.


Watch out folks, we got a bad ass over here.

& if everything you worked for was gone because of a bank error & they told you to go screw well, you would be saying the same thing


Well if I'm ever in that position, I'll let ya know. But that statement was SO ITG that it needed to be called out, that's all.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by crankyoldman
 
It's not legal, but its not exactly a crime either.
Its a tort, called conversion, and she needs to get an attorney and pursue this the correct way. If she does that instead of letting the bank bully her into a settlement, she stands to win a LOT more than the retail value of what was taken and sold.

Someone needs to tell her to get an attorney.



you missed the entire point of my post, in fact, your first line is exactly my point, we no longer interact like humans, we simply address each issue in the manner of your first line. Instead of righting the CLEAR wrong, we simply argue which court it should be in, and, how she now needs to spend 3 years in litigation, pay half or more of what she gets to the lawyers, be dragged into the shear hell that is the legal system, all because there is no moral compass anymore, only the INTERPRETATION of the law.

What's really comical, we, as a society and as individuals, laugh at the way primitive societies dealt with issues like this, our way is so much BETTER, where resolution gets the courts money, lawyers money, emotional pain from those involved, and a resolution that no one is ever happy about but the lawyers. This isn't the pinnacle of society, this is something akin to pig vomit.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
personally i consider this blatant theft but the cops don't know who to charge . i say charge everyone involved from the removal specialist all the way up to bank manager.as a criminal conspiracy. then maybe they would think twice and make sure their ts were crossed and i s were dotted they hit them with A CIVIL TRIAL AFTERWARDS BECAUSE IF I DID EXACT SAME THING I WOULD BE GOING TO JAIL WHY NOT THEM.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
How would this not be a crime?

That would mean this could be done to any house using the excuse of a mistake.


The banks were doing this deliberately. They were basically running automated fore-closure systems.What happened was that the banks decided to slice and dice the safe mortgages (high wage earners) with the high-risk ones (low wage earners) using CFI's or complex financial instruments, and then trade these CFI's as stocks. They figured that these would earn a high safety rating and would be easier to resell. What they didn't count on was that all these earners were related through different industries; construction, oil, manufacturing. When the managers lost their jobs, so did the workers.

At that point, the banks were in a panic and just decided to cut their losses and just foreclose everything they had the smallest investment in. Unfortunately, the banks had lost record of what properties they had bought and sold, so just decided to fire off foreclosure petitions in every direction to see what stuck. This eventually cost them $9.3 billion in lawsuits for those who had bought homes only to have them confiscated.

www.marketwatch.com...

Banks also tried to avoid paying property transfer fees, by maintaining a property holding company and their
own ownership database:

www.stltoday.com... l



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
the bank or contractor made a mistake - they didnt go through an entire neighborhood destroying everything in sight.

accidents are what insurance is for - criminal prosecution is for intent.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by circuitsports
 





accidents are what insurance is for - criminal prosecution is for intent.

If you had seen the house I doubt she even has insurance.
It makes you wonder if the bank has insurance that covers this type of thing.
I'll bet the bank sub contracts the cleanout. Which means the bank is off the hook completely.

Either way it's not fair the owner has to pay retail when the guilty only pay depreciated cost.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I'm sure in civil court it will be the homeowner vs the contractors insurance company and they will cut an easy check.

If the bank was holding the property or something else under there control it would be a different story, but hiring unskilled people to do a job is something of an american tradition now



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join