If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WSAZ West Virginia)   Teacher of the year has everything in her house repossessed. The person whose stuff was SUPPOSED to be repossessed is still drinking beer and watching Here Comes Honey Boo Boo on their big screen   (wsaz.com) divider line 190
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

15759 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2013 at 1:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 11:48:01 PM
Why weren't they arrested for breaking and entering, and burglary?  Because mistake or not, that's what that farking is.
 
2013-08-28 12:11:49 AM

basemetal: Why weren't they arrested for breaking and entering, and burglary?  Because mistake or not, that's what that farking is.


Why do you hate America?
 
2013-08-28 12:14:43 AM

basemetal: Why weren't they arrested for breaking and entering, and burglary?  Because mistake or not, that's what that farking is.


If the bank gave the wrong address it should really fall on them.  My GED in law suggests that Mens Rea should protect the repossession company if the actually removed the stuff from the address they were assigned.  Of course, if they were given a manifest of stuff to look for and the contents of the home didn't match, and they continued to do it anyway, they could definitely be brought up on negligence charges.

Even if it isn't a criminal matter, it should be a slam dunk civil case.  She's be wise to make as much noise as possible and get the media behind her when she finds out which bank authorized it, and start dragging them through the mud until she gets a settlement that more than pays to replace everything she had in the home.
 
2013-08-28 12:25:59 AM
The person who's stuff was SUPPOSED to be repossessed is still drinking beer and watching Here Comes Honey Boo Boo on their big screen

Subby's mom?
 
2013-08-28 12:35:37 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Of course, if they were given a manifest of stuff to look for and the contents of the home didn't match, and they continued to do it anyway, they could definitely be brought up on negligence charges.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's not how forclosure repossessions work.  A bank claims a house, then they send a "clearing" company to clean it out.  Since the bank usually can't be bothered to keep copies of keys, they bring a locksmith with them, legally break into the house, and throw out everything inside it.

Article is light on details, but this wasn't Rent-A-Center getting their stuff back.  It was a bank that thought they were repossessing a foreclosure property.
 
2013-08-28 12:48:21 AM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: Of course, if they were given a manifest of stuff to look for and the contents of the home didn't match, and they continued to do it anyway, they could definitely be brought up on negligence charges.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's not how forclosure repossessions work.  A bank claims a house, then they send a "clearing" company to clean it out.  Since the bank usually can't be bothered to keep copies of keys, they bring a locksmith with them, legally break into the house, and throw out everything inside it.

Article is light on details, but this wasn't Rent-A-Center getting their stuff back.  It was a bank that thought they were repossessing a foreclosure property.


In which case it looks like company that cleared out the house isn't to blame (assuming that their claim that the bank gave them the wrong address is true) but she should have a nice claim against the bank that ordered it.
 
2013-08-28 01:00:07 AM

TuteTibiImperes: In which case it looks like company that cleared out the house isn't to blame (assuming that their claim that the bank gave them the wrong address is true) but she should have a nice claim against the bank that ordered it.


img13.imageshack.us

They'll probably have to pay her the dollar amount she was insured for (if anything) and an extra 5 grand for the "inconvenience."

But let's pretend after two years and a very patient contingency lawyer she wins a pain and suffering lawsuit for a million dollars.  33% will go to the attorney, another 20% (at least) will go to expenses for the case, and she'll get $470,000 extra at best.  40% of that is going towards taxes, so she'll end up with $282K to have her entire life delivered to the bottom of a dump.

And that million dollars?  That's not even a rounding error to the bank.  That's what they set aside for coffee at the home office building for the month of January, and they'll just pay that invoice late.

What SHOULD happen in a case like this is that the bank gets hit with a $100 million dollar judgement, but those are always reduced on appeal because in most cases, they are illegal.
 
2013-08-28 01:10:34 AM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: In which case it looks like company that cleared out the house isn't to blame (assuming that their claim that the bank gave them the wrong address is true) but she should have a nice claim against the bank that ordered it.

[562x437 from http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4049/7o8u.jpg image 562x437]

They'll probably have to pay her the dollar amount she was insured for (if anything) and an extra 5 grand for the "inconvenience."

But let's pretend after two years and a very patient contingency lawyer she wins a pain and suffering lawsuit for a million dollars.  33% will go to the attorney, another 20% (at least) will go to expenses for the case, and she'll get $470,000 extra at best.  40% of that is going towards taxes, so she'll end up with $282K to have her entire life delivered to the bottom of a dump.

And that million dollars?  That's not even a rounding error to the bank.  That's what they set aside for coffee at the home office building for the month of January, and they'll just pay that invoice late.

What SHOULD happen in a case like this is that the bank gets hit with a $100 million dollar judgement, but those are always reduced on appeal because in most cases, they are illegal.


Which is why it would be a good case to take to the court of public opinion.  Make enough fuss about it, create enough bad PR, and hopefully pressure the bank into a generous settlement without going through the expense of a trial.

Hell, even if she does go through a trial and gets $282K free and clear, that's likely far more than the contents of the house, and even the house itself (considering this is small town WV) was worth.

It's odd that banks just trash everything though.  You'd think they'd want to stuff it in a storage locker to give the owner a chance to buy it back, or if not that just send it to auction to help recoup some of their losses.  Of course, banks also just foreclose and dump houses below market value instead of holding onto them until the market comes back, they're evidently not that concerned with maximum return as much as they are with getting their money quickly even if it means less of it.
 
2013-08-28 01:12:41 AM

TuteTibiImperes: If the bank gave the wrong address it should really fall on them.


Yes. Arrest the bankers for conspiracy to commit grand larceny and the repo-men as accessories.
 
2013-08-28 01:15:18 AM

Lsherm: What SHOULD happen in a case like this is that the bank gets hit with a $100 million dollar judgement,


No. What should happen is the bankers, the repo men, and any lawyers they retain are sent to the dump with shovels to get that shiat back.
 
2013-08-28 01:42:22 AM
This could easily have been prevented if we had laws that made sure the CEO of the company that farked up is taken out and hung until dead.  The next CEO will make damned sure mistakes can't happen or we'll kill him too.
 
2013-08-28 01:42:37 AM
Moral of the story: Don't leave your home.
 
2013-08-28 01:46:10 AM
Like none of you have ever made a mistake at your job... Granted, this is a bit more consequential than refilling the Slurpee tanks, but still
 
2013-08-28 01:46:54 AM
You know what they do to black people who break, enter and steal?

Farking bankers.

Tar.

Feathers.

Musketballs.

Faces.
 
2013-08-28 01:47:16 AM

doglover: Lsherm: What SHOULD happen in a case like this is that the bank gets hit with a $100 million dollar judgement,

No. What should happen is the bankers, the repo men, and any lawyers they retain are sent to the dump with shovels to get that shiat back.


That was exactly my thought. Make them wade through dirty diapers and food waste to get back her irreplaceable items, and compensate her for the rest. Farking scumbags.
 
2013-08-28 01:47:59 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It's odd that banks just trash everything though.  You'd think they'd want to stuff it in a storage locker to give the owner a chance to buy it back, or if not that just send it to auction to help recoup some of their losses.  Of course, banks also just foreclose and dump houses below market value instead of holding onto them until the market comes back, they're evidently not that concerned with maximum return as much as they are with getting their money quickly even if it means less of it.


Banks lend.  That's all they do.  They have been avoiding foreclosures because they do not want the expense of the upkeep of a property.  If they cannot sell a house to cover a loss, they keep it on the books as delinquent, which they can declare as a loss when they file taxes and remove liability.  So a house sold at $500,000 that can now only be sold for $50,000 can still be written off as a $100,000 loss each year for a delinquent borrower.  If they can't cover the spread, they are better off pushing off the liability on the borrower.  Plus, if they never transfer the title, then they aren't liable if the house falls into disrepair, and they can sue the borrower if the borrower moves, stops paying the mortgage, and doesn't take care of the house.  They've been doing this throughout Florida for the past 8 years.

If the bank doesn't give you a piece of paper saying your debt has been forgiven and you will not be liable for it, then you cannot walk away from your house.  But the bank doesn't want your house because the market doesn't want your house, either.  So you only come out ahead if so many people don't want your house that you can stay there indefinitely.
 
2013-08-28 01:50:16 AM
And bullshiat it "all went to the dump". That's not how these crews work. Anything not immediately liquid or wanted by them went to the dump.

Since when in the fark are private companies acting like Marshals, entering homes and whatnot?

And 100:1 says owner of company is a Republican.
 
2013-08-28 01:51:21 AM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: It's odd that banks just trash everything though.  You'd think they'd want to stuff it in a storage locker to give the owner a chance to buy it back, or if not that just send it to auction to help recoup some of their losses.  Of course, banks also just foreclose and dump houses below market value instead of holding onto them until the market comes back, they're evidently not that concerned with maximum return as much as they are with getting their money quickly even if it means less of it.

Banks lend.  That's all they do.  They have been avoiding foreclosures because they do not want the expense of the upkeep of a property.  If they cannot sell a house to cover a loss, they keep it on the books as delinquent, which they can declare as a loss when they file taxes and remove liability.  So a house sold at $500,000 that can now only be sold for $50,000 can still be written off as a $100,000 loss each year for a delinquent borrower.  If they can't cover the spread, they are better off pushing off the liability on the borrower.  Plus, if they never transfer the title, then they aren't liable if the house falls into disrepair, and they can sue the borrower if the borrower moves, stops paying the mortgage, and doesn't take care of the house.  They've been doing this throughout Florida for the past 8 years.

If the bank doesn't give you a piece of paper saying your debt has been forgiven and you will not be liable for it, then you cannot walk away from your house.  But the bank doesn't want your house because the market doesn't want your house, either.  So you only come out ahead if so many people don't want your house that you can stay there indefinitely.


Well put...
 
2013-08-28 01:52:51 AM

buckler: doglover: Lsherm: What SHOULD happen in a case like this is that the bank gets hit with a $100 million dollar judgement,

No. What should happen is the bankers, the repo men, and any lawyers they retain are sent to the dump with shovels to get that shiat back.

That was exactly my thought. Make them wade through dirty diapers and food waste to get back her irreplaceable items, and compensate her for the rest. Farking scumbags.


Any wrongful entry, cops, banks, whatever. Needs to be triply compensated.
 
2013-08-28 01:59:10 AM
Time for people to start booby trapping their doors, that will start to make police think about their no knock warrants we've heard all too much about, and make companies triple check addresses when a few of them start getting blown up/shot/maimed. Plus it would make for some good LOL stories on Fark.
 
2013-08-28 02:00:53 AM
If I was the "junk" hauling guy:

My first impression?

"I'd let my house get repo-d too"

I base this solely on the floor coverings.
/first impressions
 
2013-08-28 02:02:52 AM

basemetal: Why weren't they arrested for breaking and entering, and burglary?  Because mistake or not, that's what that farking is.


Because the Banksters do not get arrested in this country for doing their job......even if it is a mistake.
 
2013-08-28 02:04:33 AM
Wouldn't it be more sensible if, when a house is repossessed, they just change the locks or something and keep it locked (but otherwise untouched) for a week or so, just to be doubly damn sure they didn't fark up, instead of risking this?
 
2013-08-28 02:04:50 AM
Was at Target with the wife one night.  My cell rang.  It was a  guy who said, "I am at your house to pick up your Equinox for non payment."  I told him I was making payments on time.  He's like, "All I know is I have a pickup order."  I talked him into waiting until the next morning and he agreed to let me talk to the bank.  Seems that CITI bank had sold my note to someone else and they didn't inform me and I had been sending my checks to them.  What the hell they did with them is anyone's guess. I was 3 months behind and the 4th one was due.  I got it straightened out the next morning over the phone, but it really hit my credit hard.  Almost screwed me getting my present house.  CITI sends me an application once in a while, I feel like taking a big dump, wiping my ass with it and sending it back to them.  I hate mega banks.  I'll never deal with them again.
 
2013-08-28 02:06:49 AM

Lsherm: That's not how forclosure repossessions work.  A bank claims a house, then they send a "clearing" company to clean it out.  Since the bank usually can't be bothered to keep copies of keys, they bring a locksmith with them, legally break into the house, and throw out everything inside it.


I don't mean any offense to you, but it sounds like your state is a godforsaken corporate hellhole.

In my state:

*Tenant has 90 days after foreclosure to vacate.
*As long as a tenant occupies the premises (rightfully or not) the landlord may only enter for maintenance and inspection, requires 24 hours advance notice.
*Changing locks while a tenant occupies the premises (rightfully or not) is a felony offense.
*Items may only be removed from dwelling by sheriff's deputies, are placed on the lawn, and must sit for 7 days before the landlord is allowed to remove them from premises.
*Items removed by landlord in a manner other than above is a crime.

It sure does make foreclosure a huge pain in the ass, but frankly I'm OK with that. When did our society start believing that lawsuits were the first recourse instead of the last? I'd much rather the bank and the owner work out their differences outside of the courts.
 
2013-08-28 02:07:33 AM
Even if it was the correct house, how is taking her stuff to the DUMP part of the business model of a REPOSSESSION business.  It just doesn't make financial sense.  They should put the goods in storage and hold on to them until debts have been reconciled.  How the heck does this make financial sense to drive over there, pick up her stuff, drive to the tip, and dump her stuff there.  It just sounds punitive.

I guess the repo business get paid no matter what they do so they just take the most expedient method (??)
 
2013-08-28 02:08:45 AM

LordJiro: Wouldn't it be more sensible if, when a house is repossessed, they just change the locks or something and keep it locked (but otherwise untouched) for a week or so, just to be doubly damn sure they didn't fark up, instead of risking this?


No no - that's how it used to be.  Now, squatters may have taken over the house, or it could have been abandoned years ago.  The bank that owns the mortgage may not even be in the same country, so the logistics would be impossible.

It's much better just to bring a locksmith and empty out a house no matter what.

/end sarcasm.
 
2013-08-28 02:10:25 AM

ozzie_stu: Even if it was the correct house, how is taking her stuff to the DUMP part of the business model of a REPOSSESSION business.  It just doesn't make financial sense.  They should put the goods in storage and hold on to them until debts have been reconciled.  How the heck does this make financial sense to drive over there, pick up her stuff, drive to the tip, and dump her stuff there.  It just sounds punitive.

I guess the repo business get paid no matter what they do so they just take the most expedient method (??)


And you KNOW the bank is going to hire the cheapest company they can.  Gotta think of the stockholders!
 
2013-08-28 02:10:38 AM

Bigdogdaddy:   I'll never deal with them again.


They own America, from top to bottom now. You will deal with them your whole life.

How's that usury thing working out for you, Western Civilization?
 
2013-08-28 02:11:44 AM

Fubini: Lsherm: That's not how forclosure repossessions work.  A bank claims a house, then they send a "clearing" company to clean it out.  Since the bank usually can't be bothered to keep copies of keys, they bring a locksmith with them, legally break into the house, and throw out everything inside it.

I don't mean any offense to you, but it sounds like your state is a godforsaken corporate hellhole.

In my state:

*Tenant has 90 days after foreclosure to vacate.
*As long as a tenant occupies the premises (rightfully or not) the landlord may only enter for maintenance and inspection, requires 24 hours advance notice.
*Changing locks while a tenant occupies the premises (rightfully or not) is a felony offense.
*Items may only be removed from dwelling by sheriff's deputies, are placed on the lawn, and must sit for 7 days before the landlord is allowed to remove them from premises.
*Items removed by landlord in a manner other than above is a crime.

It sure does make foreclosure a huge pain in the ass, but frankly I'm OK with that. When did our society start believing that lawsuits were the first recourse instead of the last? I'd much rather the bank and the owner work out their differences outside of the courts.


I don't actually live in Florida, I'm in Virginia.  But Virginia is also a "recourse" state, which means most of the same rules apply.

The last two laws you mentioned would have been violated in your state, but those are state laws.  And since they sound like rental laws, not home mortgage repossessions, even they might not apply.
 
2013-08-28 02:14:22 AM

Apik0r0s: Bigdogdaddy:   I'll never deal with them again.

They own America, from top to bottom now. You will deal with them your whole life.

How's that usury thing working out for you, Western Civilization?


I have learned how to use the internet to check out financial institutions especially.  It made a huge difference when buying my home.  Of course, if someone takes over you're screwed and all the rules change.
 
2013-08-28 02:18:06 AM

LordJiro: Wouldn't it be more sensible if, when a house is repossessed, they just change the locks or something and keep it locked (but otherwise untouched) for a week or so, just to be doubly damn sure they didn't fark up, instead of risking this?


No, because then you'll get frail and infirm people standing outside all night  (in searing heat | in freezing cold | without their meds). Also, as far as I know legally, preventing people from accessing their stuff is basically the same as criminally stealing it.

What they do need is a huge orange sticker that they slap on every door into the dwelling, with a statement and a contact number, and let that sit for a week. But that would cost too much, I'm sure.
 
2013-08-28 02:21:48 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Like none of you have ever made a mistake at your job... Granted, this is a bit more consequential than refilling the Slurpee tanks, but still


when you are a repo man, you KNOW that if you are at the wrong house, you are committing burglary.  Its something you REALIZE.  you make damn sure that you have the right address.

The bank is not at fault here, the BANK did not go to the wrong house.

also... the lawyers are TRYING to determine which bank ordered the reposession?  Put the repo man in jail, he will tell you real fast.   Otherwise they could just walk into anyones house and claim "a secret bank" told them to repossess everything in it.
 
2013-08-28 02:21:53 AM

TuteTibiImperes: basemetal: Why weren't they arrested for breaking and entering, and burglary?  Because mistake or not, that's what that farking is.

If the bank gave the wrong address it should really fall on them.  My GED in law suggests that Mens Rea should protect the repossession company if the actually removed the stuff from the address they were assigned.  Of course, if they were given a manifest of stuff to look for and the contents of the home didn't match, and they continued to do it anyway, they could definitely be brought up on negligence charges.

Even if it isn't a criminal matter, it should be a slam dunk civil case.  She's be wise to make as much noise as possible and get the media behind her when she finds out which bank authorized it, and start dragging them through the mud until she gets a settlement that more than pays to replace everything she had in the home.


I say she gets to repossess everything in the bank.
 
2013-08-28 02:22:46 AM
FTFA:
"Nikki Bailey got home from visiting her best friend in the hospital just in time to see the repossession company leaving."

How about following the company who had her stuff?
 
2013-08-28 02:22:50 AM
Apik0r0s:

How's that usury thing working out for you, Western Civilization?

I don't know, people still go for it. It boggles the mind to have a co-worker ask for a ride to a "check cashing place" but, what do you do? I just shrug it off. Was I suppose to loan the guy $1000.00? I don't think so. Even if I did make a contract with the guy, and he pays, how do I go on working with him?

Now, if I offer a loan at discounted rate, he remembers how I lift $50.00 off him a week? Even if a discount is offered, resentment is certain.

I guess it's best to just mire in the stink of it.
 
2013-08-28 02:23:44 AM

Gosling: TuteTibiImperes: basemetal: Why weren't they arrested for breaking and entering, and burglary?  Because mistake or not, that's what that farking is.

If the bank gave the wrong address it should really fall on them.  My GED in law suggests that Mens Rea should protect the repossession company if the actually removed the stuff from the address they were assigned.  Of course, if they were given a manifest of stuff to look for and the contents of the home didn't match, and they continued to do it anyway, they could definitely be brought up on negligence charges.

Even if it isn't a criminal matter, it should be a slam dunk civil case.  She's be wise to make as much noise as possible and get the media behind her when she finds out which bank authorized it, and start dragging them through the mud until she gets a settlement that more than pays to replace everything she had in the home.

I say she gets to repossess everything in the bank.


I seem to remember a guy that was illegally foreclosed on by Wells Fargo suing them, winning, and then foreclosing on one of their branches when they failed to pay the award he won...
 
2013-08-28 02:24:40 AM
imageshack.us
 
2013-08-28 02:24:53 AM
I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet that no one is even sure which bank "ordered" the repo. If I walk into a random bank and clean it out, I get in trouble. Yet any random bank can clean my house out, and get away with it. If there were any way to save the country (there isn't), the first step would be outlawing banking, the next step would be outlawing the practice of law as a profession, and the third would be stringing up every politician from the nearest tree. It's not going to happen, of course, but nothing short of that is going to work.
 
2013-08-28 02:25:34 AM

Apik0r0s: And bullshiat it "all went to the dump". That's not how these crews work. Anything not immediately liquid or wanted by them went to the dump.

Since when in the fark are private companies acting like Marshals, entering homes and whatnot?

And 100:1 says owner of company is a Republican.


He owns a business, of course he's a Republican.
 
2013-08-28 02:26:51 AM
Money is a means of exchange, not a product.

When this is understood, we can all move on to Star Trek.
 
2013-08-28 02:27:53 AM
Yes, I am sure her quality stuff is at the dump. The repo guys would have no use for a $5000 bedroom set or leather recliner, etc. Craig's List was probably invented by repo guys.
 
2013-08-28 02:28:02 AM
Her stuff was not repossessed it was stolen.. and it didnt evaporate so where the fark is it and why has she not got it back yet.
 
2013-08-28 02:29:21 AM
I would love to read this story happening in Texas except the owner has a gun and catches them in the act
 
2013-08-28 02:30:09 AM

Apik0r0s: Money is a means of exchange, not a product.

When this is understood, we can all move on to Star Trek.


Star Trek referenced money in the first season and most of the second season. They talked about getting paid and such. Money didn't really disappear from the Star Trek universe until after the real show ended and all the loser wannabes (tng, etc) started.
 
2013-08-28 02:31:03 AM

gaspode: Her stuff was not repossessed it was stolen.. and it didnt evaporate so where the fark is it and why has she not got it back yet.


Because they took it to the dump. Even if she could separate it from the rest of the stuff in the dump at this point, I don't think it would be very useful. Also, anything valuable likely didn't make it to the dump, and has already been sold by now.
 
2013-08-28 02:32:05 AM

99.998er: Yes, I am sure her quality stuff is at the dump. The repo guys would have no use for a $5000 bedroom set or leather recliner, etc. Craig's List was probably invented by repo guys.


Shoulda refreshed so I coulda just said "this".
 
2013-08-28 02:32:06 AM

OhioUGrad: Time for people to start booby trapping their doors, that will start to make police think about their no knock warrants we've heard all too much about, and make companies triple check addresses when a few of them start getting blown up/shot/maimed. Plus it would make for some good LOL stories on Fark.


Katko v. Briney. 183 N.W. 2d 657 .
 
2013-08-28 02:32:07 AM

Apik0r0s: Money is a means of exchange, not a product.

When this is understood, we can all move on to Star Trek.


That's too many words for a catch phrase here. Also, catchphrases should not include the word "is" on the basis that it potentially has several meanings, and may need too be defined in order to be understood.
 
2013-08-28 02:32:54 AM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: In which case it looks like company that cleared out the house isn't to blame (assuming that their claim that the bank gave them the wrong address is true) but she should have a nice claim against the bank that ordered it.



They'll probably have to pay her the dollar amount she was insured for (if anything) and an extra 5 grand for the "inconvenience."

But let's pretend after two years and a very patient contingency lawyer she wins a pain and suffering lawsuit for a million dollars.  33% will go to the attorney, another 20% (at least) will go to expenses for the case, and she'll get $470,000 extra at best.  40% of that is going towards taxes, so she'll end up with $282K to have her entire life delivered to the bottom of a dump.

And that million dollars?  That's not even a rounding error to the bank.  That's what they set aside for coffee at the home office building for the month of January, and they'll just pay that invoice late.

What SHOULD happen in a case like this is that the bank gets hit with a $100 million dollar judgement, but those are always reduced on appeal because in most cases, they are illegal.


P&S is not taxed the same as regular income, just fyi
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report