- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio
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.”
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio
Send them an email. I did:
To: inforesponse@fnbwellston.com
What a JERK!!!!! I hope she gets herself a good lawyer and it costs that bank many times that $18,000. Unbelievable.
That's what I was thinking. If she hires even a bad lawyer, that bank president will be wishing for 18K.
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio
Really!!! How do people this stupid get to be presidents of banks???
That $18,000? I'd have given her THAT plus $5,000. He couldn't BUY the kind of good publicity that would have earned his bank. Swear to God, if that were my bank, I'd be checking out my accounts tomorrow morning and asking to speak to that numbnutz.
Really!!! How do people this stupid get to be presidents of banks???
That $18,000? I'd have given her THAT plus $5,000. He couldn't BUY the kind of good publicity that would have earned his bank. Swear to God, if that were my bank, I'd be checking out my accounts tomorrow morning and asking to speak to that numbnutz.
Well I wouldn't have given her another 5K she didn't ask for. If she came to me, I would've taken the list, heard her 18K figure, excused myself while I "discuss it with legal", went and smoked a cigar in the bathroom, took a dump, came back, and "grudgingly" accepted while I force a pen in her hand to sign a waiver.
You're a used car salesman, aren't ya? :lol:
What a miserable SOB.
I'd expect the lawyers to be lining up at her door any time now.
Companies notoriously have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compensation for those they've wronged. As an example, the Railway Company whose train wreck caused the devastation in the small Quebec town a few weeks back has not contributed any money or effort to the cleanup of the mess they created. This small city, of about 6,000, has had to dip into their reserves and spend $4 million to date to keep the cleanup crews on site and working and the Railway hasn't responded. If an oil company acted this way after a spill, the environmental activists would be marching in the streets but not here, not now.
I get that we live in an overly litigious society and that people and companies must take take to not expose themselves to undo liability. That's just practical reality. But to do nothing as in your example, or to be a dick about it as in the OP, is just unnecessary and uncalled for.
If the companies were smart, such as in the case of BP in the Gulf a few years back, they would find that being proactive has both public relations and legal cost benefits in the long run even if you expose yourself, perhaps unnecessarily, in the short term. In the OP example and likely in the Railway example, courts are going to punish the companies more for their neglect and failure to do the right thing.
If the companies were smart, such as in the case of BP in the Gulf a few years back, they would find that being proactive has both public relations and legal cost benefits in the long run even if you expose yourself, perhaps unnecessarily, in the short term. In the OP example and likely in the Railway example, courts are going to punish the companies more for their neglect and failure to do the right thing.
The problem is that that sort of thinking only really works with well-publicized cases. In most foreclosure cases, a bank that's in the wrong is much better off just dragging its feet (which is pretty much always what they do). The costs to them are negligible, whereas the costs to the homeowner (e.g. ongoing legal fees) can be enormous. In the alternative, an attorney working on spec isn't going to want to do so indefinitely. If they don't see a payday on the horizon, they're not going to want to invest large amounts of their time on the case.
The problem is that that sort of thinking only really works with well-publicized cases. In most foreclosure cases, a bank that's in the wrong is much better off just dragging its feet (which is pretty much always what they do). The costs to them are negligible, whereas the costs to the homeowner (e.g. ongoing legal fees) can be enormous. In the alternative, an attorney working on spec isn't going to want to do so indefinitely. If they don't see a payday on the horizon, they're not going to want to invest large amounts of their time on the case.
If she's willing to take a 50-60% financial hit for the sake of principle, she could file in small claims court. Most states have a roughly $7500 limit and don't allow attorneys. (Not sure what the criteria would be in her state)
"Barnett said that according to the bank president, this was the first time something like this has happened."
Unless this bank is tiny, the bank president is full of ****. This kind of thing has been happening for years. Banks being banks, they're usually assholes about it. She should do what the couple in entry #5 of this list did:
The 5 Most Satisfying Tales of Payback | Cracked.com
That's certainly true (although it's not necessarily that small claims prevent lawyers so much as that normal civil procedure is truncated to the point where most people don't bother with one). The maximum dollar value does vary a lot, though. I just looked it up for Ohio, and it looks like it's a measly $3k, according to this FAQ:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
That'd be a pretty substantial loss from her perspective.
Companies notoriously have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compensation for those they've wronged. As an example, the Railway Company whose train wreck caused the devastation in the small Quebec town a few weeks back has not contributed any money or effort to the cleanup of the mess they created. This small city, of about 6,000, has had to dip into their reserves and spend $4 million to date to keep the cleanup crews on site and working and the Railway hasn't responded. If an oil company acted this way after a spill, the environmental activists would be marching in the streets but not here, not now.
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House
Vinton County Woman Wants Possessions Back After Bank Tried To Repossess Wrong House | WBNS-10TV Columbus, Ohio
Ouch! Yeah, that's too much loss just for principle.
I know at least one state that specifically disallows attorney representation in small claims court, but I'm sure that state is in the minority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?