Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

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.

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. after his brother, a one-time business partner, sued him.

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.

Pictures

[Peikko 1,575]

He'll end up paying regardless. Just because he flattens the asset, doesn't mean he doesn't owe for that asset - he's an idiot.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

He'll end up paying regardless. Just because he flattens the asset, doesn't mean he doesn't owe for that asset - he's an idiot.

True, but he can't pay what he does not have...

The bank loses in the end...

[Peikko 1,575]

True, but he can't pay what he does not have...

The bank loses in the end...

Not really, it's more like cutting off your nose to spite your face than sensible course of action for someone genuinely frustrated due to something outside of his own control. The banks will get what they can always.

[natty bumppo 297]

that is one was to clean house ...

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Not really, it's more like cutting off your nose to spite your face than sensible course of action for someone genuinely frustrated due to something outside of his own control. The banks will get what they can always.

The key phrase here is "what they can", if he has no assets the banks get nothing...

[Peikko 1,575]

The article clearly states he has other assets. He'll pay.

[Ali G. 37]

Or he'll go to prison for ###### with the IRS.

As I said the other day, a newer bigger idiot wakes up each day here and evidently thinks, how can I outdo yesterdays fool.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

Or both and then he'll be learning to fly small planes in order to register his displeasure.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Or both and then he'll be learning to fly small planes in order to register his displeasure.

As long as he owns the plane....

[Peikko 1,575]

Obviously, because flattening houses and flying private planes into public buildings are legitimate and sensible courses of action in such circumstances.

As long as you 'own' them, of course.

[Ali G. 37]

Obviously, because flattening houses and flying private planes into public buildings are legitimate and sensible courses of action in such circumstances.

As long as you 'own' them, of course.

I wouldn't be surprised if various blogs and talkshows defend both of these actions.

[Peikko 1,575]

They'll be some along here soon

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

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 is what i find really disturbing. the bank could have the note settled yet they are greedy.

[justashooter 430]

as long as the bank can get 170K$ for the land, they have no recourse. that is all he owed them.

in many areas a decent buildable lot is worth that much.