The reference is to previous apologies to her for this specific incident.
And to answer the OP, I don’t think even the bank is claiming that the GPS is “sufficient legal identification of a property for purposes of entering, taking possession, and disposing of the contents.” They’re just blaming their error on the GPS.
As the saying goes, “If at first you don’t succeed, skydiving’s not for you.” These guys should be fired simply because they have proven themselves incapable of performing the tasks required of them by their employment to the necessary degree of certainty. At best, you could argue that nobody can meet that standard, but that just means the entire job should be abolished and replaced with something that is less subject to catastrophic failure.
If it were just a dumb mistake people wouldn’t be all that upset, because if it were just a dumb mistake the bank would have responded to the request for $18000 with, "We’re very sorry for your inconvenience. Here’s the full amount of your request.
Instead the bank blusters and demands receipts and claims it “won’t pay retail.”
Anyways, not looking at the clearly numbered mailbox to verify the address (picture is in several of the stories) makes this less dumb mistake and more culpable negligence.
So just out of curiousity, how would you have reacted if this happened to you? Would you actually have said “Well, clearly I’ve been wronged here but I’m going to let the bank have this one because there’s just too much recreational outrage these days”?
Hamlet, the others have summed it up here pretty well but since you were awfully nice in your request, I’ll respond to your post and why I thought it was one of the stupidest things I ever read on here.
Nobody is calling for blood. Nobody is being outraged just for fun. Somebody’s house was ransacked, everything thrown away, and the law has basically said to these folks “sucks to be you.” The only recourse this person has is through the cival court legal system, even though someone here was obviously criminally culpable for breaking and entering, and theft/destruction of private property. Getting mad at legitimately bad things is not recreational outrage. Getting mad at your barista because your chai latte was 2 degrees warmer than you wanted is recreational outrage. Learn the fucking difference.
It shouldn’t be surprising when that “something wrong” is breaking into your house, taking all your shit, the town/county cops turning a blind eye to it, and then having that person responsible tell you that you are exaggerating your claim and they aren’t going to pay you for what they took and destroyed. The mere “show us the receipts” bit is contemptible enough. That alone is worth the outrage.
If you honestly think that suing someone for compensation when they’ve broken into your house and stolen and destroyed all of your shit is an example of a frivolous lawsuit, you sir/madam are one of the stupidest individuals I have ever had the misfortune of coming into contact with.
Honestly I think that’s a little harsh.
To be fair, this is recreational outrage as is typically defined on these boards: there’s no real difference of opinion and no one here was actually affected. Recreation outrage is when someone posts about some terrible thing so that we can all be indignant together. That’s a type of entertainment, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I mean, it may be mildly self-indulgent, but I enjoy a good pearl-clutch as much as the next woman, and I am not going to feel bad about it.
Whether or not it was a terrible event is irrelevant. The term “recreational outrage” was coined back in the day to describe threads decrying horrible murders.
I was thinking 18K was rather low ball until I read the house was nearly empty. Still, it really doesn’t take much to add up to an 18K replacement cost.
The contents of my house (nothing fancy at all) are insured for a good deal more than 18K.
I’ve had the opposite experience. The moving company told me people often do. You know, reasonable people like me.
On my last corporate move (you know, vetted companies, not fly-by-night movers) they thought I was crazy with my insurance declaration of USD $40,000 (it was a 20’ container, nearly full). When they gave me a guide, it really opened my eyes. I mean, my stuff isn’t junk, it’s just that to me “used” (i.e., my stuff) is valueless. No wonder I sell nearly instantly on Craigslist.
The idea is replacement cost for like goods. Not new goods. Like goods.
Hamlet, just out of the curiosity of someone burdened by lack of formal training in the law, under what legal theory is the bank *not *liable for its negligence, under *no *obligation to make its victim whole?
Damn right they’re gonna pay retail. Making her whole means replacement cost, for everything. They should consider themselves lucky not to get stuck with punitive damages, if they stay on this course. The bad PR is already worth far more than $18K, too.
Heh. I’m mostly basing my opinion on either people trying to replace clothes, or as a private buyer of used goods. I like to browse garage sales and thrift shops and online stores. Thrift shops will have guidelines for pricing items, but when people hold garage sales or put stuff on eBay a lot of them seem to think that things GAIN value over time.
Your stuff isn’t valueless, but in most cases it’s worth much less than it was new.
Unfortunately, my house is lived in, with the utilities on, the lawn mowed, and the door locked when we’re not there, so the chances of it being mistaken for an abandoned property are really kinda slim. Also, my neighbors would all be able to inform these people that the lot isn’t abandoned, and there is a wide range of property located in the house, including a couple big screen televisions, a master bath with a nice little whirlpool, and most of the amenities that would be hints that maybe the place isn’t abandoned.
Now, if you mean to ask if somehow I owned a house that I didn’t keep up and stored some stuff in a couple dressers? Well, I certainly wouldn’t leave $18,000 worth of stuff in an unlocked, abandoned house, that’s for sure.
But if I somehow did own a house that I abandoned and I stored stuff in it that was somehow important to me, but not worth locking up, I’d ask for a fair amount of that stuff. I’m guessing it’s not close to $18,000.
Are you used to leaving $18,000 worth of stuff in an unlocked, abandoned house?
That’s the bank’s story. The woman’s story is that she was on vacation for a couple weeks and so the grass was high. And there are still parts of the country where no one locks their houses.
And in any case, does it matter? Does a person really have to make sure their house looks lived in in the right sort of way, get to know their neighbors in the right sort of way, have the right sort of stuff just to protect against random raiding?
Final question: Everything in your house can be sold on the street for $10,000. However, to buy used goods that are the same, and satisfy you to the same degree, would take literally months of scouring garage sales, thrift stores, and craigslist. Do you really think that a check for $10,000 makes you whole again?
That’s very kind of you.
The very comment I quoted said: “Make the bank bleed. …” I admit to being a touch confused how you can conclude no one is calling for blood, when the very post I quoted says that.
I’m sure you’ve been around long enough to know that the Pit is mostly a bunch of people, including myself, being outraged just for fun.
Someone’s abandoned house with stuff they apparently didn’t need enough to lock up was cleaned out. I’m not denying that, nor am I denying that the bank should be required to pay for all the stuff it threw away. What I am railing against, and what is clearly not stupid, is the hyperinflated calls to run the bank into the ground.
Now I’m out of my depths, because I only read the link in the OP and I didn’t know that “the law” had done that. While you are being ever so kind, could you help me out by showing me how the law has refused to do anything about this mistake? Because from what I read, it seems to be an argument over how much some stuff stored in an abandoned, unlocked house is worth, not a finding that the homeowner has no recourse at all.
I really don’t want to get all Brickeresque here, but I’m having trouble with the “criminally culpable” part. Again, from what I read in the link in the OP, it was a mistake, and there was no criminal intent to violate anyone’s rights, steal anyone’s property, or enter anyone’s property without permission. I admit to not being up to speed, and maybe the bank’s covering it’s ass with incorrect factual statements, but I’m not really seeing the “obvious” criminal culpability. Have charges been filed? Has law enforcement stepped in?
Again, in your effort to work up your froth, you misunderstood my post. Of course the bank should be required to compensate the owner of the abandoned house for the property that wasn’t important enough to lock up. It was clearly a mistake, the "home"owner was damaged, and he/she should be compensated for their loss.
But inflamed rhetoric about everybody losing their jobs, making the bank bleed, and the rest is just plain silly. Almost as silly as leaving $18,000 worth of stuff in an unlocked, abandoned house.
No, of course not. But calling for executives to lose their jobs and banks to be run into the ground over what is an admitted mistake is the over the top crap that every ambulance chaser and keyboard recreational outrage whores love.
Nope, I’d expect replacement value, and I think the bank should pay replacement value. But the bank shouldn’t be run into the ground, they shouldn’t have to pay huge punitive damages, and executives shouldn’t lose their jobs over it either.
And they could avoid all suggestion of those things simply by paying up. THAT is the problem, and it’s disappointing that you’re not quite seeing it.
They’ve said they’re willing to “pay up”. They disagree that the stuff they took and destroyed was worth $18,000. I have absolutely no problem with the homeowner suing them and getting the fair value of what was taken and destroyed. Where I do have a problem is the calls to ruin the bank, fire the executives, and the other reactionary, hyperinflated rhetoric that seems to permeate these kinds of threads.
They’re not willing to pay up the amount it will take for the victim of their negligence to be made whole. They have instead chosen to stonewall. THAT, to repeat, is the problem here.
Your own problem, the source of the criticism of you, is based on your contemptuously ignorant dismissal of that problem and of anyone who recognizes it. You’d do well to try to grasp that.
They’re not willing to pay the amount the homeowner claims will make her whole. Whether or not that is the correct amount is the basis for the dispute.
If the bank offered $5,000 and she refused, would you claim she is not willing to accept the amount that will make her whole?
Nothing makes her version of the contents inherently more reliable than the banks version, and vice versa.
Well, there’s the fact that she lived there. :dubious: And the fact that she acquired all the stuff herself, and presumably knew what she paid for it, and has a good idea of the cost to replace it. And the fact that the bank’s workers threw out a bunch of it. And that there was apparently no inventory taken when they executed the bank’s order even before they threw it out. That good enough to constitute a preponderance of evidence for ya?