Exactly. Fuck the bank. If someone disappeared all my worldly possessions right now, I would not be able to provide proof of their value, nor should I be expected to.
It’s important to remember that the bank’s list of stolen items is based on the word of the guys who can’t distinguish between odd and even numbers. I see no reason to give it any credence whatsoever. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me if those asshats were fraudulently submitting incomplete lists and selling choice items for cash on the side. As for the homeowner’s list changing from initial phone call to later written list, that’s hardly surprising. Without a recorded inventory, if I removed most of the stuff from your house and asked you to list it all you’d come up with an incomplete list initially too, and later would realize other items were also taken.
The bank had an opportunity to be given the benefit of the doubt. If they had some protocol in place for accurately identifying a property beyond “this is where my GPS pointed me.” If they had some sort of auditable procedure for recording what items they removed beyond “this is the list our incompetent employees gave us.” But they don’t have that. All they have is management whining about wanting to see receipts and not wanting to pay retail.
The bank says they have a recorded telephone conversation with her, in which she apparently gave a much lower value and/or smaller list of items.
She might argue that once she had a chance to think about it more, she was able to remember more completely the list of items in the house.
She might, and the court might well accept that (and indeed should, in my opinion). Nonetheless, the phone call is evidence.
Sure. And without hearing the recording I can’t opine how well that would be received.
Version 1:
“We’re awfully, sorry, ma’am. Is that everything that was in the house?”
“I think so. It’s hard to tell with everything gone, but I’m pretty sure that was everything.”
Versus:
Version 2:
“We’re awfully, sorry, ma’am. We kept detailed records of what we removed, and we made a video recording as we walked through the house. We faxed that list over to you. Do you agree with it?”
“Yes, that’s everything.”
“You’re sure?”
“Yes, I’m sure.”
“That’s great. Again, we’re sorry.”
“Can I get a copy of that video?”
“Actually, the video was deleted after the list was prepared; we don’t have it any more.”
“Oh, no video? Interesting.”
I would certainly argue that Version 1 was meaningless in terms of proving the correctness or completeness of any list.
Exactly. They both have reason to lie as well. I think there are facts to be had that can help determine the truth of the matter.
The bank isn’t going to be able to prove a negative, they can’t prove that there were no expensive tools in the house. Expecting them to do so is kind of unreasonable.
The homeowner at least has a chance to prove a positive. Photos, receipts, statements from friends and family. Their Electric, Phone and TV would have been hooked up and active up until the Bank visit, contradicting the Bank’s claim that the utilities were off. I’m not talking about proving the ownership of every last pair of socks, but if you had 2 car engines worth $9,000, you might have mentioned it to someone, or taken photos of them, or bought parts for them from someone who keeps records.
I agree; the homeowner should get a good civil attorney, and sue the bank into the ground. Full new replacement value of everything in the house, and some further damages for the PITA of having all your shit thrown out and having to replace it and put it back together into your house.
I am dumbfounded by this sort of stonewalling by a bank over $18,000. Everyone at the bank should go to jail for being too stupid to leave out on the streets.
Not all crimes require intent.
If she is making this all up and was able to limit her greed to $18,000, I would pay and get a waiver from her before the day was out.
If they disagree about how much should be paid to the victims, then why shouldn’t there be a lawsuit? And considering how fucking stupid they are being, why shouldn’t they bleed?
I think a bank that is stupid enough to quibble about this is heading towards ruin anyways.
They are also displaying incredible ill will in HOW they are quibbling.
Yeah probably but any executive that doesn’t step in here and smack somebody on the side of the head for being stupid should probably be smacked themselves.
Not a lot of places have in house litigation teams.
If the homeowner’s story is 18K then I don’t really care who is lying. I would think that tort damages for fucking up that badly are worth more than 18K.
Punitive damages for the way they treated her after the fuck up might be in order as well.
Why, it’s almost as if we should institute some sort of public justice system to appoint disinterested people to hear both sides, examine the evidence and, if I may coin a term, “judge” which side is correct. Have the people involved considered resorting to such a system?
True but utterly irrelevant to Cheesesteak’s claim. Correct: not all crimes require intent.
But the crimes with which the bank officials might be charged DO require intent.
Or were you thinking of some crime that doesn’t require intent that could be charged in this case? What is it?
I used Lee Iacocca as an example because people know who he is, unlike Jürgen Schrempp or Sergio Marchionne. However, since you wanted to play the pedant, it would be rather hard to hold Marchionne accountable for shitty Dodge Neons since the model was discontinued years before Fiat bought Chrysler.
You and your pipe dreams. Sheesh. That kind of system would never work in America.
Me, I think we should just let people on the internet, ones without any real stake in it, decide the fate of the entire bank and all its workers. Sure there may not be an actual intent to commit crimes, but let’s all have an internet vote and send people to jail and destroy their business over a mistake.
What do you have against bank hating? Did someone bank hate you when you were a child or something?
After my father was killed by my uncle and married my mom, I was sent to live with my new parents, the First National Bank of Denmark. Oh those halcyon days! Playing hide and seek amongst the safe deposit boxes. Sneaking pennies from my Auntie and Uncle Tellers. Spending long, lazy summer afternoons at the old fishing hole with my best friends, a pile of secured transaction receipts and notes on neighbor’s mortgages.
Sigh. How I miss those days.
This would be a pretty smart post if it made any sense.
Since these cases are, in fact, decided by a jury, and this thread is just people bloviating meaninglessly, it’s pretty dumb. At first I thought it was someone making fun of your position in a subtle, yet scathing way. Then I realized you made the post.
You are as stupid as you’re coming across, aren’t you? Bless your heart.
What? The idea of a bank being someone’s parents and going fishing with security papers doesn’t make sense to you?
Yes, but I think you’re confused because you don’t understand my position at all. I’m all for the homeowner getting the fair value of the property that was taken and/or destroyed, and if that takes a jury trial, then so be it. It’s not my position that is nonsensical, it’s your somewhat confused take on my position that I fear is causing your problem.
I guess since it’s the pit, you felt the need to make a half-assed attempt at an insult, but if I may suggest you might want to actually pay attention and understand something BEFORE you go to the insults. It makes you look less like a complete idiot.
It would be hilarious if this is happening in a jurisdiction where the bank needs her permission to record the call, and they cannot prove they have said permission. 
If only there was a person who was trained to evaluate claims to determine an accurate and fair value for lost property, and who did it as a full time occupation. Such a person could be of immense value to a company, say an insurance company, who deals with similar situations all of the time. I wonder if either the homeowner or the bank has access to such a person?
Oh honey. 