Ah, I see where you’re confused. See, this isn’t how it actually works. What we say here on this message board does not, in fact, have the force of law. If it did, you’re posts in this thread would totally be on point, because that would, indeed, be a terrible way to run a system of justice. However, that’s not the way our justice system works, so you have nothing to worry about.
I imagine you’re feeling just a little bit silly now, having had that pointed out. That’s alright, we won’t make a big deal about it.
Precisely. If someone isn’t competent to get the house number right, why on earth would I assume they’re competent to compile a thorough and accurate listing of the items they’re removing?
Having the incentive is not sufficient proof of the act. There is also no evidence to believe the bank is guilty of anything more than gross negligence before the fact and bad faith after it, although the evidence for that is pretty damn strong.
Evidence to the contrary, on the victim’s part, is that her claim is pretty damn reasonable, even low. If she were out for more than being made whole, wouldn’t she be asking for a helluva lot more?
POSTER 1: What an outrage! The people responsible should be arrested, and sued, and fired!
POSTER 2: Arrested for what? Sued for what? Are these actual crimes, or torts?
POSTER 1: When I said “arrested,” I wasn’t making a legal argument. Also when i said “sued” I wasn’t talking about actual courts. Sheesh! You’re so technical!
Ooh! We have evidence! I love evidence. So far, all I had was her unsupported claim regarding the contents of her house, I’m thrilled to hear that we now have actual evidence that shows her claimed value is low.
My stuff has value in its rarity, time I spent collecting it, sentimental, emotional, and whatever other value I spent on it. If this happened to me, I’d be asking for a lot more than the face value of the item and if I were on a jury, I’d award at least 10 times whatever the face value is supposed to be to the injured party. Banks will not learn unless you hurt them in their bottom line. A small value will not deter them, will not cause them to change policy, or fire people. They should be happy at the relatively small value being asked for
IOW, no, you don’t live in a house or even a large apartment, never have, so you don’t really have any fucking clue what it costs to replace its contents. That about right?
How you can nevertheless consider the bank to have the same credibility as its victim is simply amazing, even given your unusual life experience.
I have plenty of stuff in MY house, what I don’t have is any idea what this lady had in HER house. There are two conflicting claims, one that it was fully furnished and lived in, the other that it was pretty much cleaned out with the utilities turned off. I don’t know which is the real claim and which is bullshit. For all I know, she moved out a month before the bank fucked up, and this whole thing is a put up job to try and squeeze money from the bank.
Here’s the thing cheesesteak, correct me if I’m wrong but if you were on the jury you would need to decide between giving her $18000 (her claim) or $5000 (the bank’s claim). Based on the behavior of the two parties, who would you think has the more accurate estimate.
I’d go with her because if it were me, I’d claim they took my gold coin collection and of course they didn’t list it. Not really but there’s nothing to stop me from trying that technique to get more out of the bank. Obviously this homeowner is not trying that.
This is not an issue of accurate valuation. It’s about whether or not this was an occupied dwelling, or a vacant, empty house.
This claim is easily, almost trivially, disputable by the homeowner. She knocks down that claim, I’m totally with her on the contents of the house. If she can’t manage to dispute that claim in court, I don’t know how I could possibly believe anything she says about the contents.
Yes, I know I’m putting the burden on the homeowner and not the evil Bank, but that burden comes down to providing copies of your electric bill, so I don’t feel too bad about it.
What is the size/relative value of this home? If the home was actually being lived in full time and was fully furnished prior to this $18,000 seem really low for replacement value–and it’s the homeowner that put forward that number as the replacement value for their belongings.
It seems more likely to me the home was not lived in full time and thus not fully furnished, and perhaps was even in the process of being vacated. But even a home that’s fairly emptied, I think $18,000 is a fair valuation.
I wouldn’t accept anything under $200,000 to replace the contents of my home, personally. If I was the CEO of a small bank I’d probably not bat an eye over cutting a $25,000 check to make this problem go away.
I also wonder why the bank is making issue of “replacement value.” Every homeowner’s insurance policy I’ve ever had has insured my personal possession for replacement value, meaning what it would cost to buy new those same items.
No it isn’t. The bank’s agents have no more right to enter an unoccupied dwelling that an occupied dwelling, just as it is illegal to steal my car whether or not I leave it unlocked. And again, the bank’s story is based on the word of the guys who determined that the house with the mailbox with a large 512 printed on it was actually 509.
Conversion is typically a tort. The criminal version of conversion would be larceny, or one of the varieties of theft – embezzlement, larceny after bailment, etc.
The elements of larceny at common law were:
[ul]
[li]wrongful or fraudulent [/li][li]taking (caption)[/li][li]and moving away (asportation)[/li][li]of personal goods[/li][li]of some intrinsic value[/li][li]belonging to another[/li][li]without his assent[/li][li]with the intention to deprive the actual owner permanently[/li][/ul]
In this case, the bank employees believed that the bank was the actual owner, and were simply responding to the bank’s instructions concerning what to do with its property. No crime there.
I have never heard of criminally negligent conversion.
I agree. Unlocked, utilities off, next door neighbor saying abandoned? And, since the owner was taking no care of her property, how does she know it was the bank that took he oh-so valuable stuff. $18K is crap. The entire contents of my apartment were destroyed and I got was $10K.
I am not saying the Bank isn’t liable for it’s mistake, but she’s trying to con them with that $18K crap. *If her stuff was worth that much, she’d have locked the damn door. *