Do you believe the bank’s representatives knew that the house didn’t belong to the bank? Do you picture that they decided to break into someone’s home and move their possessions into the trash? For what purpose?
You mean the photos and receipts that the bank destroyed when they broke into her house, right?
No one is saying they deliberately set out to harm this woman, just that their utter and complete lack of diligence (ie, looking at the address on the mailbox) is what caused the situation.
Sure they didn’t mean to harm her but they did and someone should be responsible.
Yes, of course, and I have no doubt that the bank will indeed be held responsible, in a civil suit, or a settlement.
But I was responding to this sequence about crimes:
[Quote=Damuri Ajashi]
Not all crimes require intent.
[/quote]
And then to this post:
So as mistaken as those guys were, they weren’t criminals.
Bricker, isn’t it theft after they have admitted that the property wasn’t theirs? The intent to defraud or whatever you call it, now exists. It may not have existed at the moment they took and destroyed all the stuff, but surely it is theft now that they know the stuff wasn’t theirs, right?
Tell me if I would be guilty of any criminal act if the following occured:
Bob tells me he accidentally left his 500GB harddrive sitting around in the nearby coffee shop. But he says he doesn’t need it anymore, and he owes me some money anyway, so he says if I go and get it, I can keep it. I take him up on his offer, go to the coffee lounge, find the harddrive he described, and I take it. I hang around the coffee shop for a few minutes and then the owner of the shop makes an announcement that someone has stolen his 500GB harddrive that matches the description and location of the harddrive I took. Now I start to wonder, is this harddrive actually Bob’s at all? Or does it belong to the owner? Oh well, Bob said I could take it, and when I did, I didn’t have any intent to defraud the owner of the coffee shop, so I decide to just walk out with it.
Assuming the rightful owner of the harddrive was in fact the coffee shop owner, and Bob lied to me and essentially tricked me into stealing something from someone, have I committed any crime, or am I off the hook for criminal prosecution because of the lack of intent at the time I took the harddrive, even though I had good reason to believe afterwards that it really wasn’t Bob’s at all? What if I went back to Bob and he told me “yeah that’s not my harddrive!” Have I committed a criminal offense if I then don’t return the harddrive or pay the coffee shop owner for it?
I linked to theOhio Criminal Trespass law here. Could you comment on whether it would apply in this case? I think the definition of ‘knowlingly’, and possibly ‘remain’ would be important.
Drew, I don’t believe the Bank realized it was the wrong house, then continued taking stuff and/or destroying stuff, instead of putting it back. By the time they realized the mistake, the stuff was gone. In your scenario, you knew (or had a strong suspicion) you picked up someone else’s property, and chose to leave with it.
If they did realize they were at the wrong house, and kept taking stuff, I would support criminal charges.
OK, I’m sold on the criminal aspects. She should still be able to sue the idiots. I mean, we do agree that theya re idiots, right? not for emptying out the wrong house (I guess that can be a mistake) but for failing to settle for $18K.
Yes. In my opinion, the negative publicity is costing them more than $18,000.
I think it’s at least worth considering that the woman gave a lower estimate, realized she was in a great position, and padded a later estimate with fictional possessions. Obviously I oppose that. But the bank should have realized that since they made such an egregious initial error, they should consider that $18K the cost of doing business. Contesting it (unless they turn out to have rock-solid documentation somehow) is very foolish; as people pointed out, even ordinary note-taking is suspect, since the people that took those notes are the same people that failed to notice the address of the house they were emptying.
But in any event, this is all a civil matter. She can certainly sue and under the circumstances, I suspect a jury will be very unsympathetic to the bank’s claims.
I’m just alleging gross negligence. I’m alleging that the legal hypothetical “reasonable person” could not have concluded that the house they entered (512) was the house they were supposed to be entering (509) - there are pictures of the mailbox in some of the stories, and the 512 is large and perfectly legible, and moreover in every jurisdiction I’ve ever seen odd-numbered addresses are on one side of the street and even-numbered on the other. I’d be marginally more sympathetic if they’d broken into 511, though not much - after all, if you can’t positively identify the address you should be remedying that before you enter the place.
And I’m alleging that since most everything about the bank’s story is based on the actions and accounts of the people who exhibited this degree of incompetence and negligence, we should be loath to accept it without corroboration.
No. An act doesn’t retroactively become criminal – to be criminal, the act itself must arise from the guilty mind. An innocent act that you later learn is would have been criminal does not become criminal.
Up until the moment you heard the announcement, you’ve done nothing criminal.
The moment you hear the announcement and decide to walk out, you’re guilty.
But that’s not the best analogy for the facts here. Instead, let’s imagine that you leave the coffee shop before the announcement, deliver the hard drive to Bob, and he thanks you and leaves.
Then you return to the coffee shop and hear the announcement.
Have you committed a crime?
No.
In like manner, the stuff was taken and destroyed before they knew it didn’t belong to the bank.
Hell, it would surprise me if they weren’t taking the best stuff and keeping it. I’ve know people who clean out properties for landlords, banks, etc. They absolutely kept things for themselves, and if caught at it I doubt they would have admitted it.
Now THAT would be a crime.
Sure, and it’s just as likely as the homeowner making up the value. More likely, IMHO.
Thanks for answering my question, Bricker.
I live to serve.
Why not simply make an insurance claim? Would there be some clause the prevents it? Then the insurance company can go after the bank.
Why should the homowners insurance go up because the bank screwed up. Let the bank file a claim on their insurance instead.
If I were the homeowner, I’d wanna go after the bank with a vengeance. But im a dick like that.
So you’re saying that if a bank forecloses on a home, then they also own everything in it and are allowed to sell or destroy all of the furnishings, clothes and other personal possessions?