Home burned to ground by authorities who now refuse to pay.

In My Humble Opinion
1

Guy rents house. Lives there for several years. At some point in time, the tenant (guy) begins storing materials that are used in bomb making, as well as a few bombs he’d made in his “bomb factory.”

What he intended to do with the bombs isn’t known yet (at least to the public).

A gardener working in the yard at the home trips one of the explosives and is injured. Not seriously, thankfully.

The Sheriff arrives and finds bomb making materials on the property and arrests and jails the tenant.

The bomb squad enters and finds the home too cluttered to search, but notices a few bombs throughout the house. The FBI is called. They opine the home is too dangerous to search. Even the search robot can’t negotiate through the clutter. They evacuate the neighbors and ponder their next move.

The authorities decide that the only safe way to clean the hazard is to burn the home to the ground. Arrangements are made, and all precautions are taken, then finally, when the weather is just right, they burnthe house to the ground. Property, clothes, toilets, everything.

The attorney for the renter, who remained in jail on charges related to the explosive devices as well as bank robbery, tried to have the house spared long enough for the defense team to enter and retrieve items favorable to the defense that may be therein. The FBI testified at that hearing that they were afraid to enter the house. Never mind the guy, his wife and their dog had lived there all along. The judge denies the motion and the burn allowed.

The homeowner, who apparently was not aware of the illegal activity occurring in the property, files a claim for almost 500,000 dollars against the county, for the loss of the home as well as other things.

County counsel says something like, We won’t pay!, Individuals may have to pay the price of protecting society, the county will pay nothing.

So, the question is, in your opinion, who should foot the bill? The county or the homeowner?

2

Was any attempt made by the county to contact the homeowner? I’d think that would weigh as a factor.

3

Wouldn’t the house be insured? I’d think it would be crazy to rent out a house without insuring it. And wouldn’t the insurance cover the loss? – though the insurance company would still be able to pursue a claim against the tenant who created the dangerous situation, and the county if the county has any liability.

4

Seems like this would fall under [url=]eminent domain laws:

5

There might be a clause about the premises being used for illegal purposes.

6

Who are the authorities here? Whichever government agency took responsibility for making the decision to burn is liable.

7

This house was less than 10 miles from where I live and was big news here in San Diego. The homeowner had insurance, but since the activity that caused the house to be burned was of an illegal nature, they apparently don’t have to pay, as I gather that is a provision in the policy. That said, I thought this whole thing was very strange and the burning even stranger. The stories I read locally were that there was some concern of booby traps given that the gardener presumably tripped one and these people were major hoarders in addition to the guy being a bomb maker. Despite all this, they let the newscasters film the burning from a reasonably close distance, not knowing what was in the house. Imagine if there had been artillery shells or other major explosives caches in there that had gone off. Then what? I can only presume that the FBI knew the explosives and ammunition weren’t that dangerous. The fact the guy, his (presumably clueless) wife, and their dog didn’t set off any of these booby traps makes one wonder whether there ever were any in the house as well.

I would call it eminent domain and say the city should pay for the burn as it was there call to do so, or at least they should have to split that cost with the homeowner. I hardly think the homeowner is guilt free though, as he should have checked in on the renter from time to time. I don’t think that level of hoarding happened overnight. At the same time though, if the guy was paying his rent and never had an issue that required repairs at the property, I can’t say I would have ever known what he was up to if I was the homeowner either.

8

How is burning a house full of unknown substances and explosives a good public health idea?

9

Does a building owner even have a right to check for such illegal activity? Would it be reasonable to expect the owner to check at regular intervals to find out if explosives were being hoarded somewhere in the building? What would happen if every rented premise were checked by the owners regularly for any kind of illegal activity?

10

It’s not. Look at the 9-11 first responder health bill.

But the alternative is for someone to step up and either face risk (enter the house personally) or do some drudge work (have robots remove clutter from the house in stages), and if there’s one thing people fear, it’s taking risks and waiting around for drudge work. Okay, that’s two things.

11

Is the homeowner’s claim therefore not againt the tenant for consequential loss resulting from a breach of the tenancy agreement?

Do tenancy agreements routinely have a clause about illegal activities and voiding insurance?

The fact that the homeowner is unlikely to get $500k from the tenant is harsh but that seems to be where the liability lies?

ETA: I also note that the $500k isn’t just the cost of the house, but for “distress”; the homeowner looks like he was taking the piss a bit, perhaps if he’s limited his claim to just the costs of a rebuild or sale he’d have had more success.

12

A famous hoarder, one of the Collier brothers, was killed by one of their own booby traps in their packed-full house, leaving the other (invalid) brother to die as a result. Just because people/animals live somewhere doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous as hell.

13

I don’t understand why this would be the case. What if the tenant deliberately burned down the house himself? Would fire insurance not cover it because the fire was caused by someone’s illegal action? Destruction of property due to a 3rd party’s illegal activity seems to be something anyone would want to insure against.

14

I think so. Frankly, I think the homeowner is somewhat lucky that the county is not charging him for burning his house down for him. If the tenant had been doing something more mundane like storing gas in leaky barrels in the backyard, the homeowner would most likely have been on the hook for site remediation. Had they gone the bomb squad robot removal route I could see the final bill easily stretching beyond the cost of the house.

15

I would say the homeowner is responsible. The county did what they had to do to protect the police and fire personnel, and I don’t begrudge them that. I don’t see why my taxes should pay to rebuild the home. If you rent to someone who does stuff like this, then you have to pay the price. It sucks, but I think it is the lessar of all evils here.

16

I believe they (she) was contacted, but by then, it was too late to do anything.

Probably. I haven’t heard about whether they are involved in the suit.

The sheriff’s department did, with the blessing of many other agencies.

They actually built a fense of sorts around part of the home hoping that would prevent problems.
As for going after the tenant, I’m sure she will, however, he’s headed to prison. The wife doesn’t have deep pockets either.

17

Oh, there were a few in the house.

The explosive that hurt the gardener was a powder/gravelly substance that can explode under friction. It wasn’t a booby-trap, the bomb maker was simply so careless that some of this powder was just lying around in the backyard and the gardener detonated it by stepping on it. There was more powder on the floor inside the house, you can see some of it in the pictures. I can absolutely understand why they wouldn’t let anybody else in there.

As to the question in the OP, I think the homeowner is just going to have to eat the loss. It’s not fair to them, f course, but it’s not like the county did anything wrong either. It’s a shame that the person responsible for all of this doesn’t have the assets to make the homeowner whole again.

18

“The county” can’t pay for anything. Nor can the “authorities”. Payment for the house would have to come from taxes collected from local residents.

Considering that the local residents have already paid for the investigation and demolition of the house in order to eliminate the danger it opposed, why do you think they should now reimburse the people who were partially responsible for letting this situation develop?

It’s not like the homeowners were blameless here. This guy could’ve easily blown up the house on his own before anyone noticed, which would’ve left the homeowners in exactly the same situation (or worse, if they were found liable for any resulting injuries or property damage).

Since their insurance policy doesn’t cover damage resulting from illegal acts, they took a risk by renting to someone and not keeping an eye on what they were doing with the property. A small risk, to be sure, but a risk nonetheless.

The US is a big country. A one-in-a-million risk turns out badly for about 300 people each year.

19

I live in the town where this happened, less than five miles away from the house itself. The house was a death trap, and it’s a miracle no one was killed.

Look, when the bomb squad guys from the FBI, ATF, and state and local authorities all say “HELL NO”, * you listen*. The floorboards were covered/soaked with high explosives and there was no way to tell which square foot of floor was safe and which wasn’t. The explosives were not the kind to go off when burned but would happily detonate with friction or impact. Thus, burning the house down was significantly safer than trying to dismantle it.

I have no sympathy for the renter and his lawyer’s claim that they weren’t allowed to retrieve evidence for his defense. He turned the house into his very own Elludium Pew 36 Explosive Space Modulator. It didn’t happen while his back was turned. His house didn’t grow high explosives the way my bathroom grows mold. His very own actions precluded the possibility of strengthening his defense.

I do have sympathy for the home owner. It’s nearly impossible to get anyone evicted in California. He may have only seen the hoarding and figured it wasn’t worth the paperwork to get the guy out of there. I haven’t the slightest idea if insurance will cover this. It’ll all depend on the contract and whether the home owner feels up to a court battle.

If insurance doesn’t cover it, I’m okay with the taxpayers picking it up. I believe it falls under eminent domain and public safety. We paid to burn the place down. We’re paying to incarcerate Bomb Man, and we’ll pay to try and hopefully convict and jail him. I don’t think the place was worth $500K, but that’s up to the authorities to determine.

20

I don’t have a problem with the county paying the owner for any assets they destroyed. But a house that might explode if anyone enters it isn’t an asset, it’s a liability. If anything, the county ought to be sending her a bill for taking care of her problem for her.