I suspect they went to the main branch for their city. Someone needs to send the manager a schadenfreude pie.
Generally speaking, a court order is good anywhere in the jurisdiction of that court. So if the court was located in East Overshoe County, the Attorney would look for property to seize within East Overshoe that was owned by BOA.
I very vaguely recall some aircraft being seized in New York to satisfy a small judgement that some irate passenger had won. Something like a ten million dollar plane seized until a five hundred dollar judgement was satisfied.
No, it was the courts, as part of their decision in the matter, as set out in the article linked in the OP:
So there was already a court order for the payment of the legal fees, which the sheriff is then required to enforce (at least, that’s how it reads to me; open to correction by law-Dopers familiar with Florida debt enforcement).
Also, although I understand why the media is referring to it as “foreclosure”, I personally wouldn’t use that term, since I understand foreclosure to be related to seizure of real estate. The linked article makes it clear that they were seizing personal property, not the title to the bank building:
The article is of course paying fast-and-loose with the word “foreclosure” to make it sound all poetic-justicey.
As for the branch building itself, the bank probably does not own it. They certainly own the stuff in it, though.
The couple had bought the house from Bank of America (which presumably owned it thanks to a previous foreclosure) for cash.
I remember reading 'way back when that the Soviet Embassy hired an NYC printer to print several thousand glossy brochures for their pavilion at the 1964 World’s Fair. Then they stiffed him on the bill. After repeated calls and letters, he went to court and got a U.S. district court judge to put lien on a Soviet freighter that was in port at the time. He marched down to the dock with his lien and a squad of deputy marshals, and prevented the freighter from sailing on schedule.
The embassy came up with a check on the double.
Sure, but who wants to read about a writ of execution of a judgment upon personal property? 
That is a thing of beauty!
I agree. If we had more awesome of this sort in this country, we’d probably see a lot less corporate crime.
That was too awesome! A fun story for anyone who has ever been frustrated with a big business.
Does anyone know the law about these things? F’rinstance, if they sold the building for more than they were owed, would they be obliged to return the overage to BofA?
The reason I ask is, according to the story, they also seized the cash, it being a bank and all. Suppose there was more cash on hand than the debt? Could they have refused the check from the bank manager and said, “No thanks, we’ll keep your building and the contents of your safe.”
I’m not a lawyer but I’m fairly sure that you can’t do that. You’re only entitled to keep what you’re owed. I think if a bank forecloses on a home, and sells it at auction for more than the amount owed, they’re required to send the extra to the former homeowner. Of course, in such cases, the homes typically sell at a loss, and I think the bank (or the homeowners in this case) is allowed to keep an amount to cover expenses incurred.
The Daily Show had a great bit on this last night:
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bank.
And that’s all I have to say about BoA. 
It does a have a nice “man bites dog” sound to it, doesn’t it?
Shoot, they may not even own the stuff in the building. A lot of the big stuff (copy machines, furniture, etc.) may be rented.
But this is an awesome story!!
It occurred to me that it was unnecessary to bring the repo men and moving company along with the sheriff. The amount owed was about $3,000, and as it’s a bank, presumably there’s that much cash in the building.
True, but it does make for a great photo op, not to mention being extra motivating forces for a bank manager staring at this collection of people and news photographers.
One thing mentioned in the Daily Show piece is that they previously contacted 25 attorneys, all refusing the case. Number 26 had only been practicing for 8 months. Nice that someone so early in his career is getting national attention, and it is a pleasant antidote to all the trash talk about “trial lawyers”. It is like members of Congress - they’re all scum except for your own congressman.