It’s also unclear to me what criminal act was committed.
It’s a tort, but there’s no crime. Break and enter and burglary require the intent to enter someone’s house illegally and steal their things. In this case the peiople ransacking the house were under the impression they were in a house that they were legally entitled to enter and taking things they were entitled to take.
Possibly criminal tresspass:
In Ohio this could apply depending on what ‘knowingly’ means. How much disregard for common sense can you apply to calling yourself ‘unknowing’?
We seem to see these kinds of stories with dismaying regularity. Bank forecloses and evicts, where the mortgage was current, or already fully paid, or some home that never had a mortgage with that bank in the first place, or they just went to the wrong address.
Has anyone ever seen any follow-up on these cases? How do they turn out? Do banks get sued big-time for this? Do they win or lose? Do they settle? Do they settle big? Do they go to jury trials? Do the banking laws shield banks from liability?
Seems like we never read stories about how these end of getting resolved?
That’s because you get to hear about every single time it happens in a country with 300 million people living in it.
People make mistakes, you ask a million people to go to address XYZ, some of them are going to screw up. Sometimes those screwups are banks foreclosing, sometimes they’re contractors demolishing something, sometimes they’re police investigating at the wrong address.
What I would find compelling is to hear her friends on the stand describing all of the valuable furniture and belongings that she had in her house, before the bank showed up. I would also accept photos, if she has any.
The criminal act would be in not returning the stuff after they discovered their error. By keeping it, they have stolen it.
That just explains why they made the mistake. The reply is “So what?”
They made a mistake and they are obligated to make good and return the house to the condition it was in before they entered.
Yes, as stated above, they apparently discovered their error before they finished the cleanup. Why didn’t they bring the stuff back then?
Maybe they thought nobody would notice.
“Honey, didn’t we have a couch and a rug over there? I can’t remember.”
Were the numbers on the house “off”?
No?
They should be suing the bank for millions.
Heck, they could get ownership of the house across the street.
It still has stuff in it. 
Somewhat confusingly, she appears to already own the house directly across the street from her own. The one that was foreclosed was a couple of doors down and across the street. (The linked article says, “‘I have a house across the street from me; the house that should have been repossessed is two houses down from them,’ she explained.”)
So if they give her the foreclosed house along with the ones she already has, she’ll be able build hotels on that street.
One of my watches cost $3,500 when I bought it (new), plus another $600 or $800 for the bracelet I wanted. Replacement cost is $9,000, plus finding the correct bracelet. I paid $1,700 for another watch (used), and a new replacement is $7,500. Replacing them with used ones would still cost much more than I paid for them – and since I’d owned one of them since new, I’d want to own its replacement since new. Just because something is old(er) doesn’t make it less valuable. I would definitely demand full replacement value.
Now, the woman might be trying to take advantage of the situation. She might be inflating the value of the property that was removed. She might be claiming that items were removed that were never in the house. (‘The crew probably took it and didn’t write it down’ sort of thing.) That would be dishonest. But the amount she’s asking for seems fairly modest. If I claimed my watches were removed, the bank would be like 'Right. Sure, you had those! Everybody has those! :rolleyes: ’ But the woman’s claims do not seem outrageous. Even if she is exaggerating, the bank is at fault and needs to pay up unless they can prove she is exaggerating. And that would cost more than the claim.
I was surprised the bank didn’t quickly write the 18k check. That’s not much considering what bad PR is costing them in that community.
I expect a settlement will be worked out, Probably for more than what she first asked for.
Yeah, I have a very nice mid-century bedroom set that I’ve accumulated by careful estate sale shopping. In total it cost me about a thousand dollars for everything in there, but I was a very lucky shopper. To replace the furniture I have, tomorrow, would cost more like $8-10,000. I mean, I bought a Platner chair for $200. I have the receipt even (you better believe I saved the proof of that deal)! It’s selling (used) on ebay right this second for $2800 and I’ve seen them go for more than that.
So, yeah, if someone had thrown out my shit and was offering to replace it for even 100% of what I paid for it, I’d be pretty pissed off.
In conclusion, fuck that bank. May they pay until it hurts.
Wonder what would happen if the insurance company for the homeowner is the bank’s insurer as well? I once heard about an insurance company that sued one of the construction companies that built its headquarters. Turns out they insured that construction company. (I heard it from a tour guide in Boston, so I can’t vouch for its accuracy.)
I’m also stunned they didn’t immediately pay the $ 18,000 along with an abject apology instead of trying to nickel and dime this given the context of what happened and the looming PR disaster. It would have been by far the cheapest route.
It sounds like the bank admins don’t have much common sense.
Does sentimental value count for anything in lawsuits over lost or damaged property?
My professional opinion is that I know criminal law very well. Civil law I remember from school and various reading and discussions in the intervening years, but that’s no substitute for relevant experience.
My best guess is the bank is liable for the fair market value of the items they destroyed, in order to compensate the owners for their loss. But because the circumstances are so egregious, I suspect any jury would be willing to generously credit testimony from the owner about the value of the items lost.
And because their mistake was based on such carelessness I’d guess there was a possibility of punitive damages on top of the compensatory damages.
But I’d want to hear from someone with experience n the field.
Thank you, and double thanks for your modesty.