Update
I think the bank screwed up royally. It’s just incredible they didn’t document the home’s contents with pictures or video. Plus they didn’t inventory the items as they were removed?
This is going to cost them.
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/07/31/vinton-county-mcarthur-home-repossessed-update-police-report.html
So it wasn’t just some low-paid grunt staff who sweeps floors and cleans out houses, but there was a management-level, responsible party who went along to make sure things were done right, and didn’t perform due diligence.
I’d say the homeowner’s case is now a lot stronger.
The narrative on page two is hilarious. The cleanup guy talks to the cops first. “Hey I can’t get into the house I started cleaning a few days ago.” Then the homeowner makes a report that the house was cleaned and yard mowed. Then the cleaning guy is back admitting the mistake to the cops.
I’m not sure if it matters that the homeowner didn’t immediately report the missing items. She said in the other article that her husband was moving out and she was moving back in. She initially thought he had taken the items when he moved out.
Previously the understanding was that the homeowner was on vacation for two weeks. But the police report said, “Mrs. Barnett had not been living there at that residence due to a divorce, therefore no one was living there and that she returned to start moving her stuff back inside.” That might explain why the utilities were off and the neighbors reported the house was empty.
I would expect a management level person to be able to read an address, and to know that checking the frigging address is one of the first things that should be done.
I’d also wonder what other safeguards this particular vice president ignored, both in rehabbing foreclosed homes and in other banking business.
So far, though, the bank error hasn’t been in her favor.
They claimed earlier that only two dressers were in the house. How can that be so hard to remember?
And why if there were only two dressers did they need to make a second trip to complete the removal? The longer this goes on the more the banks story stinks.
Indeed – it explains why at first she was more confident that nothing was missing; she thought her (ex) husband had been there.
Exactly. And considering the potential liability for making a mistake, doing a quickie video of the contents to CYA wouldn’t have been a bad idea, either. How long would that take? 90 seconds with an iPad?
The bank’s actions stink and they aren’t making it any better. I hope they get hung by their deposits.
My! What an interesting development. And now the DA is considering charges. Imagine that.
It doesn’t square with the actions (or lack of them) that the police have been taking. Wonder who paid who. Or is it just simple incompetence?
I read that as “there is a house across from me” rather than “I own the house across from this one.” Like someone saying “I have a Starbucks on the corner of my street”, indicating that it exists, not possession of it.
I don’t. “I have a house” is not the same as “There is a house.”
I have a Starbucks. (I own it)
There is a Starbucks over there. (I don’t necessarily own it)
No, I would say that this a legally and factually complex case, and the police are deferring to the DA.
OK, but what about where she says, “the house that should have been repossessed is two houses down** from them**.” Them who? The people who own the house.
I read it the same way lorene did. “I have a house across the street from me,” could be interpreted both ways. It doesn’t have to indicate an absolute statement of ownership. It could also mean a house exists across the street from me.