I have no understanding of the legal matters of this case, but I do want to mention that my grandfather’s tools, which I still use, are worth considerably more than the tools I could buy as replacements. Many of them are simply made of superior steel, and of the very few I have sold because I had duplicates, I was able to get well more for than the cost of buying a similar newer tool - however, I don’t know that this would be the case for anything younger than 60 years or so.
Apologies for stupidity if I’m being stupid, but I don’t understand why the worth of the wrongly destroyed tools is persisting as an issue here.
As I reconstruct it, the $300 figure came up back in post 143, where RNATB answered Reyemile’s question about whether it would have been legal for the contractors to “trash out” a foreclosed house if they HADN’T gone to the wrong address to do it:
Then Reyemile asserted, but apparently with no specific legal justification, that condition number (3) implied “gross negligence” on the part of the contractors in this case:
But as RNATB had pointed out earlier, “gross negligence” is a specific legal technical term meaning “a wilful failure to exercise reasonable care, as opposed to any other failure to exercise reasonable care (plain old negligence)”. So he asked:
And that’s when the pricing wars started. But unless I’m completely misunderstanding the argument, RNATB was never trying to argue that a garage full of tools would necessarily be worth less than $300. He was simply arguing that destroying a garage full of tools more expensive than $300 would not count as “gross negligence” in the technical legal sense.
It would be a legal violation, sure, but that legal violation would not carry the tag “gross negligence”, which seems to be reserved for things like a builder deliberately and knowingly violating building codes by not providing fire exits and thus causing people to get killed when a fire breaks out.
And AFAICT, there’s been nothing in the discussion since then that refutes or undermines that point. I am sure as hell NAL, but I can’t see how you could call it “gross negligence” to trash $3000 or even $30,000 worth of property that it would have been LEGAL to trash if it had been worth $300.
In short, the point RNATB seemed to be making was not that there’s no way a garage full of tools could be worth more than $300, but rather that there’s no way a garage full of tools could be worth so much that it would qualify as “gross negligence” in the technical legal sense to mistakenly and wrongfully destroy them under a statute that would have permitted destroying them if they weren’t worth more than $300.
Which, AFAICT, nobody so far has refuted or even disputed. So I can’t understand why many posters are giving RNATB such a hard time about the high price of tools.
If I’ve got this wrong, please explain it to me.
Why would it be restricted to that? If it’s willful failure to exercise reasonable care, it shouldn’t require a death to count as gross negligence, it only has to be willful.
“Disposing” of the tools* was not an accident. The people repossessing the house should damn well have known the rules for repossessing a house. Failure to know this is not simple negligence, not if you are in the business of repossessing houses. If you know the rules, trashing stuff obviously worth thousands of dollars, when the limit is $300, is willful.
This isn’t “I had no idea the taped up shoebox of cheap looking porcelain figurines was worth thousands.” It’s a room full of tools, if the tools are in passably good shape, they are worth a bundle.
*Until I see evidence to the contrary, I’m still going to believe any decent tools in that garage went to someone’s toolbox instead of the dump.
I repeat that IANAL, but AFAICT there’s more to the legal definition of “gross negligence” than that brief six-word summary quickly provided by RNATB.
In my experience, we non-lawyers are liable to be led severely astray by attempting to reason out the legal implications of a particular situation based on ordinary-language interpretations of legal terminology. Lawyers seem to be as bad as mathematicians when it comes to putting very specific nitpicky conditions on the use of what appear like perfectly straightforward words.
Of course, if you are AL and are giving your expert opinion as such on the application of the legal concept of “gross negligence” to this case, I cheerfully stand corrected.
Because you’re trying to think logically in the face of a pecker contest.
Well, I was also arguing that there was no reason to believe the tools were actually worth more than $300 - not that they couldn’t be, of course, just that we should necessarily assume they were.
Well, not really. The “gross” bit refers only to the violation of the standard of care. It doesn’t matter if the resulting harm is a severed leg or a ruined carpet, though as a matter of course nobody would bother to plead gross negligence over a carpet (if they litigated at all).
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
“Disposing” of the tools* was not an accident. The people repossessing the house should damn well have known the rules for repossessing a house. Failure to know this is not simple negligence, not if you are in the business of repossessing houses. If you know the rules, trashing stuff obviously worth thousands of dollars, when the limit is $300, is willful.
[/QUOTE]
You are, of course, assuming they knew the rules. There’s just as much chance they had no idea the limit was $300, or that there was a limit at all. We’re likely talking about a bunch of minimum-wage laborers.
It’s also possible that the (actual) foreclosure happened so long ago that the bank was no longer even obligated to protect the owners’ property, having allowed it to remain in the house six months after posting notice or whatever.
In all probability, of course, WF and its contractor fucked up bigtime.
Oh, well that would explain it, thanks. Sorry to interrupt, I’ll take my peckerless self out of here now. 
I don’t know. I read that last post as graciously conceding.
I see three scenarios:
-
The “house cleaners” went into business without researching or remembering the legal codes related to their business.
-
The “house cleaners” were aware of the legal codes governing their business, but didn’t pay enough attention to the tools and/or were misinformed as to their value, and threw them out.
-
The “house cleaners” would have been aware of the price of the tools had they given it a moment’s thought, but chose to ignore this obstacle in the interests of fulfilling their job expediently.
If we’re using the legal definition of “willful” negligence, then 3) is unambiguously “gross negligence.” And while 2) is clearly not “gross” in the legal sense, it’s also clearly not remotely plausible (at least, they’d have to get a hell of a lawyer to get me on their side if I were in the Jury). Only in scenario 1) is the “willful” negligence of “reasonable” care questionable.
It was not breaking and entering. You have all played into the media’s perception. Wells Fargo & Co. uses agents that foreclose on home (as do ALL banks). In the report from the agency who foreclosed the home, they admitted their mistake and confused the address of the dessert home (which is a vacation home BTW, and the family only reported a few items missing). Wells Fargo has taken the blame because they take responsibility for the agency and are WILLINGLY helping the family with recollecting their assets and providing payment.
I’m not seeing the “we let unsupervised idiots do the work” defense being particularly effective.
This, OTOH, is a very interesting thought. Imagine the posting notice is placed on the correct home, is ignored for 6 months, and the cleanout crew goes to the wrong home.
This brings us back to one of the things I raised in my first post, which is that these people weren’t Wells Fargo employees. That makes it difficult (though not impossible) to impute their error to Wells Fargo.
They were agents of Wells Fargo, whether contractors or not.
What sense are you using the term “agents” in?