"The most inept county in the entire state of Florida".

Dude, no need to hit below the belt.

@Skaperen: Yeah you would've figured the court order would have made the sheriff stop . But was it a court order or just paperwork from the court .

I'm still unclear on a foreclosure . If the evicted buyer wants their furniture and stuff back do they go back to the property to pick it up themselves ?

Do the contents of the property become the new owners ?

Would your stuff be auctioned off to help pay down the bill ? - this what I always thought

Do have to pay to get it out of storage like your car out of towing ? ( in this case paying for the movers as well ) .

I guess it varies state to state and wether it's a government/back tax foreclosure or a bank/non payment foreclosure .

They were behind on the mortgage, if they didnt make the payments I bet their insurance lapsed. No homeowners in bad.

The sheriff was presented with a court order. Simply shut the door and say goodbye. Any forced entry with the court order in hand requires the real police. And of course a few calls to media.

Why did they allow anyone into the home? The 'new' owner had no key. Tell them to wait 24 hours or lie and say you are 'renters' one lie deserves another.

If the person is completely unreasonable, ask them simply: Do you really want to see how bad things can get?

This was in Florida, I could see it devolving into a SWAT situation very quickly.

I wasn't saying nothing went horribly wrong here - it did - but rather that the court did not mistakenly foreclose on the house and Ms. Ramirez was not the innocent party that this article painted her as.

The owner should sue the county for the damages, and the harm. The county should just be wise and settle by paying off her mortgage so she owns the house free and clear and won't have to worry as much about people we expect to be responsible screwing up. I'd also like to see the sheriff or deputy that ignored the judge's order spend a few days in jail.

We should have a right to expect the clerk's office to file things correctly. We should have a right to expect the sheriff, when he sees a court order, to stop and verify it (and now that we know the clerk's office makes mistakes, such verification must also go all the way back to the judge).

I do know that in my state, when the sheriff takes land for non-payment of taxes, and auctions it to another party, there is a period of time after that, at least 30 days, and as much as a year in some cases, where the original owner can get the property back by paying the back taxes and all the other costs.

In the same way that the Consumerist publicly calls out companies for their mistakes, I think you should be open to being publicly called out when you do something wrong. I understand that the article has been updated to reflect new facts, but even with the facts as stated in the original article, there was no indication that Chase or Wamu did anything wrong. Your article said that the clerk's office screwed up, but your headline implied that Chase did something wrong. I think it's wrong for you to do that. I comment on it because it happens a lot here. It happens enough that the "Comment Code" that Ben just re-posted explicitly forbids publicly objecting to a post's headline.

You can run your site however you choose, but I think it's very hypocritical for you to impose rules that are intended to shelter you from criticism. If you want to criticize others with such a loud, public voice, you should hold yourself to higher standards.

I've heard stories that you are given time to gather up personal papers and clothes and that's about it .

I wonder with the speed of the process in this case if it was a flipper that bought the house .

I think in this kind of case a plaintiff's lawyer will just name everyone involved as a defendant and let them worry about proving if they aren't really part of the blame.

For the buyer - again, no need to trash the stuff while the family is standing there. But, I've read so many stories of people who trash the house and steal the fixtures and copper pipes before they leave, that I can sort of understand the urgency of getting the family out before they have a chance to do damage. Again, I'm not saying this to excuse ANYTHING, but I can see what their motive might be.

@Coyote: I believe that is the Sheriff's right though, to come in with an armed gang and evict the tenent. I think out of all the players here the sheriff is the least liable as he was going off of orders that stemmed from that clerical error in the court.

Now could they have been more humane about it? No doubt about it. But I'm sure they see tons of evictions and hear tons of excuses and have protocol to deal with such situations. Not saying I agree with all of this but I honestly think the sheriff's office was just following orders (orders that were screwed royally)

If there is reasonable doubt that the eviction is valid, then they should arrange an review (court hearing?) and postpone the eviction (1 day, 2 days, 1 week?)

Common sense anyone?

Still, big error on the clerk's part and should be illegal to just throw someone's stuff out and break it.

When in fact their house HAD BEEN foreclosed on and sold- legitimately. Indeed a judge later reversed that, but the story made it sound like "scary, it could happen to ANYONE!!!1eleventy!"

I'd like to think more people in this situation would have planted themselves inside the house, armed to the teeth and defended what is rightfully theirs. Instead of kowtowing to an "authority figure" just because he says something, even tho you have official documents saying they are in the wrong.

And 1/3rd the value?? Did the sheriff or anybody besides the new "owner" think to say anything?

That was her fault. But she was the victim of the clerk and their errors. Too bad you can't really sue the county...

Please send all editorial comments directly to the author of the post. (Goes for everyone, obviously.)

Here's why: In a case like this, we post something, make a correction, and the correction takes a long time to propagate (a separate issue altogether). In the meantime, the comments become full of editorial advice and even accusations from readers who don't know that the corrections are already in place. This correction was made around 1:00 am ET.

For the record, now that we have more information, I've updated the post and changed the headline.

Still A mistake that cost her .

I don't want to get into blame the buyer stuff but I did find it a bit ... amusing that they were shocked to find out their 260K house was auctioned off for 87K which is much closer to what housing should be away from the beach in south Florida .

It's a major 'mistake' that screwed the buyer . I would sue as well .

I'm surprised how fast the auction winner got the deed though . During the boom years the paper work for flipped houses/property lagged a month in many cases. Some properties that were sold 2 times with in a month couldn't even finish the paper on the first buyer/second owner negating several sales .

[www.google.com]

Anna Ramirez's house was not mistakenly auctioned. She fell behind on payments, WaMu properly foreclosed on the house and the auction proceeded as normal. It was only AFTER the auction when a judge reversed the sale so she could work out a payment deal with Wamu. THAT is when the court clerk erred in not notifying the buyer from the auction. The Sheriff's department evicted based upon the deed from the auction. The county clerk's error, for certain, but it wasn't as though they foreclosed on the the wrong house... she just got break.

This information is very pertinent and relevant, though. The original article referenced by the link reeks of sensationalism journalism.

A week AFTER the auction, a judge reversed the sale and ordered WaMu to work out a repayment plan. THIS was the order that the court clerk flubbed. They failed to tell the buyer, who then had a valid deed for the sheriff to process the eviction on.

Anna Ramirez was wronged but she isn't the innocent bystander that this article makes her out to be.

[www.google.com]

I've been at quite a few foreclosure auctions where properties listed have had incorrect addresses or incorrect information of any variety.

I've also seen where the foreclosure listing was correct and the sheriff's description and sale of the property was correct, and the county's description was incorrect, leading people to believe they were buying something that wasn't really for sale.

Here, the deed to the property bought at foreclosure auction isn't actually delivered until about six weeks after the sale, and the sheriff will not evict the residents until the deed has actually been transferred. This has been a savior for several families, as it gives plenty of time for things to be made right before nasty men come knocking and throwing belongings out on lawns.

[www.justnews.com]

She should sue the bank, the county, and the movers. And maybe the buyer if he was personally involved in any of the damage. Hopefully a good lawyer will smell cash and step up to the plate.

@VvsK:
So true. Not only is it horrible, it's scary.

@Chris Walters: It's a "lets hope it dies here" excuse

How did the process get that far without her knowing ANYTHING. No incorrect late notice? No word the property was being sold? No one looked at it before bidding? No inspection by the bank? That ALL seems odd.

thats...terrible. Someone owes this poor woman something, especially for the damage to her property. The banks are so quick to foreclose that they don't even wait until you default anymore. This is very troubling.