var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
August 21, 2009 2:53 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

Horrible - sue for a lot of money.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
dallasmay
August 21, 2009 4:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace:
What was Chase's CEO's compensation this year? Sue for that. This should never be allowed to happen again.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tux the Penguin
August 21, 2009 12:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dallasmay: Sadly, this problem is not ANYTHING to do with Chase. This was all at the hands of the court. Can't sue the government unless they let you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
August 22, 2009 1:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tux the Penguin: Sue the sherrif. Personally.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hungryhomer
August 21, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: If this isn't the definition of an open and shut case, I don't know what is.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
August 21, 2009 2:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 3:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: Hopefully some lawyer will be willing to sue whoever caused the problem for substantial amounts, netting her a free and clear house and all new furniture and a new car, and a million for himself. Well, I don't care how much the lawyer gets ... I just want to see the bad guys lose hard.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
WraithSama
August 21, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There isn't enough information here, or in the linked article, to satisfy my curiosity about what happened. This is a pretty big deal, but the article feels incomplete.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 21, 2009 4:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: Your feelings that something was missing was completely correct. The bank did NOT evict the wrong person. Anna Ramirez and her husband fell behind on their payments and WaMu foreclosed and the house was sold at auction.

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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gttim
August 21, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: \"Mr. Sheriff, I have a judgment right here that reverses the sale.\" Using common sense the sheriff department should have made a phone call to the court. The court that issued the eviction notice should have verified the foreclosure and sale as well before issuing it- and it was issued right before they showed up well after the reversal. The police and the courts seemed to quick on the trigger. Before tossing everything a family owns onto the street, perhaps a little verification.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WraithSama
August 21, 2009 4:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq:
Hmm. If the sale was blocked, then I don't see how the buyer could have believed that they still had a claim on the property. Even if the buyer wasn't informed, JP Morgan Chase was, and they should not have completed their end of the transaction.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 21, 2009 4:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: The county clerk failed to notify the new buyer that the sale had been reversed, so as soon as the deed was delivered, he had every reason to believe, as did the sheriff, that the eviction was proper. Ms. Ramirez is stuck suing the county for the clerk's error, not the buyer or sheriff's department. Chase had reason to believe that the court served notice of its reversal, so they are likely off the hook also.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: Other sources are reporting that WaMu let the sale continue while the modification process was happening, suggesting that THEY could have stopped it, too. The timeline seems to have some discrepancies from article to article, but I'm getting the impression that Chase/WaMu wasn't exactly on top of things either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 1:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: Yeah but does that give them the right to destroy her things? That was part of the issue, they were smashing her furniture as they were moving it out. Even if the eviction was legit, why not be a human? I mean you got the house for a third of its value...don't be an asshole about it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BluePlastic
August 21, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: Yeah, even if the eviction had been correct, surely that doesn't give the sheriff and new owner the legal right to just smash and break and throw everything out onto the lawn. Gee whiz. They should have to move it out in a reasonable manner if the evictee hasn't already done so. Submit the moving bill to the evictee if you have to but don't break stuff!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WraithSama
August 21, 2009 4:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq:
I see. The county clerk seriously dropped the ball. I'm pretty sure that given the same situation, I would also sue the county for the damages to my property.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
August 21, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: Agreed. \"Error at the clerk's office\" doesn't really explain how things could have gone so far without someone noticing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 1:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: It looks like Florida has a habit of \"making errors\" when it comes to foreclosing on the wrong place: [www.wftv.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zacox
August 21, 2009 4:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I am not sure how Miami-Dade County does things, but I can see how a mistake like this could be made.

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
August 21, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PLATTWORX: That's what can happen when people put down wrong numbers on forms. Some forms might have had 8712 while other forms might have had 8721 and hence a mixup. Buyers in this market are buying to fix and flip and very often don't physically see the house until they take possession. And it may not even have been the bank's fault. The numbers might have been crossed after the foreclosure and done during the sale.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
VvsK
August 21, 2009 3:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That is made of wrong and fail, on so many levels.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
August 21, 2009 3:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 3:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Who to sue? Whoever made the mistake. A big investigation is needed. Heads need to roll.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Moosenogger
August 21, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like someone in the Miami-Dade filing/processing offices needs to be punished. It's stunning that throughout the entire filing process no one noticed the error. Though, I guess it can happen when people are more interested in their processing numbers than the quality of their work.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I found more info on this mess. It seems at first the bank made an error, and was already working to correct it, and already had the judicial order issued. The county then failed to pass it on.

[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.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coyote
August 21, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: I would also sue the Sheriff if in fact she did show the court documents and was still ignored (neither article actually mentions this happening tho). The Sheriff basically came in with an armed gang of thugs and stole her house and trashed all her belongings.

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gttim
August 21, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coyote: Hell, she was lucky she was not tasered the second she said, \"Hey, wait a minute.\" Police do not tend to be the most understanding people in the world.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coyote: How about having the sheriff put in jail for 30 days for contempt of court for ignoring the court order that was shown to him (his action should have been to put things on hold and investigate)?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
August 21, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coyote: I'd like to think so too, about people defending their property. However, the reality is that kind of acts would most likely have landed the owner in jail, whether she was right or not.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: It could have landed people in the morgue, too, which would be tragic no matter who it was (except whoever in the clerk's office made the big mistake).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mazzic1083
August 21, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
August 21, 2009 3:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

America! Land of the \"free to get the hell off my property because I just bought it for a third of the price from Chase\"!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Tux the Penguin
August 21, 2009 12:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep: Did you read the article? It wasn't Chase's fault, it was the court. If anything, its also the fault of the \"victim\" in this story - they didn't keep up their mortgage payments.

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

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 21, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This article is so riddled with errors and misstatements of fact, it isn't funny. Try reading an objective accounting of the issue at:

[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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: The sale had not been completed when the judge halted it. The problem was this order was ignored. Had it not been ignored, there would have been no issue.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 21, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: An order can't be ignored if it isn't communicated. Looks like the city clerk dropped the ball on communicating this to the buyer. Sounds like a good chance the clerk also failed to communicate this to the city recorder's office as well. The deed must have issued because the sheriff won't execute an eviction without it. Neither the sheriff nor the buyer did anything wrong. The deed IS the proof of ownership/completed sale.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BluePlastic
August 21, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: I had a feeling there had been payment problems since Ms. Ramirez as quoted at the end of the posted article as saying something like \"we did everything right and this still happened\" as opposed to \"where the heck did this come from, we've never been behind on our payments?\"

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
August 21, 2009 4:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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 .

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@u1itn0w2day: If the buyer got his 87K back, then he didn't suffer that much damage. If he can document loses (for example, if he paid the sheriff to execute the eviction, and paid the movers to haul the stuff out and break things), then he should have all those loses covered by the culprit that screwed up. His loses up to the point of the order to reverse the not-yet-completed sale might be due him by the bank and/or original owner, but unlikely since these kinds of sales do get reversed before completion frequently (at least in 3 states I've lived in).

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
August 21, 2009 11:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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 .

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
August 21, 2009 4:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If it was the clerk's office that screwed up, maybe you shouldn't use a title that implies that this was Chase's fault?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: It started as the home owner's fault for defaulting. The bank then started foreclosing. The bank may be in part at fault for having the left arm continue the foreclosure while the right arm was settling a new agreement with the home owner. They fixed that by asking the judge to reverse the foreclosure. The judge did the right thing and reversed the sale before it was completed. The clerk's office totally screwed up by not recording the order from the judge. The buyer probably made no mistakes, not being told of the reversal (unless he was personally involved in property breakage). The sheriff (or deputy who was doing the eviction) screwed up by failing to verify the court order shown to them by the original order.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
August 21, 2009 5:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: And btw, I think my comment ended up sounding a lot harsher than I meant for it to sound. Sincere thanks for pointing out the Chase mention.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
August 21, 2009 5:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Thanks.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
August 21, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
August 21, 2009 4:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

WaMu/Chase appears blameless (I know. I'm SHOCKED!). It looks like they were doing a loan modification and somehow the clerk's office failed to recognize a court order and allowed a foreclosure sale to proceed. The OP's problem here is that her lawsuit for damage to the property is against the clerk's office, not Chase. If she had homeowner's insurance, she might have some right to recover from that.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Not 100% blameless. The foreclosure should have been put on hold during the load modification negotiation. At least they fixed it after the fact and got the reversal order.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 21, 2009 5:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: no, the house was properly foreclosed on and sold at auction. It was only AFTER the auction that the judge voided the sale and failed to notify the buyer. When the buyer had a deed in hand, he could and did evict. The court erred in not notifying the buyer when it voided the sale.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
August 21, 2009 5:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: I wonder if there is a period of redemption as there would be in a tax sale. I have to admit total ignorance of Florida law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sonneillon
August 21, 2009 5:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: I think it depends on the the state, but I think Whoever moved out the furniture is responsible for the damage to the furniture because even on an foreclosure they should have not been so rough with the stuff. So that would be like WaMu or chase. The clerks office might be responsible for a day of lost wages and hotel.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
coren
August 21, 2009 11:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, it sounds like the clerk's office is gonna be hearing it from boht sides..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 21, 2009 12:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

People need to be given more time than 3 hours, regardless. Mistakes do happen, and there needs to be a way to protect your property. If a sheriff knocked on my door one day with an out of the blue eviction notice I would never be able to save my stuff in 3 hours (minus however long I spent arguing with them).

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
BluePlastic
August 21, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: Yeah, that's another thing. How did she not get notification that this was going to happen?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BluePlastic
August 21, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BluePlastic: Duh, I guess that's because the clerk didn't issue notice of that, either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henrygates: I wonder if that's to prevent the former owners from having three days' notice to trash and rob the place.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr_Human
August 21, 2009 12:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, that NBC piece on the story was shockingly incomplete. Like some others, I wondered how this could have possibly happened. I'm glad the AP story filled in the details. And I'm glad the Ramirez's were able to move back in.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How many people submitted this issue to the consumerist, got an acknowledgment, and watched for a full day until it showed up, only to see Shawn listed as the originator?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
August 21, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@burnedout: \"Submitted this issue\" meaning they saw it on another news site along with a kazillion other people, then forwarded it on, where it sat around until Consumerist dealt with it? Come on. It's not as if they said \"ONLY Fantomesq sent this in, the rest of you were asleep at the wheel\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
August 21, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I submitted the issue to clarify the story, not get credit. I'd have been just as happy with an update that didn't list me. :)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ArcanaJ
August 21, 2009 1:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, her house payments were bigger than mine! And for less house! Dang, they got took.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 21, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ArcanaJ: Yeah, $2,159 is a lot of money for a mortgage. Maybe I should be trying to be a cook at a Mexican restaurant. It doesn't say what her husband does for a living. Investment banker maybe? CEO of a small corporation? Diamond mine owner?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
crunchberries
August 21, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This happened in Miami-Dade? No wonder everything went so wrong. Miami-Dade has to be the most inept county in the entire state of Florida.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dallasmay
August 22, 2009 4:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@crunchberries:

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

Dude, no need to hit below the belt.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The_IT_Crone
August 21, 2009 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

After reading the details, I feel it was incredibly sensationalized initially. The first story made it sound like one day with no possible warning they were out on the street though no fault of their own. My mind was racing with possibilities like \"did the clerk type in the wrong address?\"

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!\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 21, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_IT_Crone: Well it did happen before. A bank foreclosed on a house that wasn't even behind in payment based on a clerical error. I think it was even a Consumerist post, so it could still happen to anyone!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
August 21, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have to wonder at the actions of the guy who bought it. If I'd purchased a foreclosed home and when I arrived, saw evidence of routine and recent occupation in the place (food in the fridge, toothbrush by the sink, etc.) I'd pause and make a few phone calls before trashing the place.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 21, 2009 2:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: x2. If nothing else, the family screaming that it was a mistake and the foreclosure had been reversed should have sent up some red flags. Lock the house and wait a few days while everything is sorted out before throwing stuff out onto the lawn.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
cmdrsass
August 21, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, the original story on this made it sound like some random innocent person's home had been foreclosed upon. Seemed fishy, and well it turned out to be mostly false. Amazing.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
t-r0y
August 21, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's amazing to me is that someone can be kicked out so quickly when they are able to show plausible evidence that they are the rightful owners.

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?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@t-r0y: I have to wonder how many ugly foreclosures the Sheriff's department has had to deal with. My guess is after a while they learned to tune out the previous residents and just do their jobs. Doesn't excuse their behavior or trashing the furniture (seriously, they can't be grown ups about it??), but I can see how it would happen.

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
August 21, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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 .

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
burnedout
August 21, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@u1itn0w2day: Probably - likely the individual had a few bad experiences and came expecting the worst.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
grebby
August 21, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't this what insurance companies are for? The buyer should have a claim against their title insurance policy since the title clearly was not free and clear. And the owner should have a homeowner's insurance claim for destroyed property and lack of habitability (due to infestation by sheriff's deputies).

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 21, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@grebby: The owner still has valid claims against the clerk's office and maybe also the sheriff's office, as well as whoever damaged the furniture. If the owner had insurance, that's just an easy route to get things corrected in exchange for the insurance company gaining the rights for those claims.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
August 21, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If she had a court order in her possession and the Sheriff evicted her anyways, wouldn't that be contempt?

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vdragonmpc
August 21, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here are a few problems:

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?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
newfenoix
August 22, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The sheriff was wrong for ignoring a court order and in most states that is contempt of court. But it happens everywhere. Court clerks as a rule seem to be inept. Earlier this year I received a past due notice on property tax. The problem is that it was on a house that I RENTED in Arkansas. I now live in the DFW area. I called the office and the person called me a liar and said that I \"owed the tax because I lived there.\" I then tried to explain that you pay property tax on property that you actually OWN. I then asked to speak to a supervisor. She quickly discovered the problem. In Arkansas, you have to pay personal property on EACH AND EVERY vehicle that you own every year. It showed that I had not paid the tax on my minivan for 2008. I explained that I moved to Texas in 2007 and did not owe the tax because I had moved out of state and because I no longer owned the van. The $18.00 bill was voided. However, the bigger issue was that the clerk that I had spoken with had changed the type of tax to REAL property and that I owed $1800.00 on property that I never owned. The county judge took care of that and fired the clerk because after an internal audit the state found that over 25% of the tax filings were incorrect.

Reply
");