Bank forecloses on wrong house; owners told tough.

[KrazyHorse]

No, the number of legal judgments against BAML is far lower than the number of foreclosures they have to do, and further a refusal to pay is less understandable than ****ing up an address.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Everything here seems perfectly reasonable other than BAML's refusal to pay what had been ordered. The original misake was perfectly understandable given the size of thebank's mortgage business, and so was was the civil judgment against the bank.

Bull****. It's not like the bank has only one employee handling their mortgage business. There are a lot of steps to properly executing a foreclosure, and a lot of documents, with a lot of discrete data (situs address, APN, names, SSNs of grantors, load docs, notices, etc. that would make it blindingly obvious to anyone who took even a cursory look at the file. The only way to make a screw up of this magnitude would be for someone to both disregard any sort of common sense administrative procedure and to have no oversight whatsoever.

[MrFun]

Bull****. It's not like the bank has only one employee handling their mortgage business. There are a lot of steps to properly executing a foreclosure, and a lot of documents, with a lot of discrete data (situs address, APN, names, SSNs of grantors, load docs, notices, etc. that would make it blindingly obvious to anyone who took even a cursory look at the file. The only way to make a screw up of this magnitude would be for someone to both disregard any sort of common sense administrative procedure and to have no oversight whatsoever.

Maybe KH is naive to think that banks are always good at heart.

[Sava]

The victims should be awarded a ridiculously large monetary settlement... $10 million minimum. The cost of making "mistakes" needs to be higher than preventing them.

Normally, I don't wish horrible ills on people. But I also hope that Slowwhand gets his identity stolen so he can learn firsthand the amount of time it takes to recover from such an ordeal.

[Aeson]

No, the number of legal judgments against BAML is far lower than the number of foreclosures they have to do, and further a refusal to pay is less understandable than ****ing up an address.

The refusal to pay is only less understandable if you are more ignorant about the reasons for that action to have occurred than you are about the other ****ups. (They didn't just **** up an address either.)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Maybe KH is naive to think that banks are always good at heart.

It's not "good at heart" or "evil at heart." It's just an excessive amount of needless stupidity combined with arrogance.

[KrazyHorse]

Bull****. It's not like the bank has only one employee handling their mortgage business. There are a lot of steps to properly executing a foreclosure, and a lot of documents, with a lot of discrete data (situs address, APN, names, SSNs of grantors, load docs, notices, etc. that would make it blindingly obvious to anyone who took even a cursory look at the file. The only way to make a screw up of this magnitude would be for someone to both disregard any sort of common sense administrative procedure and to have no oversight whatsoever.

Are you on some kind of mind-altering drug? When you process a million ****ing foreclosures you will **** some of them up, period. Have you ever been part of a large scale, information driven business? Because I have, across multiple companies, and all of them have substantial failure rates (including situations which are far more damaging than wrongly evicting a single family from their home). As usual, you're talking out of your ass without the least bit of common sense attached to anything you're saying.

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe KH is naive to think that banks are always good at heart.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you think the bank hoped to gain here, moron.

[KrazyHorse]

The victims should be awarded a ridiculously large monetary settlement... $10 million minimum. The cost of making "mistakes" needs to be higher than preventing them.

Normally, I don't wish horrible ills on people. But I also hope that Slowwhand gets his identity stolen so he can learn firsthand the amount of time it takes to recover from such an ordeal.

No, the victims should receive a reasonable amount of money that forces the bank to internalize the damage from their action, no more and no less. This way they will make the efficient decision as to how much effort they should put into preventing further mistakes. 10MM is a ridiculous figure; I personally would volunteer to have this happen to me for half a million or less, and I don't doubt that the value I place on my time is far higher than that which these people place on theirs.

[PLATO]

I have to agree with KH here. There is no malice in this by the bank. Frankly, the employees handling this could care less one way or another about the borrowers. They are just doing their jobs. As they are human, it is inevitable that there is a failure rate in their efficiency. These people are simply a victim of statistics. They should receive compensation for their troubles ( i.e. they should be made "whole"), but I doubt their troubles are worth any where near $10MM. This is a calculated cost of doing business in this type volume. I doubt anybody here would care to pay the higher costs of obtaining a mortgage that would be required for the bank to implement the type of redundancies that would be needed to eliminate these errors (which are amazingly few given the total numbers involved).

As far for the banks arrogance...if you have ever had to deal with delinquent borrowers, I can guarantee that you would not take the time to double check every claim by a borrower that you hear.

[kentonio]

Its not about malice, it's about criminal levels of negligence. You think you can put a price on possessions/photos etc that someone has spent their whole lives collecting, let alone the stress and mental suffering someone would go through coming home and finding they are locked out of their home? There is zero excuse for this happening, and it should never happen with a proper due diligence. You're talking about people's homes for christs sake, and we're supposed to go 'well **** happens?'.

There's a simple way to avoid this ever happening, charge the bank employees who entered the premises with breaking and entering and return a huge financial judgement against the bank. Then let's see how frequent these 'mistakes' are.

[Aeson]

Perhaps you can explain to me what you think the bank hoped to gain here ...

The most likely overarching option is avoiding the extra costs of ensuring (to whatever further extent) that these mistakes don't happen and/or are taken care of efficiently in a way that doesn't make the bank look as bad.

As for the specific individuals involved, who knows who made the decisions and what their reasons were? The information that there had been a mistake made and what the proper course of action to rectify it would be was presented to bank employees at least 3 times (real estate agent, other bank representative, court decision ... and almost certainly several other times to several other employees throughout the course of the legal action), and they failed to act upon it to achieve a satisfactory (to both parties) conclusion to the situation until there was a padlock on their own building.

You can say this is "reasonable" using a lax enough standard of course. However it's very clear it was a chain of ****ups from start to finish.

[giblets]

Its not about malice, it's about criminal levels of negligence. You think you can put a price on possessions/photos etc that someone has spent their whole lives collecting, let alone the stress and mental suffering someone would go through coming home and finding they are locked out of their home? There is zero excuse for this happening, and it should never happen with a proper due diligence. You're talking about people's homes for christs sake, and we're supposed to go 'well **** happens?'.

There's a simple way to avoid this ever happening, charge the bank employees who entered the premises with breaking and entering and return a huge financial judgement against the bank. Then let's see how frequent these 'mistakes' are.

I'd be perfectly happy to come home and discover I was wrongfully locked out of my home if I ended up getting like $100,000 out of it. But as an alternative I'd also accept lining up the bankers against a wall and shooting them. That'll teach bankers not to make a "mistake" ever again! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Aeson]

There is no malice in this by the bank.

No malice is needed. The following may play into the perception that the bank was "not good at heart" in this case:

"... the employees handling this could care less one way or another about the borrowers."

(I do not agree with that statement. There is almost certainly a wide range of how much various employees care about their clients and for what reasons.)

[PLATO]

Its not about malice, it's about criminal levels of negligence. You think you can put a price on possessions/photos etc that someone has spent their whole lives collecting, let alone the stress and mental suffering someone would go through coming home and finding they are locked out of their home? There is zero excuse for this happening, and it should never happen with a proper due diligence. You're talking about people's homes for christs sake, and we're supposed to go 'well **** happens?'.

There's a simple way to avoid this ever happening, charge the bank employees who entered the premises with breaking and entering and return a huge financial judgement against the bank. Then let's see how frequent these 'mistakes' are.

You continually show yourself to be an idiot trying to discuss things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.