Bank breaks in - Medina Ohio
Hi
I am wondering if anybody knows the legal basis whereby a bank can instruct their asset manager to break into a home in Ohio and change the locks that they do not own. The situation is that the homeowner has asked the bank to consider a short sale, but he still owns the property and the property has not even been listed for sale. I have seen this happen twice. The owner did not give permission. Does he have any legal recourse against the bank. Akron-Cleveland area.
As I understand it, the bank is allowed to enter and secure the property to protect their investment if it is vacant. They are not permitted to enter if the property is still occupied.
Sounds like a civil tresspass to me. The homeowner's damages, however, are probably minimal and if so, it would likely not be worth pursuing suit. Even if the bank had taken title, the resident would likely have a leasehold and the titleholder can't just enter without permission. Landlords can and do get in trouble for that sort of thing.
If the homeowner really wanted to pursue this, this first step would be determining if there's a statute that authorizes some kind of treble damages or attorney fees.
No matter how you look at it this would be considered a break-in and the homeowner could bring a law suit if they chose to. Not to mention they could then turn it around and claim other damages which could lead to all kinds of headaches.
Thanks
This will be a short sale, so I am wondering if the fact of the bank changing the locks without permission, gives my client (current owner) any opportunity to get a more favorable bank approval.
I bet someone in the asset mgmt department just didn't check to see if the property was vacant. Not that that justifies their actions.
It is vacant.
- Real Estate Professional
- West Palm Beach, FL
- 13,432
- Votes |
- 23,375
- Posts
Sorry, most of you guys are just uninformed. The bank had every right to enter and secure a vacant property in default, including changing of the locks. To think otherwise is just wishful thinking. No leverage here.
Under Ohio law, title doesn't revert to the lender in the event of a default until the foreclosure process is completed or the titleholder voluntarily transfers title back to the lender. Back in the 1800s, a lender could immediately remove a borrower from a property in the event of a default but the law has progressed from that position some time ago.
If the property was vacant anyway and not being used, there may not be a lot in the way of actual damages to the owner, but it may provide a smidgen of extra negotiating leverage in trying to get a short sale or deed in lieu done.
Originally posted by @Timothy Murphy III:
Under Ohio law, title doesn't revert to the lender in the event of a default until the foreclosure process is completed or the titleholder voluntarily transfers title back to the lender. Back in the 1800s, a lender could immediately remove a borrower from a property in the event of a default but the law has progressed from that position some time ago.
If the property was vacant anyway and not being used, there may not be a lot in the way of actual damages to the owner, but it may provide a smidgen of extra negotiating leverage in trying to get a short sale or deed in lieu done.
The bank is entitled to secure and preserve their collateral, which includes changing the locks if the property is found to be vacant. They don't own it and they aren't kicking anyone out. Read the entire mortgage, there's going to be a clause that they can take reasonable action to preserve their interest in the property. Same reason they can cut the grass, winterize, and make essential repairs (board up broken windows, repair/tarp roof leaks, etc). They're changing the locks because it was found to be abandoned and their property preservation company will be coming by to check on the property routinely and they need access. If the owner wants to move back into it you can still do that until it's foreclosed.