Horrible - sue for a lot of money.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

@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.

@Shoelace: The article states that she's planning to sue. +1.

@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.

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.

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.

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"!

@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.

@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]

@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.

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.

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 .

@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.

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?

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

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@fantomesq: Thanks for looking this up!

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

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).

@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.

@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...

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.

@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?

@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.

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

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?

@burnedout: Seriously?

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

@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".

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.

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!"

@Tux the Penguin: Sovereign Immunity FTL.

@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!

@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.