Posted on 05/15/2014 3:06:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A San Diego police officer and his wife--who wrecked their $705,000 Riverside home during foreclosure as revenge against the lending bank in 2010 and won criminal convictions for the damage--have lost their attempt to overturn the case at the California Court of Appeal in Orange County.
In a ruling this week, a three-justice panel rejected the appeal by Robert Conrad Acosta and Monique Evette Acosta, who claimed they didn't know it was against the law to intentionally depreciate a lender's property by removing or damaging fixtures.
The couple left San Diego Metropolitan Credit Union with more than $166,000 in costs to restore the once "exceptional," upgrade-loaded home after they cut down a backyard tree and threw it into the pool, yanked out plants, spray painted fixtures inside the home, wrecked a toilet with black dye, used a sledgehammer to mutilate a staircase and a Whirlpool hot tub in the backyard, cracked pipes, ruined the pool, smashed electrical outlets, cut wires, shattered tiles, pummeled walls, destroyed a fireplace and, using a semi-truck, hauled away light fixtures, countertops, kitchen cabinet doors, appliances, a bar, wood ceiling beams, window shutters, carpets, three chandeliers, two air conditioning units, 12 interior doors, cypress trees and the garage door.
A witness who saw the damage called it "total destruction," and the bank ended up selling the property for just $178,500.
According to court records, the sabotage occurred after the brilliant female part of this classy duo memorialized the plot in a pre-eviction email to a bank representative and declared the home would be left in good condition only if they paid her $10,000 for the keys.
The male portion of the duo, the aforementioned police officer, initially respond to law enforcement investigators by trying to act surprised by the wreckage and missing items, but that didn't work because officers learned he'd offered the items for sale in a Craigslist ad.
Then, Acosta claimed he'd been "under the impression" he could legally remove house fixtures, but that didn't work either because as the appellate justices noted: there's a 91-year-old California law prohibiting such acts.
Then, he argued that the related law had been too confusing for him to understand.
Santa Ana-based justices Raymond J. Ikola, Kathleen E. O'Leary and Richard D. Fybel were not impressed.
"We reject defendants' contention," they wrote in a 21-page, May 12 ruling. "A person of common intelligence can understand [the law] forbids a borrower from intentionally harming a lender by removing or disposing of items attached or affixed as improvements to the encumbered property."
Upshot: A jury's verdicts of guilt as well as a judge's punishment of 270 days each in jail plus probation for five years remain valid.
No, the problem is cops shelling out $705,000 for a home, all at tax payers expense. Public servants? ...lol
I see what you did.
Drug money? Bribes and blackmail? Impounding evidence?
When I bought my home I and my wife's combined income was about 150K. Our home cost us 112 K. We sure as hell could not afford a home that cost 705K. I have one question, how long ago was this loan made and why was it made?
PS My home in California would be worth more than a million. Today in Texas my home is worth about 250K.
Screw California and their bad bank loans so long as I do not have to bail the banks out.
PS PS If you have a marketable skill and want a great life in a state that will reward your skills, please come to Texas. If you do not have these skills, please stay in California.
Yes, your Honor. My wife and I had no idea that trashing our foreclosed property was a crime. [Wink, wink; nod, nod.] We also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and we have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
“According to court records, the sabotage occurred after the brilliant female part of this classy duo memorialized the plot in a pre-eviction email to a bank representative and declared the home would be left in good condition only if they paid her $10,000 for the keys.”
How is she not charged with extortion for the above?
Well... yes, there is that minor detail.
He was dyslexic as well. When he read; Shout to God, he actually read; Shoot the Dog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.