She wasn't mistakenly foreclosed on, the bank stole her house and possessions.

Old news. She needs to sue. Let the lawyers have at it and take the bank for punitive damages too. The arrogance!

Uhhh....better yet, why aren't the people that broke in and stole here stuff "mistakenly" or not, sitting in jail for grand theft? Fucktards...

I think I just found a way to become the perfect thief...<filling out bank job applications...>

Eye for an eye: She should be allowed to break into one of their branches and clean out the tills and the vault. Seems fair to me.

Eye for an eye is an appallingly simple method of justice.

I agree with The Czech - take them to court and resolve it there. If the case is so clear cut she should win without any trouble.

Correct. I also agree with krellin in principle, although whether that crime is available in this context depends on Ohio's law of mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28criminal_law%29

Burglary and theft virtually always have mens rea requirements.

It was facetious, Hereward. But allowing it in cases like this would encourage banks or anyone else who forecloses/repossess property to be a hell of a lot more careful.

mens rea requirements?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Basically, it protects those doing the bidding of a legitimate business entity by saying criminal intent is required for it to be a chargeable crime.

Sorry, krellin, I meant to transliterate. Basically, "criminal intent." If you steal something, but you thought it was yours, then you aren't guilty of theft, because for theft, you have to knowingly take the property of another.

Here's an unrelated (but similar) story
http://business.time.com/2011/06/06/homeowner-forecloses-on-bank-of-america-yes-you-heard-that-right/

The above happened a while ago, but shows a similar situation eventually playing out in favor of the victim. Family gets mistakenly foreclosed upon (they didn't even have a mortgage on their home), but they are able to eventually resolve the ownership issues and win a court ruling requiring the bank to pay legal fees necessary to resolve this mess ... however, the bank doesn't pay and it actually takes the family to foreclose *on the bank* in order to finally collect.

The case from the OP's article regarding this Ohio lady is quite unfortunate. As with the above case, the bank will continue probably resist as much as possible to save every bloody cent they can. It's a sad state of affairs that when a corporation so unjustly wrongs an individual, they seem to care solely about their bottom line rather than doing everything they can to make it right.

Hopefully, she'll be able to lawyer up and successfully sue these guys for the worth of her lost goods as well as for additional punitive damages. Additionally, I hope the bad publicity that they receive as a result of this matter hurts them much more than a mere $18,000.

That's Bank of America for ya.