Bank breaks into nurse's house, takes her stuff, but won't pay her back

Ohio homeowner Katie Barnett. Photo from ABC News.

I first saw the story on Popehat, "Want To Burglarize A House With Impunity, Then Nickle-And-Dime The Restitution? It Helps To Be A Bank."

Katie Barnett, a nurse in McArthur, Ohio, was away from home for a couple of weeks. While she was away, the First National Bank of Wellston, a local institution which had foreclosed on a house across the street, went to take possession of same. "Guided" by GPS (and neglecting to actually look at the house numbers on the mailboxes outside), the bank's "representatives" broke into Barnett's house, took most of her stuff, and changed the locks. When she got home, she had to gain access through a window. She called the police; the police theorized that perhaps squatters had got in.

But, no, the bank has admitted that it was the culprit. According to the ABC News account, the bank's involvement was only revealed when someone from the bank also called the police. Persisting in their inexplicable error, bank personnel complained that someone was living in the bank's house.^*

The story has made national news because of the way the bank responded to Barnett's request to be reimbursed for the value of the stuff taken -- and discarded by the bank. Barnett told ABC that the bank took two dressers and clothing for her five children, as well as items from outside their home, including pool cleaning supplies and patio furniture. She has estimated her loss at $18,000, but the bank says there are inconsistencies between "the written list of items that [Barnett] provided to us and the value she assigned to those items" when compared to "the list and descriptions of items removed that was prepared by the employees who did the work." Barnett says the bank president told her that it would not "pay retail" for her lost stuff. She's got a lawyer, and a suit is probably going to have to be filed before the bank makes good.

If it ever does.

Barnett's suit would be governed by Ohio law. But the story got me wondering what remedies might be available to an Illinois resident in Barnett's unhappy situation.

It would appear that our hypothetical Illinois resident would have an action for conversion. "To state a cause of action for conversion, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) she has a right to the property at issue; (2) she has an absolute and unconditional right to the immediate possession of that property; (3) the defendant wrongfully and without authorization assumed control, dominion, or ownership over the property; and (4) she made a demand for the return of the property." Weisberger v. Weisberger, 2011 IL App (1st) 101557, ¶45. "Generally, the measure of damages for conversion is the market value of the property at the time of conversion." Long v. Arthur J. Rubloff & Co., 27 Ill.App.3d 1013, 1025, 327 N.E.2d 346 (1st Dist. 1975). Thus, if Barnett's case arose in Illinois, the Ohio bank president's Illinois counterpart would have a basis upon which to refuse to pay retail.

But the hypothetical Illinois bank would face a petty serious problem. Punitive damages are available for the tort of conversion. Cirrincione v. Johnson, 184 Ill.2d 109, 703 N.E.2d 67 (1998). In Cirrincione, punitive damages were affirmed in favor of a doctor against a lawyer on account of the lawyer's failure to honor his physician's lien when disbursing the proceeds of the settlement of a personal injury case. "Punitive damages are awarded 'when torts are committed with fraud, actual malice, * * * or when the defendant acts willfully, or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others.'" Cirrincione, 184 Ill.2d 115-115, quoting Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 186, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978). The bank's conduct here might well be thought of as more than sufficiently grossly negligent to qualify. If the law is similar in Ohio, the bank might do well to consider paying the $18,000 requested by Ms. Barnett.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
^* The bank says that it figured out they had emptied the wrong house sooner than that. According to the bank's statement, "Unfortunately, we did not discover our error until the clean-up process was nearly complete." Then did the bank actually call the police to report Barnett as a trespasser in her own house or not? If it knew at an early date that it had made this terrible mistake, wouldn't the bank have notified the authorities -- or the homeowner -- sooner? You'd think that the local TV station would have verified these facts by checking with the local constabulary... but who knows?