Reply #39: If it is, it shouldn't be, for very logical reasons

[Occulus]

Most people have absolutely irreplaceable objects in their homes which have a great deal of emotional (or actual!) value attached to them. It's an objectively wrong and compassionless practice which puts belongings not owned by the bank in question at needless risk of theft or destruction by the elements Also, note that the possessions are still on the bank's property! Or is the land under the house not considered part of the mortgage? Aren't they thus liable for the safety of those possessions? Why weren't the possessions hauled away in the first place? The homerenter wasn't home- fine, tack a note to their door.

And so forth.

Another poster said, and I agree, that doing this puts the home at risk of being gutted or vandalized (which risk would be far less, or nil, were the home to look "lived in"). Either of those could result in loss of property value to other nearby homes, homes which that bank may or may not own. The sick irony is, were that to happen (say, the copper pipes all getting ripped out the walls), the damages done to the home are probably a great deal more costly to the bank than the dollar amount the homerenter is in arrears. Also, given the material possessions are what is in question, it is entirely possible that the contents in the house are worth a percentage of the value of the house itself. Think of an antique or two if you don't think that's possible. Family heirlooms, jewelry, things of that nature. In light of all that, the bank's actions seem almost criminally irresponsible.

My point is, there are far too many valid reasons for this to not be allowed at all, and only one reason for it to happen (which amounts to "because the bank can"). I'd prefer that people be given time, by law, to at least be personally notified so they can remove their belongings. In other words, I'd prefer the bank couldn't.