Oh My Goodness! There has to be more to this story than what I read and watched in the videos! The reporters have written that this borrower/owner bulldozed his house when the bank would not accept a sale. As a professional, I wish the reporters had asked more questions, so more of the circumstances could be understood.
For example, was the $170,000 offer he had from a buyer enough to pay off the mortgage or was it a short sale? The article says that he owed $160,000. If he was behind and there were already legal fees, then the $170K may not have been enough to pay off the account. And was the sale an arms length transaction? Maybe there were more terms of the offer that caused the bank to act as they did. I do have to say that as it was reported, it seems like they could have acted differently.
If the bank just wanted more money, and if there is a record that they interfered with his transaction for their excess profit, that may provide him with (or might have provided him with) other options. If the property had then been foreclosed on and sold for more money, he may have had the possibility, or right, to a recovery at the expense of the bank. Now he might only get a deficiency judgment, which is only in the banks favor.
In any case, it is an example of the frustration level that is sweeping the country.
One interesting thing to view is the results of the poll that is embedded in the original article. When you vote, you will see the results of the poll.
Here is a link to the article and videos.