guess this link makes it easier to find:

http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/561457/Fire-claims-large-home-in-Berkel---.html

It does sound a bit suspect. However insurance generally covers structure and possessions, not land. If there is a mortgage the bank would still be owed the difference, so it seems that they would want the house to be re-built.
That said, I'm not clear on how this benefits the seller in terms of getting rid of the house.

I'm with your wife. I think a party with 150 kids (including your daughter) is a risky cover plot. Also, logic makes a good point about insurance not covering the price of the land. If the guy really has lots of money, you would think he could afford to sell that property below market value and just get rid of it. I don't understand why he let it sit so long.

I understand about the land not being included, and the bank wanting the house to be rebuilt. But couldn't the guy have the house and belongings insured for $1 Mil, build a $400k house to replace it and pocket the rest? The bank and everybody else would probably be happier with a $400k house sitting there because it would be easier to sell. I was wrong about him having 6 acres - I never checked the stats before - he only had 2 acres. Driving by the house, it looked like he had 6, and it looked like the duck pond was his. The pond must have been owned by the HOA and was in Open Space, being used as a stormwater management pond. I have never seen a SWM pond as nice as this - I bet he had something to do with it's creation. Its directly behind his house, there was a gazebo, and even a paddle boat in the pond. I also think this guy got a lot of his money from his father who passed in 2008. Could be very likely there is no mortgage at all involved here. People that fall into money like this very frequently blow it all and then resort to some scam to get it all back. I know, I know.....I am a very untrusting person, and I am spreading a lot of unfounded rumors. Still my gut tells me this was not an innocent accident.

"But couldn't the guy have the house and belongings insured for $1 Mil, build a $400k house to replace it and pocket the rest? "

I don't know the insurance policies in the area where the house is - I mean, was - located. But most policies with "replacement coverage" have a clause that says if the owner does not replace the insured structure with "like kind or quality", then the insurance only has to pay the actual cash value of the lost property, rather than the replacement cost. This clause is to avoid the exact scenario you describe.

I could see that it might be suspect...

I'm a little uncaring on people who live on more than an acre complaining about what their neihbors are doing. It seems that there is enough room.

A party that large can be loud. but caring about the cars parked in his driveway? give me a break.

sorry but I live on .18 acres, so less than a quarter acre..... people keep cars parked in their driveway all the time.... and gasp... in teh street too...

You contempt is so strong it is difficult to consider your "fraud" scenario.

As has already been said, insurance in for replacement of "like kind and quality", taking the money and running is more difficult than you paint it.

You're not going to like this but in your post you come off as sound like a jealous child and a busybody.

Yes you caught me - I am very jealous that my dad has not died and left me tons of money so that I can build a house three times the size of all other houses in the neighborhood, ignore all HOA covenants and act like I own the whole subdivision, annoy all my neighbors, and then burn my house down and let insurance pick up the tab. And you are also right about another thing - I totally despise and look down on anyone who feels it is ok to park a vehicle in a driveway or a street - how dare them - who do they think they are?

Its always funny to see all the goofy things people come up with. I think that I explain myself really clearly. I am glad I am not the only one who has a hard time comprehending written words.

The whole intent of this post was to ask a simple question - "insurance fraud or not"? But apparently it is more important to question my views on how many cars are allowed in a driveway, or to question whether or not I have jealousy issues. I am proud that I have the ability to question things that don't seem right. I feel bad for the people who just like to look the other way and question nothing.

If it looks fishy to you it's probably a safe bet that the insurance company will investigate. I think you are underestimating their ability to determine fraud.

"The whole intent of this post was to ask a simple question - "insurance fraud or not"?

If that was true, you wouldn't have included gems like this in your opening post.

"Definitely looked like a white trash lottery winner to me."

I don't care on iota about the gossip and conspiracy-theorists in my own neck of the woods, why would I care to enter a conversation of groundless neighborhood gossip and conjecture from across the country?

I'm guessing I'm not the only one with this opinion and it's why you're catching flack.

'You contempt is so strong it is difficult to consider your "fraud" scenario.'

'You're not going to like this but in your post you come off as sound like a jealous child and a busybody.'

ditto.

& if I were an arson investigator, I might look for a nose-in-the-air neighbor who thought the people whose house burned weren't "our kind".

I understand where you are coming from and don't consider you to be a jealous child, busybody, nose-in-the-air neighbor, conspiracy-theorist.

I wonder whether his insurance policy is valid considering the house was vacant. Now that would be a bummer - your house that you can't sell catches fire by accident but the insurance company won't pay off. Or karma biting you in the behind, depending on how you view it.

maybe a hateful neighbor did it because he thought the large home was a montrosity and because lots of vehicles are parked on the driveway? just one of many theories.

I guess I am as bad as the OP since I admit to having had similar suspicions about a larger house on land just down the road from us that also burned down. The replacement was less than half the size of the original.

Because of the story coming from Martinsburg, WV, any one of the scenarios could be the truth...

Ooooooh a jab at West Virginia! Now that shows some intelligence. Do you have any momma jokes as well?

If the destruction is extensive enough it becomes nearly impossible to draw any hard conclusions that will stand up in a criminal proceeding.

I never discovered the cause when a $3M new construction in our town burned to the ground over the Christmas holidays. The house was nearing completion in a somewhat lonely location. The fire was so hot that it damaged the foundation, which had to be dug out before the lot sold again. Guess I'll never know, but it sure *felt* like arson. Maybe there wasn't enough left after the fire to prove anything.

I'd be upset too if I had a neighbor who flaunted the law -- or the HOA in this case. You'll get an expensive ticket if you park overnight on the streets in our town. You cannot have a service vehicle parked in your driveway nor can you park on the lawn for longer than it takes driveway repairs to be completed. I have wondered what people keep in four-car garages when I see that five family cars are always parked in the driveway! lol

OK, I can add some reality re casualty loss insurance: in most states insurance settlements for seriously damaged or destroyed and mortgaged buildings are not paid out directly to the homeowner, but to a joint account shared by the homeowner and the lender(s). And the banks (which must co-sign the draws from the account) are not going to turn the cash loose except for verified invoices to rebuid or repair in order to mitigate their loss of collateral.

And in some states, even for non-mortaged properties, the insurance company can avoid a cash payout altogether by settling the claim by making the repairs themselves. This is an anti-arson for profit tactic.

L

"My gut feeling tells me this whole thing was a set-up."

My gut feeling tells me that no parent would even consider arson when his daughter and friends had planned to have a party in the place. It is far more reasonable to assume that one of the guests, too drunk to know what he or she was doing, or too tired, or just too oblivious, left something behind when the party ended - a smoldering cigarette, a lit candle, a whatever - and we all know how that kind of story can end.

The whole intent of this post was to ask a simple question - "insurance fraud or not"?

I don't know why this is any of our business and wish I'd not looked. But...I did. Now I hope that it is investigated by folks who HAVE business in the matter. There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but judging without all the facts is a whole other thing.

"The whole intent of this post was to ask a simple question - "insurance fraud or not"? "

And there is no way for anyone outside the investigation to have any idea.

If the damage is extensive even the investigators may not be able to come up with enough to pursue a criminal case, let alone the insurance company taking civil action.

Insurance companies HATE losing money, so you can be sure they WILL have looked long and hard.

I understand you. There are many cases where a house burns accidentally and incidentally. There are many people who have been in these situations and some are truthful and some are untruthful. I know of a couple whose house was a non-mortgaged and their house burned almost completely down and the insurance company paid out. Well, the couple started rebuilding and couldn't finish because they went over budget with the build and the contractor place liens on their property. They eventually finished the house with help from friends and family.Three years later, it burned again. This time the insurance company is investigating and they told the homeowners that they found gasoline and kerosene on the premises, I'm assuming from forensics and tests. The couple haven't given me all the details, but they did tell me that they are being subpeona. The interesting thing to me is that they have had a new house built within three months of the fire, which is mortgaged and smaller than their old house. I understand you need somewhere to live, but I would've waited on the outcome of the investigation. They are willing to take the lost and let the insurance company not pay for their damages, which I think is crazy. If I know I did not burn down my house, I say get a good lawyer and fight the insurance company to the end. So, sometimes people make you think in a way that you shouldn't because of their actions.