During the pendency of a foreclosure action, the bank entered a owner’s home and changed the locks. The bank claimed that the property had been abandoned because the owner was not present, notwithstanding that not only did the owner not abandon his property, but he had informed the bank that he would not be in the house for extend periods. Although the bank gave the owner a set of new keys, the bank used its set to later enter the home and allegedly remove items from the home and garage. A week later, the owner arrived home to find himself locked out. The bank claimed that the property had been abandoned and the locks changed for a second time. The owner informed the bank that his home was not abandoned and was full of his furniture and personal property. The bank promised to not again enter the home. At a court hearing to investigate the circumstances of the second time the locks were changed, the bank’s representative claimed that he found the house open and unsecured. He informed the bank and was directed to change the locks. The representative denied that he had forcibly removed the locks, because the front door was open. After being question by the court, the representative confessed to having no knowledge of what happened because he had relied on another to whom he had delegated the inspection of the home. Although the bank claimed that it had authority to enter the property, the court assessed its sanction, finding the bank to have acted unreasonably, recklessly and in bad faith.