Quote :

"CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- An outraged sheriff in Illinois who refuses to evict "innocent" renters from foreclosed homes criticized mortgage companies Thursday and said the law should protect victims of the mortgage meltdown. Sheriff Thomas J. Dart said earlier he is suspending foreclosure evictions in Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago. The county had been on track to reach a record number of evictions, many because of mortgage foreclosures. Many good tenants are suffering because building owners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning." "These poor people are seeing everything they own put out on the street. ... They've paid their bills, paid them on time. Here we are with a battering ram at the front door going to throw them out. It's gotten insane," he said. VideoWatch Dart slam mortgage companies » Mortgage companies are supposed to identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction, but sheriff's deputies routinely find that the mortgage companies have not done so, Dart said. "This is an example where the banking industry has not done any of the work they should do. It's a piece of paper to them," Dart said. "These mortgage companies ... don't care who's in the building," Dart said Wednesday. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way. "On top of it all, they want taxpayers to fund their investigative work for them. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today." Dart said he wants the courts or the state Legislature to establish protections for those most harmed by the mortgage crisis. In 1999, Cook County had 12,935 mortgage foreclosure cases; in 2006, 18,916 cases were filed, and last year, 32,269 were filed. This year's total is expected to exceed 43,000. "The people we're interacting with are, many times, oblivious to the financial straits their landlord might be in," Dart said. "They are the innocent victims here, and they are the ones all of us must step up and find some way to protect." VideoWatch sheriff announce he won't evict innocent tenants » The Illinois Bankers Association opposed the plan, saying that Dart "was elected to uphold the law and to fulfill the legal duties of his office, which include serving eviction notices." The association said Dart could be found in contempt of court for ignoring court eviction orders. "The reality is that by ignoring the law and his legal responsibilities, he is carrying out 'vigilantism' at the highest level of an elected official," it said. "The Illinois banking industry is working hard to help troubled homeowners in many ways, but Sheriff Dart's declaration of 'martial law' should not be tolerated." Dart was undeterred Thursday. "I think the outrage on my part with them [is] that they could so cavalierly issue documents and have me throw people out of homes who have done absolutely nothing wrong," Dart said. "They played by all the rules. "I told them, 'You send an agent out, you send somebody out that gives me any type of assurance that the appropriate person is in the house, I will fulfill the order.' iReport.com: How hard have foreclosures hit your neighborhood? "When you're blindly sending me out to houses where I'm coming across innocent tenant after innocent tenant, I can't keep doing this and have a good conscience about it.""

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

10/9/2008 1:18:11 PM

good man. People who are paying their bills and living up to their end of their legal contracts shouldn't be forced from their homes.

10/9/2008 1:20:29 PM

I started wondering last year if this was going to be a problem.

Imagine if you were an overextended landlord who knew you were on track to lose all of your ten or more properties. You would probably stop paying anything on all of them at once, no mortgage payments, no property taxes, nothing. The rent checks would still be coming in from the tenants though.

Foreclosures take at minimum like six months but usually way longer, you could pocket rent money without making payments for a long time before anything actually went through. Since none of your mail or notices go to the properties, the people who were renting might not actually know what is going on until the cops are pounding on the door to throw them out.

Potentially a slimeball landlord could pocket tens of thousands in rent during the interim and the tenants would get thrown out with no notice.

It is pretty screwed up if you think about it. The renting families get the biggest financial clusterfuck of their lives, and the landlord has their money to do what he wants with and at the end of it all declare bankruptcy.

10/9/2008 1:33:44 PM

Quote :

"good man. People who are paying their bills and living up to their end of their legal contracts shouldn't be forced from their homes."

the only problem is that the homes are not theirs.

I dont think they should be put out on their ass but it is a dicey situation.

10/9/2008 1:44:04 PM

They're theirs in the sense that they are fulfilling every legal obligation they have in order to live there. Violation of the contract happened by someone else.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : more convoluted.]

10/9/2008 1:49:04 PM

yeah but since they are a second-tier contract the primary contract is enforced first.

like I said, dicey. its not their fault. I would think that the bank would be able to work something out with them to essentially start paying rent to the bank itself.

10/9/2008 1:55:27 PM

I think in many of these situations, it could be structured so that the rent payment becomes a mortgage payment and everyone wins.

10/9/2008 1:56:42 PM

I was reading about this a couple of days ago--it's a shitty situation all around. The article (can't remember where I read or else I'd post it) had interviews with sheriffs who'd evicted people who, quite literally, had no idea before the sheriffs knocked on the door that they were in danger of eviction. Tenants of deadbeat landlords should be allotted at least some amount of time, certainly no less than 30 days, to move their belongings and find other accommodations once they have been notified that the building is in foreclosure. A simple fix to this is to require landlords to notify tenants when foreclosures are underway. Anything less is wholly unfair.

10/9/2008 1:57:07 PM

Quote :

"like I said, dicey. its not their fault. I would think that the bank would be able to work something out with them to essentially start paying rent to the bank itself."

Did you read the article? The banks do not even take the time to verify if tenants are present.

The bank cannot demand rent from the tenants until they own the property. What they are doing is as soon as they take ownership they file for evictions without bothering to give the tenants an opportunity to move.

10/9/2008 2:00:05 PM

no i didnt read the article but i know of these situations.

10/9/2008 2:03:01 PM

I wish the police worried as much about making sure they were going after the right people during their many botched drug raids.

And where was all the concern during the Kelo decision which gave gov't the right to kick you out of your home if Walmart wanted the land?

And any concern for property owners whose land is basically usurped by the EPA for all sorts of ridiculous reasons such as calling a water puddle in your backyard a "wetlands"?

10/9/2008 8:02:33 PM

^ So is this a good move in your opinion or not?

10/9/2008 8:25:44 PM

^^ :scratches heat in WTF face:

10/9/2008 9:54:57 PM

It's whatever every other GOP hack decides to post in this thread since this particular hack is incapable of making his mind up for himself (and thus makes every GOP member look bad).

Instead it's "Government is bad" until confronted and then it's "Democrats cause bigger government!"

Yes, call me out that this is not what you meant.

Partisan hacks make me sick.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 9:59 PM. Reason : omg I'm a Libertarian don't ya know? Please.]

10/9/2008 9:59:20 PM

Quote :

"So is this a good move in your opinion or not?"

It's not Sheriff' Dart's job to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. That is the risk you run renting an apartment. You are subletting a property, you do not own it.

It's a sad situation, but it is much more dangerous to let police decide which laws to enforce.

10/9/2008 10:10:14 PM

Quote :

"It's not Sheriff' Dart's job to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. That is the risk you run renting an apartment. You are subletting a property, you do not own it. It's a sad situation, but it is much more dangerous to let police decide which laws to enforce."

this is a very good point.

10/10/2008 8:24:12 AM

There's a reason executive and legislative functions are separated.

I'd have a problem if individual officers were deciding which laws to enforce (though they already do, in a limited way). I don't have a problem with the Sheriff--an elected official--deciding which laws to enforce.

----

On a side note: When property changes hands, I thought new owners are required to honor leases? I pretty sure that's in my rental contract.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 9:10:46 AM

Quote :

"I'd have a problem if individual officers were deciding which laws to enforce (though they already do, in a limited way). I don't have a problem with the Sheriff--an elected official--deciding which laws to enforce. ---- On a side note: When property changes hands, I thought new owners are required to honor leases? I pretty sure that's in my rental contract."

wow. another great point. gg.

I dont think owners are 'required' to honor anything in the basic Realtor forms. some may have that built into the lease but ultimately, anything is negociable. I am sure that new owners have to vet the eviction process legally which takes time. You are due proper notice that the property you are renting is being sold.

10/10/2008 10:06:00 AM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with the Sheriff--an elected official--deciding which laws to enforce. "

So you don't have to follow the law if you're an elected official?

10/10/2008 10:31:58 AM

Quote :

"the only problem is that the homes are not theirs."

They paid rent so I think the home is theirs.

Some say these people are unqualified to buy, but then when they rent and pay their bills on time, they still get kicked out of their homes. A man needs some kind of security in this world. You can't be kicking him out of his home all willy-nilly.

10/10/2008 10:36:39 AM

^^ Are you going to play semantics, or are you going to acknowledge the clear reference to checks and balances?

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 10:37:21 AM

Quote :

"They paid rent so I think the home is theirs. "

no it isnt. they are 'borrowing' it for a time. someone else is allowing them to stay...doesnt make it theirs.

10/10/2008 10:38:42 AM

Why does it take a sheriff to do a repo man's job? Thats over 100 houses per day every day for a full year, that would take something like a full fledged eviction department. The sad thing is all of this could be simply remedied by the bank sending out a 30 day notice to the property (not the owner).

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 10:46:40 AM

aren't there already legal protections protecting renters from eviction due to foreclosure that the banks are just circumventing by not verifying the tenants?

In many places foreclosure is NOT cause for eviction, is this not the case in Chicago?

A quick google reveals that in Chicago unless a tenant is listed in foreclosure filing they must be given 90 days notice.

The bank is trying to use taxpayers to pay for their investigations. The banks should be verifying tenants and renters should be given 90 days notice.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2008 12:41:07 PM

It is a good thing in NC that an eviction notice has to be posted at the property by the sheriff in advance of the hearing. They do not just show up and throw you out. You get a hearing date and a 10 day oppertunity to file an appeal on top of that after the hearing before you would be thrown out.

This is not much time to find another apartment, but would still keep people from coming home from work and finding their shit on the sidewalk with no warning.

10/10/2008 12:53:08 PM

Quote :

"good man. People who are paying their bills and living up to their end of their legal contracts shouldn't be forced from their homes. "

Sounds like someone doesn't know what foreclose means.

10/10/2008 1:50:31 PM

^ READING COMPREHENSION FAIL

10/10/2008 1:55:01 PM

^^^^ The banks probably do notify the owner.

But the scumbag landlords probably don't tell their tennants they are going to be evicted, because they want to pick up that last couple months rent.

10/10/2008 2:07:57 PM

Quote :

"aren't there already legal protections protecting renters from eviction due to foreclosure that the banks are just circumventing by not verifying the tenants? In many places foreclosure is NOT cause for eviction, is this not the case in Chicago? A quick google reveals that in Chicago unless a tenant is listed in foreclosure filing they must be given 90 days notice. The bank is trying to use taxpayers to pay for their investigations. The banks should be verifying tenants and renters should be given 90 days notice."

Yea, very weird that the Sheriff is stopping enforcement of foreclosures and he cites that renters are being unfairly punished, when in fact it is illegal to evict them with out 90 days notice. I was thinking about this when I first read about it.

Sounds more like a political move than anything else.

Ownership needs to be enforced regardless, suspending ALL evictions hurts rightful property owners and leads down a very bad road.

10/10/2008 2:08:06 PM

i dont think you understand. this isnt a typical landlord-initiated eviction of a renter that requires 90 days notice (or whatever the local municipality laws are) from the landlord to the renter.

this is the bank/lender repossessing a house that the *owner* defaulted payments on. the *owner* has been given sufficient warning as per applicable foreclosure laws.

the problem is, so many of the *renters* who lived in the house being foreclosed on, who weren't being given sufficient notice that they were going to be ousted. Many times, they were completely unaware that there was any problem whatsoever.

the owners just continued to collect rent checks and didn't bother to tell their tenants that time was counting down ... that the bank was ready to repossess and give them the boot.

Quote :

"So you don't have to follow the law if you're an elected official?"

works for Bush. works for Cheney. works for Gonzalez and the entire U.S. Justice Department. should work for Sheriff Dart, too.





[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 2:17:43 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like someone doesn't know what foreclose means."

someone no read article.

10/10/2008 2:55:32 PM

Quote :

"i dont think you understand. this isnt a typical landlord-initiated eviction of a renter that requires 90 days notice (or whatever the local municipality laws are) from the landlord to the renter. this is the bank/lender repossessing a house that the *owner* defaulted payments on. the *owner* has been given sufficient warning as per applicable foreclosure laws."

no, the 90 days is for the tenant. thats why the bank has to verify who is living there. the 90 is to protect the tenant, not the owners. in chicago it was extended from 30(?) days exactly for this reason, to protect the tenant

10/10/2008 3:05:37 PM

jesus christ. what part of this dont you get? are you just plain dense?

it's the tenant-landlord laws that require a certain number of days (30, 60, 90, whatever ... http://www.rentlaw.com/eviction/illinoiseviction.htm) before a landlord can legally have a tenant evicted.

THIS is a different situation. this situation, the LENDER is trying to repossess the home from the OWNER. it's a completely different process than a landlord-initiated eviction of a tenant.

in this case, the lender is not communicating with the residents (ie tenant) of the Home, but with the owner. the owner ignores, and the bank proceeds with reposession, sending the sheriff out to clear the house of any inhabitants.

the inhabitants arent even aware of the problem until the sheriff's department shows up to throw their shit out on the yard.

the sheriff in this case has tried to get the banks to make a due-dilligence effort to find out -- at the least -- if there are children, elderly or disabled people in the home, and give them sufficient notice. the banks refuse, and have their lobbyists kill efforts in the legislature.

the sheriff has said "enough already". he's got 10000 inmates in the County Jail to attend to, crimes to investigate, etc. He is not going to be the hired gun (on taxpayer money) to run law-abiding renters out of their rental homes, until the banks do the right thing and investigate who, exactly, is inhabiting the home.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1211633,CST-NWS-evict09.article





[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 3:26:28 PM

when you are in a house you have to be evicted, your name has to be on the eviction order. the problem is the banks are not verifying the tenant before going through the eviction process. hell even a squatter has to be formally evicted if they squat somewhere long enough to establish residency. had the banks taken the due diligence to verify tenants they would have the correct name on the order. instead of doing that they are letting the tax payers pay for the sheriff to do this.

and it used to be 30 days, but because of a new lay aimed at protecting renters in this exact situation it is now longer. to take advantage of this though they have to be in good standing and have paid all of their rent.

ref:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-1010edit1oct10,0,5832658.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/news/chi-re-umberger-landlords-0921sep21,0,7312567.column

10/10/2008 3:38:33 PM

Did you read your own article?

Quote :

"That's because, in many cases, the banks have done nothing to determine, in advance, who's living in the building -- even though it's required by state law."

The banks/lenders are required by state law to find out if their are tenants living on the properties. When a bank seizes a property they are still obligated to notify residence of eviction, the bank becomes the defacto landlord. What was going on was, tenants were being evicted by the sheriffs department illegally, the tenants didn't know their rights and the deputies/sheriff office just had the paperwork they were given.

It's a bad situation, but the sheriff is trying to milk to for political gain for sure, it is an elected office.

10/10/2008 3:46:37 PM

yeah, and its a national problem right now. consumerist.com has stories all the time from people trying to recover property after they are illegally evicted.

10/10/2008 3:53:21 PM

^, ^^ ... okay. i think we're all saying basically the same thing.

10/10/2008 5:34:33 PM

Quote :

"are you going to acknowledge the clear reference to checks and balances?"

Are the police supposed to be deciding checks and balances..or simply enforcing the laws of the land?

If the law is set up so that the property owner is allowed to sell to another person who is allowed to break lease contracts...then that's the law--until it is changed. If Dart has a problem with evicting these people, he should work on getting the law changed legally.

Remember we are supposed to be a country of laws, not men.

10/10/2008 8:39:10 PM

tell that to Cheney and Gonzalez

10/10/2008 10:15:43 PM

^

Exactly!

And also tell it to Reno.

10/10/2008 10:17:15 PM

Quote :

"If the law is set up so that the property owner is allowed to sell to another person who is allowed to break lease contracts...then that's the law--until it is changed. If Dart has a problem with evicting these people, he should work on getting the law changed legally. "

However, the law also requires that the banks do effort to ensure that these people are properly notified. Since the banks aren't following the law, the Sheriff is rightfully not enforcing the law that they are requesting be enforced (a law which technically, can only be enforced once it's prior conditions have been met). It's something akin to a burglar demanding that the homeowner be arrested because the gun he was shot with wasn't stored properly.

10/10/2008 11:32:06 PM

Quote :

"It's something akin to a burglar demanding that the homeowner be arrested because the gun he was shot with wasn't stored properly."

Don't. give. them. ideas.

No, but seriously, I get the idea that the bank has a right to terminate the lease upon assuming the deed - an example someone gave me were if a landlord knew that the bank was going to foreclose that they could simply put an unreasonable encumbrance on the title - say, leasing it out to their brother at $1/month for 99 years - something which would void the bank's right over the property.

That being said, this just seems like yet another case of banks being both stupid and lazy. Stupid in the sense that they have paying tenants that they'd rather kick out such that they can try to sell a foreclosed house on a swamped market that's going nowhere - nice. Lazy in the sense that they don't even bother to inform the tenants or actually, say, read the law. (This, incidentally, is part of why I would really, really like to see a few insolvent banks fail. This is how the market corrects for being stupid and lazy.)

Despite the law being on the banks' side (in terms of voiding the lease, at least), something bugs me a little about the law as it stands. It seems to me that a reasonable contract signed in good faith should be worth something - not an absolute encumbrance over every future owner, but it seems like the renter should be entitled legally to some recompense if the contract is broken. After all, typically a lease has rights for the landlord - including forfeiture of the deposit, collection of rent until another tenant is found, etc.

It seems a little unfair that the given the fact that the landlord can't typically void the lease unilaterally (save for exceptional conditions specified in the lease), that there should be some kind of legal remedy due to the tenant if the bank wants to do that. (I suppose this is what the notification requirement is. Still, kind of feels like a screw - all of your rights per the contract are suddenly void once the bank takes possession, regardless of whether you've been good on your rent.)

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2008 1:53:29 AM

Quote :

"It's a sad situation, but it is much more dangerous to let police decide which laws to enforce."

uh, why? they do it on a daily basis.


PolySci 101. Police have the leeway to enforce or not enforce laws based on their own judgement.

10/11/2008 2:18:18 AM

really the problem is in the courts, they need to do a better job ensuring that the banks are providing all the right information in the foreclosure proceedings.

10/11/2008 9:59:28 AM

Quote :

"Raleigh Renters being kicked out of foreclosed properties RALEIGH (WTVD) -- Some Brier Creek residents who rent property as being evicted because the property owners didn't pay their bills. Posted on a wall inside the Wake County courthouse are foreclosure notices, documenting dozens of casualties of the economic situation. In August, nearly 500 Wake County properties were foreclosed. In some cases, the foreclosures are hitting unsuspecting Triangle resident and renters who are doing nothing wrong. "Unfortunately, it's hard times right now, and people that invested and thought they were gonna be able to make money, with the situation like it is, they're not making it," Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison said. "Some of them are not gonna be able to [make payments], and unfortunately, the renters are gonna be the ones that's gonna have to pay." Sheriff Harrison's deputies end p being the ones who have to bring eviction notices to the door. He said it's happening about 100 times more a month that is was happening this time last year. And more and more, it's renters being evicted. Eyewitness News learned of one community in the Brier Creek area where more than 30 units have been foreclosed on in the past year. Many are owned by California investors. Local renters are finding out they've got to get out -- some with just 2 weeks notice. "Unfortunately the renter is the one that's basically getting put out on the street," Sheriff Harrison said. "We got a court order, and hopefully they will understand that. That's a paper that we have to serve. If not, they come back on me as the sheriff." It's likely to continue happening more often -- another effect of the rough times in the economy. Thursday the sheriff in Cook County, Illinois said he would stop evicting renters whose properties were being foreclosed. The Sheriff said banks will have to provide affidavits or proof the person living in the home has been properly notified of the foreclosure. The point is to make sure renters are not surprised. Locally, Sheriff Harrison said he's not able to do that, and he'll keep doing his job, which is to serve the notices."

At least in NC the notices are served IN ADVANCE of the people being thrown out. I mean two weeks notice is better than coming home from work to find your stuff on the curb.

10/11/2008 10:39:22 AM

Quote :

"Are the police supposed to be deciding checks and balances..or simply enforcing the laws of the land? If the law is set up so that the property owner is allowed to sell to another person who is allowed to break lease contracts...then that's the law--until it is changed. If Dart has a problem with evicting these people, he should work on getting the law changed legally. Remember we are supposed to be a country of laws, not men."

I pretty clearly referred to elected officials, not the police in general. Though, as I pointed out before (and kiljadn pointed out above), the police selectively enforce laws every day. Some get warnings for speeding, others get tickets. When was the last time someone was arrested for getting a blowjob in NC? Should anti-cohabitation laws be enforced? What about anti-sodomy laws?

The power to enforce laws is separated from the power to make laws as a check against laws that may be ridiculous, capricious, malicious, arbitrary, etc. If the executive refuses to enforce laws that it should be, it can be held accountable by the judiciary or the legislative functions. Elected officials may also be removed by we the people.

We may or may not agree with Sheriff Dart's choices. However, I support his ability to do what he is doing. I also support the right of the banks to seek redress through the courts, the local council to remove the sheriff, and the voters to choose a new sheriff.

In no case do I support law enforcement blindly and thoughtlessly enforcing laws of the legislature.

[Edited on October 11, 2008 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/11/2008 11:03:20 AM

^
And I don't support most of the laws that the legislature passes. So I guess we kinda even each other out.

10/11/2008 8:29:07 PM

Quote :

"CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- An Illinois sheriff said Thursday he'll soon resume evictions at foreclosed properties after reaching a deal that he says will keep "innocent tenants" from being victimized. Sheriff Thomas J. Dart had suspended evictions last week in Cook County, which includes Chicago. But he said they will resume Monday, adding that a deal between his office and a local chancery court is "bringing sanity" to the eviction process. "Innocent tenants [will no longer] be victimized by an uncaring, reckless system," Dart said. Dart said October 8 that he was suspending all foreclosure evictions to protect some renters whose landlords were behind on mortgage payments. He said some renters were paying their rent on time and weren't receiving proper notice of the evictions. He also said mortgage companies routinely failed to do something they were supposed to: identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction. On Thursday, Dart said evictions will resume Monday with the following conditions: • The bank holding the mortgage must provide a court with a detailed description of the building and names of all occupants at the time of the initial foreclosure filing. • Before the entry of an eviction order, banks must provide a date that bank representatives last inspected the property. • Banks must prove that they informed tenants of a 120-day grace period, which state law grants to allow tenants to find new housing before moving out. Dart also said he will hire a full-time social worker to help evictees find alternative housing and connect them with community social services. When Dart announced the suspension last week, Cook County was on track to reach a record number of evictions, many due to mortgage foreclosures. Foreclosures in the Chicago area have tripled in the past two years, according to the sheriff's office. In 2006, 18,916 cases were filed in Cook County; this year's total is expected to exceed 43,000. The Illinois Bankers Association last week criticized Dart's decision to suspend evictions, saying Dart "was elected to uphold the law and to fulfill the legal duties of his office, which include serving eviction notices.""

10/16/2008 11:58:16 PM

Quote :

" The Illinois Bankers Association last week criticized Dart's decision to suspend evictions, saying Dart "was elected to uphold the law and to fulfill the legal duties of his office, which include serving eviction notices."""

i love this line, the Bankers Association just conveniently forgot that the sheriff was upholding the law, he was also forcing the Banks to do the same

10/17/2008 12:01:43 AM

set em up

10/17/2008 12:03:19 AM