Chicago Sherriff refusing to evict renters

[Rocket80]

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

This is a pretty interesting story. What should be done here? I can see both sides and am conflicted.

I actually have a friend in a similar situation (but here in California) where his landlord has defaulted on her mortgage, so basically he is stopping rent payments but also claims that he can't be evicted unless he gets his 2 months notice (as per the lease agreement - even tho that same lease agreement says he will pay her...ha) Seems a tad bit shady to me, but if it works it works. Any opinions?

[angelatc]

There's already a rather long thread on this

[Rocket80]

link?

[JaylieWoW]

Are the tenants still paying rent?

Why would the bank, who has taken over these properties be evicting tenants that are still paying rent?

[eric_cartman]

Are the tenants still paying rent?

Why would the bank, who has taken over these properties be evicting tenants that are still paying rent?

because even though the tenants are paying rent to their landlord... the landlord isn't paying the mortgage to the bank... therefore, the bank forecloses. if the bank was smart, they would let the renter stay in the home, and then just collect the rent from the tenant... but that's now how it works.

the real problem with this sheriff is that if he is not foreclosing on anyone... then everyone can just stop paying their rent and mortgage and live in these places rent free. it's a huge moral hazard that will just make delinquency worse. i'm sure the sheriff thinks he's doing a good and moral thing by allowing people to stay in their houses... but he's just making the housing crisis worse.

and if people get foreclosed on, it's not like they'll be homeless. there are plenty of places to rent for really cheap prices. so it's not like they'll all be out on the street, they'll just have to rent a different place instead

[Badger Paul]

The rebellion continues...

[Santana28]

and if people get foreclosed on, it's not like they'll be homeless. there are plenty of places to rent for really cheap prices. so it's not like they'll all be out on the street, they'll just have to rent a different place instead

i dont know where the heck you live, but "really cheap rent" isnt exactly an option in the chicago area, unless you plan to get shot in a drive by anytime soon.

[max]

the real problem with this sheriff is that if he is not foreclosing on anyone... then everyone can just stop paying their rent and mortgage and live in these places rent free.

the article didnt say he stopped foreclosing....he just stopped kicking out innocent renters....

the onus should be on the bank to determine if the loan on the house was to an actual inhabitant (owner occupied)...or to an invevestor (non owner occupied)...

if the bank did their homeowork it would be beneficial to them because then they could collect the rents while they put the house on the market

[westmich4paul]

I say as long as they are paying their rent on time and what rent they contractually agreed to then they deserve to stay. The City should put someone in charge of colecting the rent and paying the mortgage off. I am assuming they the owners of said building were charging enough rent to make a profit I mean who would be this stupid?

Make the Mortgage company accept the renters contractual rent agreements as mortgage payments but let the Mortgage company take back said ownership of Property until it can be sold to another owner who then can renegotiate the leases as they expire. But to throw these people who have paid their rent and have lived up to their contractual obligations of the lease out in the streets is wrong all the way around.

[John E]

I think the sheriff raises a good point... hmmm

[RonPaulVolunteer]

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

[AbolishTheGovt]

Not sure how I feel about that...

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Since you never watched the video, I suggest you do before making a comment.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here's how I see it. many of these apartment buildings are probably either section 8, or low income that are owned by "slum lords" ...people who buy up these apartment buildings and get involved with the government subsidies programs. REZKO..Obama's associate, is one of these. Obama and ACORN...the Community Reinvestment Act etc...enables this sort of thing. I am with the sheriff...don't kick out those folks who are paying their rent..I would say many of them ARE section 8 people and get their rent paid by the government...the slumlords probably aren't paying their mortgages. tones

[dannno]

if the bank was smart, they would let the renter stay in the home, and then just collect the rent from the tenant... but that's now how it works.




That would be ideal, however I doubt they have the ability to manage to many rental properties.

I've heard all about these "lease to own" deals happening on foreclosed homes.. The banks really should have some mechanism to do something like that so people who are paying rent can stay.

[ghengis86]

So what about the contract rights of the bank? those go out the window? wow. now try and get the bank to make a loan for more rental properties. gonna be a lot tougher, with higher rates, since banks can't foreclose on delinquent properties.

when a sheriff can make a personal decision on when and how to enforce the laws, we're screwed.

and what about these lanlords? there are fraud laws too

[RonPaulVolunteer]

If no one is in the house, it will be gutted in no time. It is better for everyone to keep tenants in the house.

[ghengis86]

If no one is in the house, it will be gutted in no time. It is better for everyone to keep tenants in the house.

This is true; but what about the law or the lack of enforcement of the law, by the SHERIFF! What if he suddenly thought it was in the public interest to not enforce warrants for offenses he didn't agree with? what if he stopped sending deputies to domestic abuse calls, since keeping parents together is in the best interest of the kids, in his opinion?

seriously, i understand that shit will hit the fan, but not enforcing court orders?

[CMoore]

Under Illinois law what happens to a lease when the property changes hands?
For example when the landlord sells the property to someone else.
Does the lease terminate? Does the lease stay in effect with the new owner becoming the new landlord?
Once there is a foreclosure and title to the property is now with the party that held the mortgage, is that party not the new landlord?
I want to know how the mortgage companies are getting these writs to have the people evicted? And I really do not understand why they are evicting paying tenants. If the tenants are NOT paying, then the bank could go to court and file an action to have them evicted. But the tenants would have to have notice and a chance to be heard. It is that "due process" thing, you know.

I am really puzzled that people are just being evicted without any notice whatsoever. I don't think this kind of thing would happen in every state.

[ghengis86]

Under Illinois law what happens to a lease when the property changes hands?
For example when the landlord sells the property to someone else.
Does the lease terminate? Does the lease stay in effect with the new owner becoming the new landlord?
Once there is a foreclosure and title to the property is now with the party that held the mortgage, is that party not the new landlord?
I want to know how the mortgage companies are getting these writs to have the people evicted? And I really do not understand why they are evicting paying tenants. If the tenants are NOT paying, then the bank could go to court and file an action to have them evicted. But the tenants would have to have notice and a chance to be heard. It is that "due process" thing, you know.

I am really puzzled that people are just being evicted without any notice whatsoever. I don't think this kind of thing would happen in every state.

Wouldn't the eviction notice go to the landlord, not the tenant? There are usually 4 or 5 instances in the courts eviction operations where the person being foreclosed upon can file motions to delay the proceedings, or come to some resolution other than foreclosure. but, all this communication goes through the landlord, not the innocent tenant.

and to be fair, banks are not structured to be landlords or rental property caretakers. this would put an administrative and logistical burden on the bank. banks run numbers, thats what they do for a business; if it were profitable to the bank to negotiate contracts with tenants, or keep properties occupied to limit property damage/theft, they would do it.

[CMoore]

Wouldn't the eviction notice go to the landlord, not the tenant? There are usually 4 or 5 instances in the courts eviction operations where the person being foreclosed upon can file motions to delay the proceedings, or come to some resolution other than foreclosure. but, all this communication goes through the landlord, not the innocent tenant.

If you go to evict someone, the notice has to go to the occupant of the premises or be posted upon the premises itself.


and to be fair, banks are not structured to be landlords or rental property caretakers. this would put an administrative and logistical burden on the bank. banks run numbers, thats what they do for a business; if it were profitable to the bank to negotiate contracts with tenants, or keep properties occupied to limit property damage/theft, they would do it.

Tough. They should have thought about that before they started taking mortgages on property.

[ghengis86]

If you go to evict someone, the notice has to go to the occupant of the premises or be posted upon the premises itself.



Tough. They should have thought about that before they started taking mortgages on property.

yes, the eviction goes to the tenant, but that occurs once a court order has declared it. before the eviction thought, all the foreclosure proceedings go through whomever's name is on the title, i.e. landlord (sorry if i didn't make that clear). if the eviction order is granted, and warnings issued, there's no recourse for the actual tenant correct?


Tough? they most certianly thought about this; that's why they can let empty houses sit and go to the shitter. they can still sell a crappy property to someone at a very low price and write off the loss. that loss is not great enough to justify opeing up a property management business unit in banks; they farm this out most of the time or give the property to some real estate agency to watch over and mow the lawn, in return for the exclusivity of the commision. you missed the point here I think. some were arguing that its better for the property to have someone living in it to take care of it and prevent the looting of an empty house. banks will always find the best route to minimize their loss.

[CMoore]

The first thing that happens is the foreclosure. In this step, the mortgage company gains title to the property. If there are tenants in the dwelling, they may not even know about this step.

The next thing to happen is the mortgage company decides to take a look at the property and discovers that someone is living there. This may be the former owner or tenants of the former owner. The mortgage company can't simply call the sheriff and have these people thrown out.

The next thing the mortgage company has to do if they want the occupants of the property out is go to court and ask the court to grant them permission to get the occupants out of the property. The process is somewhat different depending on whether the people are tenants with a lease or not. In any event, at this point, the occupants should receive notice of the court action. Then they have the opportunity to come to court and tell the judge why they should be allowed to remain there.

Is this not how it works in Illinois? Where are the lawyers helping these people who are being evicted? Does Illinois not have a Legal Aid Society or a Legal Services office which assists low income people with these problems?

[Micah Dardar]

This sheriff is stepping up and acting like a true leader. We should all be proud of him. We will need people like that to stand up for their neighborhoods and cities and say that we have had enough!

[SeanEdwards]

********************

:mad:

[revolutionman]

its hard to side against the Sheriff and his good intentions, but if he doesn't evict the renters who cannot pay their rent, then he is acting against the landlords, and thats not fair at all. The land lord is gonna lose his property because the sheriff wont enforce the law, and that sucks. if I were a landlord I'd be suing the sheriffs department for the back rent.

these issues need to at the very least, go before a judge. The sheriff has no such authority.

[Micah Dardar]

its hard to side against the Sheriff and his good intentions, but if he doesn't evict the renters who cannot pay their rent, then he is acting against the landlords, and thats not fair at all. The land lord is gonna lose his property because the sheriff wont enforce the law, and that sucks. if I were a landlord I'd be suing the sheriffs department for the back rent.

these issues need to at the very least, go before a judge. The sheriff has no such authority.

A lot of people don't have the authority to do what they are doing right now, and they are still doing it. Most of them have bad intentions. I'm glad that someone has the balls and good intentions to stand up. Peaceful civil disobedience - elected official style! :D

From what I've read, he is trying to keep renters from getting evicted by banks after foreclosure. He can enact change locally, and I would trust him to do it way more than those bozos in Washington.

[CMoore]

If the sheriff does not want to do the evictions, rather than stick his head up and say publicly that he is not going to do them and risk getting called down by the courts all he has to do is just NOT do them. Then when someone complains their writs are not being executed, all the sheriff has to say is,"Take a number and wait. I'll do it when I get a round tuit." With all these evictions, he is obliged to be "backed up". Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

[Scotso]

While I can appreciate he's trying to be kind, what does the law say? Out of principle, I don't think I could ever approve of the police declining to enforce the law. Where would it stop?

I do think the police should be able to use some bit of discretion, such as not giving a ticket to everyone over the speed limit, but flatly refusing to enforce the law is a bit questionable.

[ShowMeLiberty]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27090355/ [emphasis added]


Dart said that from now on, banks will have to present his office with a court affidavit that proves the home’s occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings.

Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days, but Dart indicated that the law has been routinely ignored.

He talked about tenants who dutifully pay their rent, then leave one morning for work only to have authorities evict them and put their belongings on the curb while they are gone.

By the time they get home, “The meager possessions they have are gone,” he said. “This is happening too often.”

In many cases, he said, tenants aren’t even aware that their homes have fallen into foreclosure.

This week, an attorney asked that Dart be held in contempt when his deputies did not evict tenants after determining they were not the owners and did not know about their landlord’s financial problems.

A judge denied the attorney’s request, Dart’s office said, and Dart said that after talking to the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, he is confident he is on solid legal ground.

“My job as sheriff is to follow court orders, absolutely,” he said. “But I’m also in charge of making sure justice is being done here and it is clear that justice is not being done here.”

The state’s attorney’s office said it would not comment on conversations with Dart because his office is a client.

Foreclosures have skyrocketed around the country in recent months and Dart said the number of foreclosure evictions in Cook County could more than double from the 2006 tally of 1,771. This year the county is on pace to see 4,500 such evictions, he said.

Dart warned that because the eviction process on foreclosures can take more than a year, the number is sure to climb even higher.

“From all the numbers we have seen, we know (they) are going to be exploding,” he said.

Sharga said there are more than 1 million U.S. homes in foreclosure — with about a third of that number occupied by someone other than the owner.

“That number will continue to get bigger,” he said.

Dart said he believes banks are not doing basic research to determine that the people being evicted are, in fact, the homeowners.

He said that in a third of the 400 to 500 foreclosure evictions his deputies had been carrying out every month, the residents are not those whose names are on the eviction papers.

Nor, he said, are banks notifying tenants that the homes they’re renting are in foreclosure. He added that when banks do learn the correct names of those living on foreclosed-upon property, their names often are simply added to eviction papers.
“They just go out and get an order the next day and throw these people’s names on there,” Dart said. “Whether they (tenants) have been notified, God only knows.”

Evictions for nonpayment of rent will continue, Dart said, explaining that those cases already have gone to court, his office is confident the people being evicted are who the landlord says they are, and there is no question the tenants are aware of what is going on.

[slantedview]

Are the tenants still paying rent?

Why would the bank, who has taken over these properties be evicting tenants that are still paying rent?
because there's likely a big difference between the price of rent, which the landlord collects, and the price of the mortgage payment, which the bank collects.

[CMoore]

OK, ShowMeLiberty, that explains everything. In other words, the folks in Illinois are violating their own laws by tossing these people. Sounds like the sheriff may be the only one on solid ground here.