Sheriff Takes Stand Against Evictions (awesome-criminal!)

[Juan_Bottom]

http://news.aol.com/article/sheriff-tak ... 1200652282

Saying innocent people have been thrown out on the street, the sheriff of Illinois' Cook County announced Wednesday that he would no longer evict people from foreclosed properties.

And this is COOK COUNTY! That's Chicago!!!

[pimpdave]

I heard something about this on NPR a week or so ago.

It's apparently a nation-wide problem, and happens most often in cities (the issue of responsible tenants getting evicted because of irresponsible landlords).

Apparently new measures need to be put in place to ensure the tenants are informed of the impending eviction. The Sheriff taking a stand against evicting tenants is probably a shill move to ensure some legislation gets passed quickly to accurately designate who is supposed to make the notice.

Under the law, the banks are only supposed to notify the owner (privacy, and all that) of foreclosure. The owner is supposed to notify the tenant of pending eviction. Well, think about it. Why would an owner EVER want to break that news to the tenant? ("Um, yeah, hey. This is the landlord calling. So um, you know all the money you've been giving me? Well, I wasn't paying the mortgage with it, so um, you have to get out now. Thanks for your money!")

So, something must be done. It's horrible what's happening right now, people getting tossed onto the street with no warning whatsoever. The strain upon the municipal shelter system is reaching the breaking point.

[Juan_Bottom]

I heard something about this on NPR a week or so ago.

That's weird, I totally missed it somehow...

It's apparently a nation-wide problem, and happens most often in cities (the issue of responsible tenants getting evicted because of irresponsible landlords).

It's been a problem for a long time too. I delt with stories like these as an escrow officer all the time. Brokers would get the name of booted tenents... and offer them a chance to own their own home, for very little money(often balloon mortgates were tried first)... People who rented their whole lives were suddenly offered a dream...

And now here we are. America is sharing the dream.

But seriously, I thought that this was an amazing story, political or not.

[Frigidus]

I think an important question that should be answered is what should be done in these cases. The tenants clearly shouldn't be thrown from their homes, but should they just be passed on, like baggage, to the next owner? It's hard to say.

[gdeangel]

Well, if you go back far enough into anti-discrimination law, you will find that, before there were equal housing laws and such, the US Supreme Court as much as said, you cannot use the orifices of the state to carry out actions that are contrary to the interest of the state.

The case was Shelly v. Kramer I believe. It dealt with a neighborhood covenant among homeowners that limited which races would be able to live there. The court said, that nice and all that you have an agreement, but the agreement is not something you can enforce in the courts. So it's worthless.

So, to the extent you can nail down something that can be clearly articulated like a "racial covenant", there is law on the books for this sort of thing. But it's a slipperly slope when you start using general principles like "unfair".

[PLAYER57832]

I think an important question that should be answered is what should be done in these cases. The tenants clearly shouldn't be thrown from their homes, but should they just be passed on, like baggage, to the next owner? It's hard to say.

When the new owner is the bank, who issued a mortgage, knowing full well this was rental property, et al ... I would say "yes". The BANK knew to whom they gave their money, the tenants don't.

As a minimum, the banks should be required to keep up utilities and give folks at least 30 days notice before evicting them. The bank should have responsibility for notifying the tenants, not just the delinquent owner, when there is an issue, BEFORE shutting off utitilities (or simply refusing to start them), and calling the sherrif to evict people who were fully in compliance with the law and THEIR contracts.

When a place is actually hazardous, then the bank holds some responsibility for finding the people new housing.

[jonesthecurl]

A heart-warming story. More power to him.

When I had my shop, this happened to us - I was part of an indoor shopping arcade full of small independants - my favourite sort of place to shop. Our landlord, it turned out, hadn't paid their landlord (or various governmental bills) or even actually managed to get a proper lease.

[PLAYER57832]

http://news.aol.com/article/chicagos-co ... -in/205352
IN a follow up article, the sherriff pointed out that the law DOES require that tenants get at least 120 days notice of any eviction, but that THAT part of the law was being ignored. People were leaving for work completely unaware, then coming home to find that the sherrif had thrown their stuff out on the street ... at least whatever wasn't stolen by then.

This is just one more example of bank arrogance. They make a profit off these loans, but instead of taking responsibility for their mistake in lending to a bad debtor, they evict tenants and put the properties up for sale.

[black elk speaks]

From a business standpoint, it makes no sense to evict the people. The banks could collect rent on the building while attempting to sell a fully or partially rented building, which should be more attractive anyway. No wonder the banks are failing. They're stupid.

[PLAYER57832]

From a business standpoint, it makes no sense to evict the people. The banks could collect rent on the building while attempting to sell a fully or partially rented building, which should be more attractive anyway. No wonder the banks are failing. They're stupid.

I agree, but too often all managers see is that they will have to pay utilities, upkeep .. and sometimes these buildings are not actually safe, meaning liability issues. Also, the big point is that these people have Paid rent, but it was taken away. So, the bank may be looking at some time before they can recoup rent ... rent that probably was not sufficient to pay for the building (one of many reasons these buildings go under).

BUT, the answer needs to be more at the "front end". I think if you take a mortgage on rented property, there should be some kind of insurance or such to cover upkeep, allow tenants time to move (compensation for pre-paid rents and deposits) and so forth. This would, of course, ultimately be passed on the the tenants, but I would certainly rather pay a small fee than come home to find my stuff had been thrown on the street one day.

THAT, and judges need to learn the law they are supposed to implement a bit better.

Another travesty? A company is not legally allowed to foreclose on a house owned by a US serviceman while he is deployed, YET, judges everywhere are doing just that. AND, being helped by sherrifs who themselve don't know the law.

[Juan_Bottom]

Another travesty? A company is not legally allowed to foreclose on a house owned by a US serviceman while he is deployed, YET, judges everywhere are doing just that. AND, being helped by sherrifs who themselve don't know the law.

I was reading about that. There has been a big string of them in California.