Chicago's Cook County Sheriff Won't Evict In Foreclosures

[Psychoblues]

It's about time a Sheriff started standing up for his department and the citizens he is sworn to serve!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: AP

CHICAGO (AP) — The sheriff here said Wednesday that he's ordering his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties because many people his office has helped throw out on the street are renters who did nothing wrong.

"We will no longer be a party to something that's so unjust," a visibly angry Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said at a news conference.

"We have to be sure that when we are doing this — and we are destroying some people's lives — we better be darned sure we're talking about the right people," Dart said.

Dart said he believes he's the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop participating in foreclosure evictions, and the publisher of a national foreclosure database said he's probably right...............

More: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWQSAw_s2aqqnJS5Ib0-PbD24H5gD93MJAO00

Good read and presents a different POV from most.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[stephanie]

that sheriff should be fired

[emmett]

It's about time a Sheriff started standing up for his department and the citizens he is sworn to serve!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: AP

CHICAGO (AP) — The sheriff here said Wednesday that he's ordering his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties because many people his office has helped throw out on the street are renters who did nothing wrong.

"We will no longer be a party to something that's so unjust," a visibly angry Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said at a news conference.

"We have to be sure that when we are doing this — and we are destroying some people's lives — we better be darned sure we're talking about the right people," Dart said.

Dart said he believes he's the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop participating in foreclosure evictions, and the publisher of a national foreclosure database said he's probably right...............

More: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWQSAw_s2aqqnJS5Ib0-PbD24H5gD93MJAO00

Good read and presents a different POV from most.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:


Should we merely just allow folks who want to pay....pay from now on! Is that what you are suggesting?

It's a cruel world man. When you don't pay rent you are subject to eviction. That's a part of life. These are the things that are to motivate us to work hard, be responsible and try!

[Psychoblues]

Obviously neither of you read the article. Should we get the literacy council involved here?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[stephanie]

Obviously neither of you read the article. Should we get the literacy council involved here?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I read the friggen article...

the sheriff should be fired..

[emmett]

Obviously neither of you read the article. Should we get the literacy council involved here?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:


You are absolutely right! I did not read enough of the article to make a reasonable judgement.

The article concerns folks who are renters but were unaware while they continued topay their rent that their home was up for foreclosure because the owner had not been paying for the house.

The article also said that of the one million homes up for foreclosure today, one third are occupied by someone other than the owner. Very sad indeed.

Unfortunately, eventually they would have to leave. I would think a 90 day period to save up a new deposit or down payment for another place would be fair. The sheriff is making a call here he in essence has no right to make though as an eviction notice or "Writ of Dispossessary" is a court order to vacate. A sheriff is charged with the responsibility to carry out orders of the court.

I don't think he should be fired but he should be careful. It is quite unfair to the rentor. Hopefully, a medium can be found in that as foreclosures are rising and obviously this problem will resurface again all over the country.

[Psychoblues]

Fired for what, stevie? For uphoding the law he is sworn to uphold or for protecting and serving the people he is sworn to protect and serve?




I read the friggen article...

the sheriff should be fired..

And obviously you DID NOT read the article or you would know more about the decision of the Sheriff to end the complicity of his office in violating the rights of people that have paid their rent, done nothing whatsoever wrong and find themselves in eviction mode anyway.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[emmett]

I read the friggen article...

the sheriff should be fired..


Stephanie.....you really feel like that about this? What about the fact that the rentor had no forw warning that the property was even being foreclosed on. They had paid their rent.

[AFbombloader]

If the law states that the tenants are to be notified 120 prior to eviction than the people who were not do need to be given an opportunity to prepare for this. The article did not state how many of the people being evicted were in that category. how many of them were notified of their landlords situation? Did they continue to live there and pay their rent and the landlord is to blame? Probably, but the home is still in default and belongs to the bank. If they were not notified, can they live there indefinanty? That isn't really fair is it?

[stephanie]

the sheriff should be fired, unfortunatly evictions has been part of their job and he knew this... but all of a sudden he gets a wild hair that he feels he shouldn't do his job, because...if he feels that way then he is in the wrong job...fire him..

[Mr. P]

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

Good law..it needs to be national. Here folks get 7-10 days notice after foreclosure to vacate. That's better than nothing but still not right. I think a reasonable time to vacate a property under foreclosure is fair to both the renter and the new owner. Heck, just notifying the occupant that a foreclosure has started gives them 30 days.

[Psychoblues]

I cannot speak for the laws of Illinois but in Tennessee and Mississippi I have purchased several properties on the steps of the courthouse that were in foreclosure. With those properties I also got those renters that were occupying the properties and any agreement that they had with the prior owner. I've known other specialists in foreclosed properties that immediately set about attempting to dislodge the occupants regardless of any agreements that had been assigned with the previous owners and they all learned in a very hard way that the law will err on the side of the occupant particularly in cases where the occupant can even marginally demonstrate compliance with any agreements with said prior owners.



Good law..it needs to be national. Here folks get 7-10 days notice after foreclosure to vacate. That's better than nothing but still not right. I think a reasonable time to vacate a property under foreclosure is fair to both the renter and the new owner. Heck, just notifying the occupant that a foreclosure has started gives them 30 days.

It can get legally convoluted sometimes, but my suggestion is that the sheriff in this case got his shit together with the county and state attorney's prior to his announcement of his change in policy. Unjustly evicting people can open and expose his office to all kinds of liability problems.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Mr. P]

I cannot speak for the laws of Illinois but in Tennessee and Mississippi I have purchased several properties on the steps of the courthouse that were in foreclosure. With those properties I also got those renters that were occupying the properties and any agreement that they had with the prior owner. I've known other specialists in foreclosed properties that immediately set about attempting to dislodge the occupants regardless of any agreements that had been assigned with the previous owners and they all learned in a very hard way that the law will err on the side of the occupant particularly in cases where the occupant can even marginally demonstrate compliance with any agreements with said prior owners.




It can get legally convoluted sometimes, but my suggestion is that the sheriff in this case got his shit together with the county and state attorney's prior to his announcement of his change in policy. Unjustly evicting people can open and expose his office to all kinds of liability problems.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

It can be legally convoluted for sure..."in" foreclosure vs "foreclosed" for example. Two entirely different things. I can see honoring leases etc if a property is purchased while "in" the foreclosure process but not once it's complete.

One other thing...it would be wise for anyone renting to watch the legal notices in the local newspaper for foreclosures. They must be publicly published for 30 days prior (at least here in Ga.), I'll bet that's national but can't swear to it.

[AFbombloader]

It can get legally convoluted sometimes, but my suggestion is that the sheriff in this case got his shit together with the county and state attorney's prior to his announcement of his change in policy. Unjustly evicting people can open and expose his office to all kinds of liability problems.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Agreed, it seems he reacted without the support of the county and state attorney's offices. Or at least it seems he didn't notify them.

:salute:

[Psychoblues]

According to the article, afbl, he checked in with the attorney's and is now acting based on their advise.


Agreed, it seems he reacted without the support of the county and state attorney's offices. Or at least it seems he didn't notify them.

:salute:

If he is half the Sheriff I expect, he didn't intend to advise them. He sought advise and acted accordingly.

This is going nationwide, count on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Mr. P]

Agreed, it seems he reacted without the support of the county and state attorney's offices. Or at least it seems he didn't notify them.

:salute:

I'm gonna speculate that he did approach the state attorney and was rebuffed..Only because he mentions the state law...The attorney wouldn't act to enforce the law so he did..hung his neck out...but I think he did it for good reason.

Here's why I think he made the correct decision..

The state law says "Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days".
His department was issued court orders that ignored that law essentially making the order illegal thus any eviction illegal. He called em on it.

It would be the same as the court issuing a search warrant without probable cause, illegal. No one wants that.

I'm thinking this guy is straight-up and insures his department follows the law. I may be wrong.

[Psychoblues]

In Tennessee and Mississippi, P, even if a bank has completed foreclosure or foreclosed the property then they become responsible for collecting due rents and abiding any agreements existing on the property at the time of foreclosure.


It can be legally convoluted for sure..."in" foreclosure vs "foreclosed" for example. Two entirely different things. I can see honoring leases etc if a property is purchased while "in" the foreclosure process but not once it's complete.

One other thing...it would be wise for anyone renting to watch the legal notices in the local newspaper for foreclosures. They must be publicly published for 30 days prior (at least here in Ga.), I'll bet that's national but can't swear to it.

There are 2 exceptions of which I am aware. 1. If the property has been condemned through the process of emminent domain or 2. if the property has been condemned by the Health department.

While on this subject I would like to point out another article of foreclosure that some of you may be interested in. If you have sold property and are holding a 2nd mortgage on it for the purchaser, the purchaser can continue to pay for the 2nd mortgage while failing to pay for the 1st mortgage. If the 1st mortgage holder forecloses the property it completely wipes out the 2nd mortgage. In other words, you as the 2nd mortagage holder have no rights whatsoever to recoop any monies owed to you by way of the 2nd morgage. You can certainly sue in an attempt to be made whole but the courts are not kind to 2nd mortgage holders. It pays you to keep up with the 1st mortgage holder and ascertain for yourself that the 1st morgage holder is being kept current. Not to bore you but I learned that the hard way.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Mr. P]

In Tennessee and Mississippi, P, even if a bank has completed foreclosure or foreclosed the property then they become responsible for collecting due rents and abiding any agreements existing on the property at the time of foreclosure.



There are 2 exceptions of which I am aware. 1. If the property has been condemned through the process of emminent domain or 2. if the property has been condemned by the Health department.

While on this subject I would like to point out another article of foreclosure that some of you may be interested in. If you have sold property and are holding a 2nd mortgage on it for the purchaser, the purchaser can continue to pay for the 2nd mortgage while failing to pay for the 1st mortgage. If the 1st mortgage holder forecloses the property it completely wipes out the 2nd mortgage. In other words, you as the 2nd mortagage holder have no rights whatsoever to recoop any monies owed to you by way of the 2nd morgage. You can certainly sue in an attempt to be made whole but the courts are not kind to 2nd mortgage holders. It pays you to keep up with the 1st mortgage holder and ascertain for yourself that the 1st morgage holder is being kept current. Not to bore you but I learned that the hard way.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Seems like good state law to me..except...what if there is a lease for the property with a rent that will not satisfy the P&I on the property (I've seen this situation)? That's not fair to the owner..forced to accept less than is required.. On the other hand if yer buying foreclosures anywhere, Caveat emptor.

[emmett]

Good thread! Sheriff did the right thing. Kathy lives in Cook County I think, I wonder what tid bits she could add to this from the locals who may have kept up with it a little better. I would think as does psycho that this will begin to pop up all over as the situation develops with the housing thing.

It just seems unfair, rather legal or not to suprise a rentor in good standing financially with an eviction. What's legal isn't always fair.....or right! I would take it a step further if short notice requirements were all that were afforded the rentors and say that if the home they rent becomes foreclosed on they would not be required to pay rent to the "former" owner but still have a thirty day period and courts protect their "cure" period. This way people could have at least a little time to build up some deposit money and so forth to allow a move to another house.

[Binky]

Obviously neither of you read the article. Should we get the literacy council involved here?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:



Well, I read it and I think it's a sad situation. The renters who've been paying their rent, are going to have to move on. Just the way it is. It doesn't matter that they were only renters and had nothing to do with it. It's too bad the renters can't purchase the places themselves.

It's the landlords fault for getting in over his/her heads and not paying the mortgage. The renters are the ones suffering for it.

[Psychoblues]

Caveat Emptor is good sense in ANY business transaction, P.



Seems like good state law to me..except...what if there is a lease for the property with a rent that will not satisfy the P&I on the property (I've seen this situation)? That's not fair to the owner..forced to accept less than is required.. On the other hand if yer buying foreclosures anywhere, Caveat emptor.

But, even the best laid plans are suddenly and dramatically changed in the face of new and emerging information and business propensities. Can you dig it?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Psychoblues]

Good thread! Sheriff did the right thing. Kathy lives in Cook County I think, I wonder what tid bits she could add to this from the locals who may have kept up with it a little better. I would think as does psycho that this will begin to pop up all over as the situation develops with the housing thing.

It just seems unfair, rather legal or not to suprise a rentor in good standing financially with an eviction. What's legal isn't always fair.....or right! I would take it a step further if short notice requirements were all that were afforded the rentors and say that if the home they rent becomes foreclosed on they would not be required to pay rent to the "former" owner but still have a thirty day period and courts protect their "cure" period. This way people could have at least a little time to build up some deposit money and so forth to allow a move to another house.

I'd like to see that as well, emmie. Maybe she'll check in on this subject!!!!!!!!!! And I am convinced this situation is already popping up about everywhere and we just aren't hearing about it. BTW, thanks for the holler back!!!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Kathianne]

Good thread! Sheriff did the right thing. Kathy lives in Cook County I think, I wonder what tid bits she could add to this from the locals who may have kept up with it a little better. I would think as does psycho that this will begin to pop up all over as the situation develops with the housing thing.

It just seems unfair, rather legal or not to suprise a rentor in good standing financially with an eviction. What's legal isn't always fair.....or right! I would take it a step further if short notice requirements were all that were afforded the rentors and say that if the home they rent becomes foreclosed on they would not be required to pay rent to the "former" owner but still have a thirty day period and courts protect their "cure" period. This way people could have at least a little time to build up some deposit money and so forth to allow a move to another house.
I'm in DuPage County actually, west of Chicago. I have to agree that the renters should be protected, but law enforcement needs to enforce the laws. If the laws need changing, then the renters need to do their thing with the reps.

[Psychoblues]

And I always thought "fairness" was generally a matter of common sense. I guess it isn't.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Gaffer]

I'm in DuPage County actually, west of Chicago. I have to agree that the renters should be protected, but law enforcement needs to enforce the laws. If the laws need changing, then the renters need to do their thing with the reps.

Sounds like the sheriff is doing his own forcing of the reps to take action. If he didn't do this how many years would they talk about it in the state house before taking some half ass action that involved throwing money at the problem.

Sheriff's are politicians and the good ones know how to force county and state officials into action.

[Kathianne]

Sounds like the sheriff is doing his own forcing of the reps to take action. If he didn't do this how many years would they talk about it in the state house before taking some half ass action that involved throwing money at the problem.

Sheriff's are politicians and the good ones know how to force county and state officials into action.
When the enforcement branch of the government; regardless of the level of government; chooses which laws to enforce and which not to, the balance of powers has failed to work.

[Psychoblues]

If you had read the article or even possibly the thread, kat, you would realize that the Sheriff was performing evictions on individuals and that he felt he had poor legal standing in so doing. Continuing the practise of unjust evictions was exposing his office to expensive litigation for which the taxpayers should not have to endure and the Sheriff did well in protecting state and county assets as well as the intents of the taxpayers.




When the enforcement branch of the government; regardless of the level of government; chooses which laws to enforce and which not to, the balance of powers has failed to work.

He checked with his county and state attorneys and they agreed with him. Many more cases at least similar to this will be forthcoming in this latest economic disaster that can be squarely blamed on deregulation and poor oversight within existing regulation as well as simple Wall Street greed. The poor renters don't have a dog in this fight prior to being unjustly and unfairly evicted. Even you are smart enough to figure that out, kat.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[bullypulpit]

It's really a sensible thing to do. Rather than evicting tenants whose landlords failed to meet their mortgage payments, or skipped with them, leave the tenants alone.

Allow them to remain so long as they continue to make their rental payments in a timely manner. Rather than paying the landlord, the rents go to an escrow account set up by the sheriff's department. A property management firm is engaged to manage and maintain the properties. This way, rather than the properties standing vacant and falling into disrepair during the foreclosure process - which can take up to a year or more - the properties remain occupied and accruing rents in the escrow account to either serve as incentive for a new buyer or to the benefit of local government.

Stipulations could be added to the purchase contract to permit the current tenants to remain in occupancy so long as they continue to pay their rents on time and in full. In this way, families are not left homeless in these times of economic uncertainty through no fault of their own.

[Kathianne]

It's really a sensible thing to do. Rather than evicting tenants whose landlords failed to meet their mortgage payments, or skipped with them, leave the tenants alone.

Allow them to remain so long as they continue to make their rental payments in a timely manner. Rather than paying the landlord, the rents go to an escrow account set up by the sheriff's department. A property management firm is engaged to manage and maintain the properties. This way, rather than the properties standing vacant and falling into disrepair during the foreclosure process - which can take up to a year or more - the properties remain occupied and accruing rents in the escrow account to either serve as incentive for a new buyer or to the benefit of local government.

Stipulations could be added to the purchase contract to permit the current tenants to remain in occupancy so long as they continue to pay their rents on time and in full. In this way, families are not left homeless in these times of economic uncertainty through no fault of their own.

There's been more news articles regarding this. One, the judges usually set up just what you have suggested for renters that are current on payments. Two, in cases where there are needed to be evictions, even for non-payment, they are not enforced during the winter months, for the most part. It's done on a case-by-case basis in the housing courts.

This may come as a shock to those outside of Chicago, this 'controversy' seems to be a political stunt, a rare occurrence in these parts. :rolleyes:

[DragonStryk72]

Should we merely just allow folks who want to pay....pay from now on! Is that what you are suggesting?

It's a cruel world man. When you don't pay rent you are subject to eviction. That's a part of life. These are the things that are to motivate us to work hard, be responsible and try!

Actually, Emmett, according to the article, these people are paying their rent, they aren't supposed to be getting evicted. The mortgage groups are not informing the occupants of any sort of trouble, least of all an eviction (The state law requires 120 day notice, which has been routinely ignored by the companies calling for the evictions), and coming home to find that, despite their having been timely with their rent, that they are now, in fact, homeless. Didn't default their mortgage, cause they don't have one, but they're being evicted without notice none the less.

In this case, the sheriff is in the right, the companies need to be held to the law, same as the people. They knew that they were breaking the 120 day rule left and right, and they didn't care, not until they got told no for once by someone in authority.

[Psychoblues]

Thanks, DS72.



Actually, Emmett, according to the article, these people are paying their rent, they aren't supposed to be getting evicted. The mortgage groups are not informing the occupants of any sort of trouble, least of all an eviction (The state law requires 120 day notice, which has been routinely ignored by the companies calling for the evictions), and coming home to find that, despite their having been timely with their rent, that they are now, in fact, homeless. Didn't default their mortgage, cause they don't have one, but they're being evicted without notice none the less.

In this case, the sheriff is in the right, the companies need to be held to the law, same as the people. They knew that they were breaking the 120 day rule left and right, and they didn't care, not until they got told no for once by someone in authority.

You've been doing some reading, haven't you?

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute: