I can’t watch videos at my bandwidth. However, suppose I were a banker. I lend money to someone for the purchase of a house. My customer fails to make the agreed payments, and I take legal action to regain my money in the form of the house. The Chicago police decide unilaterally that I am not entitled to the house, despite contract law and ordinary business practice. On the face of it, this is unjust.
Katherine,
He is refusing to evict renters whose landlords have not paid the mortgage to the banks.
[blockquote] “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.
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.[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html?iref=newssearch] -CNN[/url]
The landlord has taken rent in good faith from the tenant and has not paid the mortgage. Where is the law when it does not take action against the illegal practices of the landlord? Although the sheriff is legally wrong, I hope his action and this press release will draw attention to this. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a good reporter would get the name of the landlord and publish it? But no, they are all too busy trying to get Obama elected.
This could not happen in NJ. Tenants who pay their rent are not subject to eviction in a foreclosure action. They fall within the ambit of a “Just-Cause Eviction” law that precludes tenants’ eviction except for specified and defined reasons. Forelcosure is not one of them. Generally, keeping tenants in rental housing is good for the lenders but it is a problem where the rents are artifically low (family perhaps) or where the property has higher value to an intended owner-occupier. Placing limitations on the lender’s rights does impact the ability to obtain financing. A lender will lend less agaisnt the property if it knows that it will be stuck with tenants if it has to foreclose.
This seems to be a murky situation in which the Sheriff is making judgments he is not in a position to make. Is he sure that people have not received proper notification? Are the people being evicted reliable tenants with the usual legally-enforceable leases? He can’t know this; presumably, he’s repeating what they say when his deputies arrive. It may be true in some cases and false in others. It’s always sad when people are in difficult situations. As #5 indicates, there are ordinarily state statues governing leased property in which the tenant is entitled to stay at least until the lease runs out, no matter who owns the property.
One of the marks of a stable environment for business owners is the enforcement of contract law. We appear to be stepping into a different world, in which government agencies are willing to intervene to invalidate contracts when they want to. If people cannot rely on their valid agreements being honored in law, this will be devastating for business investment. Simply refusing to honor any eviction notices because there are some which have been abusive is a drastic move.
What about the rights of the renters? Who’s defending THEM? So far, everything I’ve seen and heard leans towards the banks getting their money. What about the young families or retired couples who face being put out on the street because their landlords didn’t make their mortgage payments? What’s being done to protect THEM?
I’m puzzled as to why the lender would want to evict the renters, frankly. Why not renegotiate the lease and get some income from the property as opposed to letting it sit vacant, deteriorating, collecting property tax bills.
Cennydd #7, #8, it’s hard to tell from the news articles what the exact circumstances are. If these people are renters of apartments or of houses in the usual way, and they have valid leases, then they do have legal recourse in most states, most especially if the real estate is rental property. Chicago is admittedly a very corrupt locale, but still, there are procedures and rules for these things. One gets the impression purely from reading the article that these may be month-to-month renters of private homes on which the owners have defaulted.
There are certainly, even in Chicago, pro bono legal services available to redress truly wrong situations. The article as written, though, doesn’t tell me if we really have a large number of evil heartless bankers who are ignoring the rules or whether, rather, we have a lot of owners who have tried to play both ends against the middle.
I heard the sheriff speaking about this yesterday and he said that it is too often the case the the renters are paid up on their rent and unaware that their landlords are behind on the mortgage.
The renters come home from work to find their belongings on the curb, being picked over by others.
The banks aren’t notifying the renters that they are facing eviction as the law requires, thus the sheriff has placed a moratorium (temporary halt) on these types of evictions until the banks give it their due dilligence.
If the sheriff has a problem with enforcing a court order then the sheriff should go into court, explain the situation to the judge, and seek court ordered relief. It sounds as if we have a law enforcement officer who is a law unto himself- I’m sure there’s no political calculation in what’s he doing.
I’m with the Sage of Monticello on this one. Why would a bank want to evict a good tenant paying a reasonable rent?
The Sheriff is refusing to enforce evictions because so many of the mortgage companies and banks are not doing their own due-diligence to find the proper owners of the properties. While this action unfairly gives extra time to those defaulting on properties, there were those (renters) who had paid their rent on time who were coming home to find their belongings on the street–the first notice they had that the landlord had not paid on the mortgage.
Sheriff Dart really wants the banks and lenders to do their own paperwork instead of pushing it off on his department. He also is trying to get the courts to rule on a better procedure so the innocent do not get tossed out on the street.
This one is especially enlightening: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-1010edit1oct10,0,5832658.story
In effect, Dart want the courts to make the lenders stop passing the $$$ for researching who’s actually living at the property onto the taxpayers–$100,000 worth. Reading several of the reports, I get why he has made this stand–the lenders have found another loophole to stick the costs to the taxpayers–and is using the “law” to do it.
According to the article posted by Marie, Sheriff Dart said that about a third of the foreclosure evictions involve renters and that the total number this year might be around 4500 foreclosure evictions. That means about 1500 rental units are being affected. For Cook County, Illinois that seeems like a pretty minor problem, but big political opportunity.
Thanks for the info, Summersnow(a fitting name for someone from Chicago). According to the article of the 1500 foreclosure evictions involving renters about one-third of them failed to list the renters. So, Sheriff Dart has a problem with 500 evictions. It is unclear from the article as to who legally bears the burden of notifying the renters. It wouldn’t suprise me that in the case of many of those 500 evictions the property owner never divulged to the lender that he was renting the property. In which case it would be very difficult for the lender to get that information. How would you suggest that a lender get that info?
BTW, I’ll be spending Saturday evening in some rental property in Chicago and I’m pleased to know that I won’t be running into Sheriff Dart.
Dart js quite the decent fellow. Quite unusual here in Chi-town. The answers to your questions is part of what Dart is trying to get settled. It seems that some banks and mortgage companies are not even trying to get the proper information to notify the renters. These are leaving the work to the Sheriff’s office. This is the situation Dart is trying to deal with. It says in the Trib that he met today with two foreclosure judges to see what can be done. Let’s hope it results in a solution which protects more of the innocent.
I can’t watch videos at my bandwidth. However, suppose I were a banker. I lend money to someone for the purchase of a house. My customer fails to make the agreed payments, and I take legal action to regain my money in the form of the house. The Chicago police decide unilaterally that I am not entitled to the house, despite contract law and ordinary business practice. On the face of it, this is unjust.
Katherine,
He is refusing to evict renters whose landlords have not paid the mortgage to the banks.
[blockquote] “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.
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.[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html?iref=newssearch] -CNN[/url]
[/blockquote]
The landlord has taken rent in good faith from the tenant and has not paid the mortgage. Where is the law when it does not take action against the illegal practices of the landlord? Although the sheriff is legally wrong, I hope his action and this press release will draw attention to this. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a good reporter would get the name of the landlord and publish it? But no, they are all too busy trying to get Obama elected.
Here is a text version of the story for those who can not use Kendall’s MSN link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434603,00.html
This could not happen in NJ. Tenants who pay their rent are not subject to eviction in a foreclosure action. They fall within the ambit of a “Just-Cause Eviction” law that precludes tenants’ eviction except for specified and defined reasons. Forelcosure is not one of them. Generally, keeping tenants in rental housing is good for the lenders but it is a problem where the rents are artifically low (family perhaps) or where the property has higher value to an intended owner-occupier. Placing limitations on the lender’s rights does impact the ability to obtain financing. A lender will lend less agaisnt the property if it knows that it will be stuck with tenants if it has to foreclose.
Thanks for the link, #4.
This seems to be a murky situation in which the Sheriff is making judgments he is not in a position to make. Is he sure that people have not received proper notification? Are the people being evicted reliable tenants with the usual legally-enforceable leases? He can’t know this; presumably, he’s repeating what they say when his deputies arrive. It may be true in some cases and false in others. It’s always sad when people are in difficult situations. As #5 indicates, there are ordinarily state statues governing leased property in which the tenant is entitled to stay at least until the lease runs out, no matter who owns the property.
One of the marks of a stable environment for business owners is the enforcement of contract law. We appear to be stepping into a different world, in which government agencies are willing to intervene to invalidate contracts when they want to. If people cannot rely on their valid agreements being honored in law, this will be devastating for business investment. Simply refusing to honor any eviction notices because there are some which have been abusive is a drastic move.
What about the rights of the renters? Who’s defending THEM? So far, everything I’ve seen and heard leans towards the banks getting their money. What about the young families or retired couples who face being put out on the street because their landlords didn’t make their mortgage payments? What’s being done to protect THEM?
For them, it’s 1929 all over again!
I’m puzzled as to why the lender would want to evict the renters, frankly. Why not renegotiate the lease and get some income from the property as opposed to letting it sit vacant, deteriorating, collecting property tax bills.
Cennydd #7, #8, it’s hard to tell from the news articles what the exact circumstances are. If these people are renters of apartments or of houses in the usual way, and they have valid leases, then they do have legal recourse in most states, most especially if the real estate is rental property. Chicago is admittedly a very corrupt locale, but still, there are procedures and rules for these things. One gets the impression purely from reading the article that these may be month-to-month renters of private homes on which the owners have defaulted.
There are certainly, even in Chicago, pro bono legal services available to redress truly wrong situations. The article as written, though, doesn’t tell me if we really have a large number of evil heartless bankers who are ignoring the rules or whether, rather, we have a lot of owners who have tried to play both ends against the middle.
I heard the sheriff speaking about this yesterday and he said that it is too often the case the the renters are paid up on their rent and unaware that their landlords are behind on the mortgage.
The renters come home from work to find their belongings on the curb, being picked over by others.
The banks aren’t notifying the renters that they are facing eviction as the law requires, thus the sheriff has placed a moratorium (temporary halt) on these types of evictions until the banks give it their due dilligence.
If the sheriff has a problem with enforcing a court order then the sheriff should go into court, explain the situation to the judge, and seek court ordered relief. It sounds as if we have a law enforcement officer who is a law unto himself- I’m sure there’s no political calculation in what’s he doing.
I’m with the Sage of Monticello on this one. Why would a bank want to evict a good tenant paying a reasonable rent?
Speaking from Chicago…
The Sheriff is refusing to enforce evictions because so many of the mortgage companies and banks are not doing their own due-diligence to find the proper owners of the properties. While this action unfairly gives extra time to those defaulting on properties, there were those (renters) who had paid their rent on time who were coming home to find their belongings on the street–the first notice they had that the landlord had not paid on the mortgage.
Sheriff Dart really wants the banks and lenders to do their own paperwork instead of pushing it off on his department. He also is trying to get the courts to rule on a better procedure so the innocent do not get tossed out on the street.
Chicago Tribune has several articles: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-sheriff-foreclosureoct09,0,6213711.story
This one is especially enlightening: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-1010edit1oct10,0,5832658.story
In effect, Dart want the courts to make the lenders stop passing the $$$ for researching who’s actually living at the property onto the taxpayers–$100,000 worth. Reading several of the reports, I get why he has made this stand–the lenders have found another loophole to stick the costs to the taxpayers–and is using the “law” to do it.
According to the article posted by Marie, Sheriff Dart said that about a third of the foreclosure evictions involve renters and that the total number this year might be around 4500 foreclosure evictions. That means about 1500 rental units are being affected. For Cook County, Illinois that seeems like a pretty minor problem, but big political opportunity.
Thanks for the info, Summersnow(a fitting name for someone from Chicago). According to the article of the 1500 foreclosure evictions involving renters about one-third of them failed to list the renters. So, Sheriff Dart has a problem with 500 evictions. It is unclear from the article as to who legally bears the burden of notifying the renters. It wouldn’t suprise me that in the case of many of those 500 evictions the property owner never divulged to the lender that he was renting the property. In which case it would be very difficult for the lender to get that information. How would you suggest that a lender get that info?
BTW, I’ll be spending Saturday evening in some rental property in Chicago and I’m pleased to know that I won’t be running into Sheriff Dart.
Dart js quite the decent fellow. Quite unusual here in Chi-town. The answers to your questions is part of what Dart is trying to get settled. It seems that some banks and mortgage companies are not even trying to get the proper information to notify the renters. These are leaving the work to the Sheriff’s office. This is the situation Dart is trying to deal with. It says in the Trib that he met today with two foreclosure judges to see what can be done. Let’s hope it results in a solution which protects more of the innocent.