Sometimes, a good man makes a stand.

[Coeloptera]

The Associated Press: Chicago's Cook County won't evict in foreclosures

"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."

"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."

"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."

"'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.'"

"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.'"


This man...is a damned, bonafied, American HERO.

I wrote him an email. Here's the Cook County website: http://www.cookcountysheriff.org/

- Coeloptera

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Originally Posted by Coeloptera

This man...is a damned, bonafied, American HERO.
I wrote him an email. Here's the Cook County website: Cook County Sheriff's Office
- Coeloptera

Co he is no hero. It is his job to enforce the law, not to interpret it and follow the laws as he wishes. What he is in essence is thumbing his nose at the judge. If a judge issues an order of eviction then he is obligated to follow it.

What also isn't mentioned is that if you are a renter and are being served with a foreclosure eviction then you can call the bank and ask them about assuming the loan or a portion of the loan. The bank doesn't have to do this but they typically lose substantial amounts of money in a foreclosure. This type of takeover helps reduce their losses and keeps the renter from being evicted.

[TACAV]

Although since you need X days of notice of the eviction, and the person named is not on the initial notice of eviction order, sure the bank can go add the correct persons name on there later on but then that new person still needs to be given the X days notice of eviction as well. If thats the case, the court cant throw someone out without the required notice.

[toolman]

[quote=Coeloptera;649376
"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."
"'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.'"
"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. [/QUOTE]

SA, it sounds to me like he's making a stand and doing his job. LEO's aren't judges' lapdogs when they're ignoring written law. Good point on dealing with the banks BTW, most folks don't even think about pursuing their options when they're being ordered out of their homes.

[TXplt]

Well, that's brilliant. Guess being a liberal democrat now gives you a free home at my expense, in spite of a court order otherwise -- why not. Enjoy the cigarettes and booze on my dime as well. And I'm certain that NONE of the renters or owners were "notified" (no sir, no one ever told us nothing--never got no letters, nothing--as the eviction notice letters are sitting on the kitchen table, unopened). Yep, I'm sure THEY'VE no incentive to lie. Why not believe folks that have no interest in fulfilling their financial obligations ? I'm sure the liberal medial always has its facts straight as well. I'm sure there is NOTHING in the lease agreement (for renters) stipulating the terms and conditions if the property goes into foreclosure. Yep.....

I've had to evict two tenants from a rental property in FL for non payment of rent (after giving them every chance to work out a payment plan). It wasn't the first time they were late or didn't pay, and this was BEFORE the economy went bad. It was a long and cumbersome process which allowed them to effectively live for free for a couple of months. I can assure you that they knew everything that was going on at every stage, and had more than ample opportunities to meet their financial obligations in every way. The papers were served IAW every applicable law. It wasn't easy to do, and they were completely notified of everything.

Of course, the liberal media would never lie about something like this. And a Chicago politician wouldn't capitalize on a situation to try to get ahead. Aren't cops supposed to enforce the LAW ?! Now they're making that up as they go too in Chi town ?

We have dramatically different definitions of "hero." I'll reserve mine for someone who actually did something heroic and deserves it, thank you.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Tman; as honorable as it is to try to help people who get screwed over, those people have no right to stay in those homes.

I listen to Clark Howard and heard him discuss this one day; said it happened to him and thats how he bought his first home.

[toolman]

Let me get this straight, you rent an apt. from a guy who made a bad loan. You make your payments on time like you're supposed to and then one day a couple of deputies show up at your door and tell you to get out and you don't a right to be there? I'm sorry, but if I do everything I'm supposed to be doing and someone tells me I'm going to lose my home anyway, I'm gonna hurt somebody. A lot of these folks have families and can't afford moving expenses. As far as I'm concerned, the banks are the ones who made the bad loans, they should be responsible for housing these folks until they can make other arrangements.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by toolman

Let me get this straight, you rent an apt. from a guy who made a bad loan. You make your payments on time like you're supposed to and then one day a couple of deputies show up at your door and tell you to get out and you don't a right to be there? I'm sorry, but if I do everything I'm supposed to be doing and someone tells me I'm going to lose my home anyway, I'm gonna hurt somebody. A lot of these folks have families and can't afford moving expenses. As far as I'm concerned, the banks are the ones who made the bad loans, they should be responsible for housing these folks until they can make other arrangements.

No, you're told your house is in foreclosure and you have 4 months to vacate. You'd also see this in your lease if you had bothered to read it or listen to the property manager when he explained it to you. Worst case scenario would be you sign a year lease and now be told you need be out in 4 months--8 months early. It's likely as a renter, for the inconvenience, you might be able to withhold rent from that point forward to help cover the cost of moving (as well as potentially recover the security deposit, again, depending on the conditions of the lease you signed and were provided a copy of). As a practical matter, with rent up front and a month's security deposit, this gives you 2 months of free living, the cost of which you could use to hire a mover.

I've NEVER seen the terms of an eviction order or notifications of eviction "routinely ignored."--at least by the evictor (and this would be pretty darn stupid for a bank to do given the follow up lawsuit which would occur). Given the fact this violates a whole host of laws and breaches a legal contract, I'll scoff at the "routinely ignored" part.

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Well, that's brilliant. Guess being a liberal democrat now gives you a free home at my expense, in spite of a court order otherwise -- why not. Enjoy the cigarettes and booze on my dime as well. And I'm certain that NONE of the renters or owners were "notified" (no sir, no one ever told us nothing--never got no letters, nothing--as the eviction notice letters are sitting on the kitchen table, unopened). Yep, I'm sure THEY'VE no incentive to lie. Why not believe folks that have no interest in fulfilling their financial obligations ? I'm sure the liberal medial always has its facts straight as well. I'm sure there is NOTHING in the lease agreement (for renters) stipulating the terms and conditions if the property goes into foreclosure. Yep.....

Okay, seriously...what is WRONG with you, lately?

It's all "libs, libs, libs" lately and nothing else.

Read the article. He is still evicting people for nonpayment of rent.

"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."

How did you miss that?

"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."

That's the law he's following there. But you're trying to twist it.

Your bias is creeping into almost everything you say here, lately, and it's frankly sort of creeping me out.

I've seen this happen at my job. I've seen properties foreclosed on and every single guest or resident summarily tossed out with literally no warning. I've seen apartment complexes illegally renting out rooms (a Woogo property in NYC, for one) as though they were a hotel and the entire thing being closed down for it.

Here: Renters Face Rapid Eviction as Foreclosures Soar : NPR
and here: Foreclosure fallout: Renters forced out of lost homes - CNN.com

There's tons more.

And it finally happened...your biases overwhelmed your intellect.

"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."


You need to STOP hating your fellow citizens because they may have some views different than yours. Seriously. You were throwing around "liberal Democrat" with literally no backup for saying it. How do you know anything about these people? But you used it as a term of derision reflexively without it having any actual bearing on things.

I really expect better from you, TXplt. You're damn smart and usually see things clearly. You can disagree with a lot, but you usually have good reasons and they're well thought out.

This was...I'm surprised is all. You tore into a LEO's actions and immediately questioned his honesty because...I don't even know why, honestly.

- Coeloptera

[DWFan]

TXplt, I don't know about here in Texas, but in Oklahoma, withholding rent is not an option as it is illegal to do so for any reason. An eviction notice must be as exact as a search warrant to be legal and can give a renter as little as 5 days notice, no matter how much the renter has paid in advance, and any deposits or prepaid rent are at the option of the property owner to refund unless ordered to by the courts.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by DWFan

TXplt, I don't know about here in Texas, but in Oklahoma, withholding rent is not an option as it is illegal to do so for any reason. An eviction notice must be as exact as a search warrant to be legal and can give a renter as little as 5 days notice, no matter how much the renter has paid in advance, and any deposits or prepaid rent are at the discrestion of the property owner to refund unless ordered to by the courts.

According to the article, IL law (specifically for those renting homes owned by another) gives the renter 120 days. Early termination of a lease would be grounds to recover for damages. Breach of contract in general relieves the other party of the duty to continue to abide by its terms.

From personal experience, I've never recovered a nickel (except forfeited security deposits) from failure to pay rent for my rental property in FL. It took 2 months (both times) from the time the tenants were first seriously delinquent until they were evicted. Laws are very specific, and in general favor the renter to be able to pay; if someone fails to pay he can extend for an additional month by paying the rent and late fee after the issue is turned over to the court. It then comes back, and eviction can happen shortly thereafter (I believe it was 10 days) if it happens again the next month. Theoretically, a tenant could alternate delinquent months I guess. In my cases, it was just flat out not paying, posting payment, and then not paying anymore.

Coel, I really don't know where you're getting the "hate" thing at all--I hate no one in this case but I simply don't believe at all that tenants are being thrown out of their homes in Chicago without legal notice. I think you (and/or the article) might well have your facts mixed up. If it requires 120 days from notification to eviction, a tenant would have a pretty solid lawsuit against a bank for anything less. Plain and simple. I've rented properties before, and I and my property managers have followed the law to the letter, which has very specific notification requirements (in general favoring tenants, at least in FL and it seems harder in IL from the article--an eviction for an owner is a very painful process--that's why it's almost always in everyone's interest to work out a payment plan). Not to follow the law would have opened us up to relatively severe civil penalties. When I've rented houses or apartments, I've actually read the terms of my lease as well. If someone signs a lease IAW state law which states they can be evicted upon foreclosure of the house by the bank after 120 days, that's the terms of the contract and it is RIGHT that the terms of the contract be followed. For sheriffs not to be enforcing the law is WRONG. We call this personal accountability. Articles from NPR don't relieve individuals from their contractural responsibilities. Outside of the legal stuff in this case, I'd be willing to bet that the banks would be pretty anxious to cut a deal with the renters if able to keep cash coming in, especially given the conditions of the housing market and economy (even to the extent of negotiating a lease until a buyer of the house could be found).

I don't "hate" the people who borrowed irresponsibly to initiate the housing crisis either (or the people in kongress and the presidency of klinton who fostered the situation). I do believe they should be legitimately held accountable for their actions, however. There's a distinct difference there.

I don't "hate" people who are freeloading on my dime either--but I don't believe they should be allowed to continue it and it's wrong. There's a strong difference between "hate" and right and wrong.

I "hate" very few people in my life. I don't even "hate" barack hussein, although I personally do consider him a terrible person.

When given a legitimate eviction order, I see this simply as a sheriff who's failing to do his legal duty and that is just plain wrong. Spin can't make it right, no matter how long. I don't categorize people who fail to do their duty as "hero" s.

I also might humbly suggest that not eveything presented in the media these days is true.

[RedneckCatholic]

Coel--

If the tenants are not notified IAW the law, and the eviction notices are not properly identifying the persons to be evicted, then enforcing the order is in and of itself illegal.

The sheriff is simply enforcing the laws as written.

Some people have an "established narrative", which is the lens that they view everything through. For many, it's the narrative of class, gender and racial victimization, or proletarian exploitation by the ownership class. For others, it's the liberals and their obsession with using the sweat of the employed and respectable to support the lazy and vile.

In both cases, adherance to the narrative precludes examination of facts.

There's no argueing at that point--such folks have become a type of fundamentalist in their beliefs, and no evidence or reasoning will sway them.

DISCLAIMER: I am not casting aspersion on Fundamentalist Christians! The 12 volume work, The Fundamentals of Christianity from which they take their name is a triumph of Protestant Theology and exigesis! They have my respect, as do those who live by them, and the Bible.

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by TXplt

I see this simply as a sheriff who's failing to do his legal duty and that is just plain wrong. Spin can't make it right, no matter how long. I don't categorize people who fail to do their duty as "hero" s.

And if the courts decide he does have legal basis not to enforce the evictions? What will you think then? He will have been right from the beginning.

Or will you blame "activist judges"?

- Coeloptera

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Coeloptera

And if the courts decide he does have legal basis not to enforce the evictions? What will you think then? He will have been right from the beginning.

Or will you blame "activist judges"?

- Coeloptera

So, he's claiming from the article that the eviction process on foreclosures can take more than a year (which is longer than the terms on many leases themselves); however the occupants "didn't have adequate notice" ? Sorry, gotta scoff again

If you at some point provide me with data from just one of these occupants successfully suing the bank for not providing them with the legal time required for eviction from a foreclosure property, I'll be more than happy to come to you hat in hand and post "sorry, I'm wrong"

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Well, that's brilliant. Guess being a liberal democrat now gives you a free home at my expense, in spite of a court order otherwise -- why not. Enjoy the cigarettes and booze on my dime as well.

I'm sorry, but that is just plain hateful. Your comment has nothing to do with the case at hand, you're just taking another gratuitous slam at Democrats. I didn't read anything in the article that says the renters being tossed without legal notice are all liberal Democrats.

I agree with Coel; the quality of your postings has gone down the toilet lately.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I'm sorry, but that is just plain hateful. Your comment has nothing to do with the case at hand, you're just taking another gratuitous slam at Democrats. I didn't read anything in the article that says the renters being tossed without legal notice are all liberal Democrats.

I agree with Coel; the quality of your postings has gone down the toilet lately.

We have a very dramatically different opinion of "hateful" and, as I've said, I hate no one in this situation. However, I don't have a great penchant for media distortions these days, or grandstanding by selective use of facts. And I'd be more than willing to concede that some of those tossed might well be conservative republicans (but, in case I've missed it, I don't believe the leadership of the city falls into this category and they're put there by the residents of the city).

I could very well say the same about your postings lately, but that'd be downright mean and unfriendly, and I'm a very friendly guy It seems to me lately you do like to resort to personal issues when you're losing footing with the task at hand, but that's a personal observation and I don't mean it in an unkind way.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by TXplt

We have a very dramatically different opinion of "hateful" and, as I've said, I hate no one in this situation. However, I don't have a great penchant for media distortions these days, or grandstanding by selective use of facts. And I'd be more than willing to concede that some of those tossed might well be conservative republicans (but, in case I've missed it, I don't believe the leadership of the city falls into this category and they're put there by the residents of the city).
I could very well say the same about your postings lately, but that'd be downright mean and unfriendly, and I'm a very friendly guy It seems to me lately you do like to resort to personal issues when you're losing footing with the task at hand, but that's a personal observation and I don't mean it in an unkind way.

Yes, you could say that about my postings, but it wouldn't be true.

If using this story as an excuse to paint liberal democrats as freeloaders living off you isn't hateful, I'd be interested in knowing what you think is.

I'm getting a little exasperated. I used to highly respect your opinions and your posts, even though I usually disagreed with you. But lately it seems like you've parked your brain, and replaced your former reasoned positions with blind partisanship.

This thread is a classic example: it's about a sheriff who's refusing to do illegal evictions that have incorrect information and no proper legal notice. You morphed it into an attack on freeloading liberal Democrats, who are somehow making you pay for their booze and cigarettes. Huh? who are you, and what have you done with TXplt?

[Rambo]

If I buy a building and it's rented at the time, the rental agreement stays in place as I assume it when I purchase the property. When the owner of a building loses it to the bank, the rental contracts in place at the time are still legal as they are assumed with the title for the property. The banks can negotiate with the renters to end their contracts but cannot just throw them out. Laws are there for a reason.

[madcratebuilder]

Originally Posted by TXplt

I don't "hate" the people who borrowed irresponsibly to initiate the housing crisis either (or the people in kongress and the presidency of klinton who fostered the situation). I do believe they should be legitimately held accountable for their actions, however. There's a distinct difference there.

I don't "hate" people who are freeloading on my dime either--but I don't believe they should be allowed to continue it and it's wrong. There's a strong difference between "hate" and right and wrong.

I "hate" very few people in my life. I don't even "hate" barack hussein, although I personally do consider him a terrible person.

When given a legitimate eviction order, I see this simply as a sheriff who's failing to do his legal duty and that is just plain wrong. Spin can't make it right, no matter how long. I don't categorize people who fail to do their duty as "hero" s.

I also might humbly suggest that not eveything presented in the media these days is true.

Well put TXplt. There seems to be no 'personal responsibility' in this country anymore.

[GlennM]

Sometimes it's a good thing to sit back, take a deep breath and a sip of coffee, and remember that we've all enjoyed each others' company here -- in spite of the fact that differences of opinions are being exchanged from opposite ends of the spectrum -- and be thanksful that our online family manages to perpetuate itself with a minimum of bloodshed.

Keep smiling. We're all in this financial mess together, for better or for worse. And, indeed, until death do us part.

COEL, of -course- you had to pick a story about Illinois, the ugly duckling of all 50.