Sheriff scolds banks for evictions of 'innocent' renters

[Glaucus]

I figured it's about time I started my own thread on the economy, so here goes...

Illinois sheriff scolds banks for evictions of 'innocent' renters

An outraged sheriff in Illinois who refuses to evict "innocent" renters from foreclosed homes criticized mortgage companies Thursday and said the law should protect victims of the mortgage meltdown.

Sheriff Thomas J. Dart said earlier he is suspending foreclosure evictions in Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago.

The county had been on track to reach a record number of evictions, many because of mortgage foreclosures.

Many good tenants are suffering because building owners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

"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.

So is he right to "bend" the law? Shouldn't we feel sorry for the mortgage companies that won't be allowed to repossess the property?

- Mike

 

[ltstanfo]

I figured it's about time I started my own thread on the economy, so here goes...

Illinois sheriff scolds banks for evictions of 'innocent' renters

An outraged sheriff in Illinois who refuses to evict "innocent" renters from foreclosed homes criticized mortgage companies Thursday and said the law should protect victims of the mortgage meltdown.

Sheriff Thomas J. Dart said earlier he is suspending foreclosure evictions in Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago.

The county had been on track to reach a record number of evictions, many because of mortgage foreclosures.

Many good tenants are suffering because building owners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

"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.

So is he right to "bend" the law? Shouldn't we feel sorry for the mortgage companies that won't be allowed to repossess the property?

- Mike

It's an interesting question to be sure. As this article adds, he is apparently only stopping evictions on those tennants who have paid their rent to building owners who have defaulted on mortgages (even fled the country). So my first question is:

1. What do local / state laws say about this situation and what he is doing? Is he within his power to do so?
2. Apparently the lien holders (banks) are supposed to identify tennants who may be effected and provide adequate time for relocation and the sheriff in question is finding this is not being done so he is enforcing that part of some agreement / law. Is his definition of "4 months" legal or just what is the relocation time allowed?
3. Are there any pending (class action) lawsuits to address this issue?

I personally think he is doing the right thing but what does the law allow / say?

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I read that one. I like it. And in Chicago, if he has to spend all his time evicting people under foreclosure he isn't going to have the manpower to do anything else.

It improves things a lot locally if people get to stay in their homes. Law enforcement and civil unrest would get a little insane if the homeless population grew significantly.

I don't know if his legal position is correct, but his moral position seems sound.

 

[faethor]

I read that one. I like it. And in Chicago, if he has to spend all his time evicting people under foreclosure he isn't going to have the manpower to do anything else.

It improves things a lot locally if people get to stay in their homes. Law enforcement and civil unrest would get a little insane if the homeless population grew significantly.

I don't know if his legal position is correct, but his moral position seems sound.

Scarily you may be right. IF the Sheriff was to kick the people out of their homes and if this number is huge enough the homeless people will start rallying and picketing. Then the Sheriff has to call in the riot police or perhaps even the National Guard (wonder if they can get back from Iraq in time.) Likely too much kicking people out of their homes will simply cause our prisions to fill up.

If the Sheriff's job is to not only enforce the law but keep the peace his action of telling the Banks off may be the better option.

 

[eleventhma]

Seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot, really

If the tenants who pay their rent on time are evicted because the building changes owners, then the new owners (the banks, presumably) probably ought to have their heads checked. Unless they already have some sort of foolproof plan to do something with the building that will actually generate revenue, it is pretty dumb to kick out safe income generating tenants. A vacant building is not going to make them any money.