So, a sherriff not evicting renters from an apartment...

[Wheezer]

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Sheriff Thomas J. Dart said Wednesday he is suspending foreclosure evictions in Cook County, which had been on track to reach a record number of evictions, many because of mortgage foreclosures.
Sheriff Thomas J. Dart of Cook County, Illinois, says proper eviction procedures aren't always been followed.

Sheriff Thomas J. Dart of Cook County, Illinois, says proper eviction procedures aren't always been followed.

He said many of the evictions involve renters who are paying their rent on time but are being thrown out because the landlord has fallen behind on mortgage payments.

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, he said.

"These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don't care who's in the building," Dart said. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way.

"On top of it all, they want taxpayers to fund their investigative work for them. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today." Video Watch sheriff announce he won't evict innocent tenants »

Dart said he wants the judiciary or the state Legislature to establish protections for those most harmed by the mortgage crisis.

In 1999, Cook County had 12,935 mortgage foreclosure cases; in 2006, 18,916 cases were filed and last year, 32,269 were filed. This year's total is expected to exceed 43,000.

"The people we're interacting with are, many times, oblivious to the financial straits their landlord might be in," Dart said. "They are the innocent victims here and they are the ones all of us must step up and find some way to protect."

The Illinois Bankers Association opposed the plan, saying that Dart "was elected to uphold the law and to fulfill the legal duties of his office, which include serving eviction notices."
advertisement

The association said Dart could be found in contempt of court for ignoring court eviction orders.

"The reality is that by ignoring the law and his legal responsibilities, he is carrying out 'vigilantism' at the highest level of an elected official," it said. "The Illinois banking industry is working hard to help troubled homeowners in many ways, but Sheriff Dart's declaration of 'marshal law' should not be tolerated.

who ever made that statement just proved the sheriffs point.

if the tenants are paying the rent on time and fulfilling their obligations why should they be the victims in this?

simply take the rent and put it into an escrow so that the payment is covered.

Text

 

[Lemon law]

Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong.

Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

The tide is changing as I said it would.

I said as more and more ordinary people are negatively affected you would see them start to organize.

This Sheriiff recognizes it and some ATers are starting to as well.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

 

[alchemize]

Is he ceasing all evictions, or just ones where the landlord is in foreclosure?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

Good job ignoring that the landlords aren't following the laws

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

Good job ignoring that the landlords aren't following the laws

The lease is between the landlord (owner) and the renter. Not between the renter and the apartment. Once the landlord no longer owns the unit I see no problem with the new owner getting their money out of the system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

Well, yeah it is. Depending on the state, a pharmacist may or may not be legally required to dispense OCs. If they don't, then the customer goes somewhere else.

In this case, it's not like you can go pick a different law enforcement agency, nor is law enforcement inherently able to ignore a court order (and neither is a pharmacist for that matter)

The real crux of the matter is that people are getting hurt which is bad, and law enforcement says it isn't going to do it's job, which is bad.

What ought to happen is that the legislators need to address this issue now. That way there can be protection for renters without giving carte blanche to those who abuse the situation.

 

[Jhhnn]

From the linked article-

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, he said.

This is the crux of the Sheriff's dilemma. It's not precisely legal under Illinois law to evict tenants who aren't named in the required paperwork, and it's the owners' responsibility to provide that information, not his department's.

Property rights and responsibilities are intertwined- if you don't live up to the responsibilities, then you probably won't be able to exercise your rights...

Mortgage companies cut corners when they lent money to the former owners, and now they're cutting corners again in their attempts to have the sheriff's dept do their work for them...

Dunno why these guys are so anxious to own empty buildings, anyway- nobody's buying them. The cashflow and liabilities are extremely negative, as well...

 

[midway]

He is enforcing the law here. In Illinois renters are required to be given 120 days notice of eviction. Period. That law is commonly ignored but he is enforcing it. This is not vigilante justice by a law enforcement officer in any way.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

Good job ignoring that the landlords aren't following the laws

The lease is between the landlord (owner) and the renter. Not between the renter and the apartment. Once the landlord no longer owns the unit I see no problem with the new owner getting their money out of the system.

And apparently you see no problem with them not following the law and producing the names of the residents they want the sheriff to evict.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

Well, yeah it is. Depending on the state, a pharmacist may or may not be legally required to dispense OCs. If they don't, then the customer goes somewhere else.

In this case, it's not like you can go pick a different law enforcement agency, nor is law enforcement inherently able to ignore a court order (and neither is a pharmacist for that matter)

The real crux of the matter is that people are getting hurt which is bad, and law enforcement says it isn't going to do it's job, which is bad.

What ought to happen is that the legislators need to address this issue now. That way there can be protection for renters without giving carte blanche to those who abuse the situation.

What is up with you people not reading the article? Scroll back up and READ IT

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

The difference is the pharmacy is a private entity while the sheriff is a public official trusted with carrying out the laws of the land.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: midway
He is enforcing the law here. In Illinois renters are required to be given 120 days notice of eviction. Period. That law is commonly ignored but he is enforcing it.

This is not vigilante justice by a law enforcement officer in any way.

It is if you a Republican trying to profit from tossing families out on the street.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

Juristic Personas / Corporations = Non Human
Taxpayers / Ctizens / Residents = Real Human

It is easy to see why Corporations do not care about the consequences of their acxtions. With the Corporate Veil, humans can act inhumanely and escape prsecution.
Thius needs to change.
Business only cares about it's own interests. It is sociopathic. You do not give full rights to a sociopath, lest you destroy the very society you were "building".

Business Associations should not be allowed to exist, except in informal capacity./ They should not be allowed to influence politics or the political process.
Their actions are detrimental to the rest of us.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

Good job ignoring that the landlords aren't following the laws

The lease is between the landlord (owner) and the renter. Not between the renter and the apartment. Once the landlord no longer owns the unit I see no problem with the new owner getting their money out of the system.

Don't read everything do you?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

Juristic Personas / Corporations = Non Human
Taxpayers / Ctizens / Residents = Real Human

It is easy to see why Corporations do not care about the consequences of their acxtions. With the Corporate Veil, humans can act inhumanely and escape prsecution.
Thius needs to change.
Business only cares about it's own interests. It is sociopathic. You do not give full rights to a sociopath, lest you destroy the very society you were "building".

Business Associations should not be allowed to exist, except in informal capacity./ They should not be allowed to influence politics or the political process.
Their actions are detrimental to the rest of us.

The backlash against the Corporations is beginning as I said it would.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

Good job ignoring that the landlords aren't following the laws

The lease is between the landlord (owner) and the renter. Not between the renter and the apartment. Once the landlord no longer owns the unit I see no problem with the new owner getting their money out of the system.

Don't read everything do you?

Only when I have time.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

Money is also property, and yet you supported taking 700 billion dollars away from taxpayers, in an unconstitutional manner, as well.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

Money is also property, and yet you supported taking 700 billion dollars away from taxpayers, in an unconstitutional manner, as well.

Yes, but you advocate taking the economies of 6bn people away by not dealing with the problem we caused.

Besides, there isn't one person in this country that didn't benefit, directly or indirectly, from what happened in the last 7 years.

It's our problem to fix, our cost to bear. Simply giving up because it's too hard, or costs too much, is the first sign of an intellectually and morally bankrupt society.

one way or another, you socialize the problem.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

What about human rights, don't they trump property rights? Last I checked, shelter was a need, not a luxury. So if you have renters who paid their money on time, you can't just throw them out on the street because their landlord defaulted.

There are already laws to protect people in this case, and it's the banks that are not following the law by having the Sheriff serve and evict people that are due more time to find an alternate place.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Dart is correct and the Illinois Banking commission can go to hell as far as I am concerned. Now if they want to evict rent paying tenants, the damn bankers will have to hire their own thugs because a taxpayer
supported institution realizes it wrong. Meanwhile the very bankers who scream bail me out are willing to foreclose on widows and orphans.

So, you're saying the idea of property should be ignored? If the entity that owns the property wants to use the property for its own purposes, then it should be allowed to do so. Saying it cannot is usurping property rights.

I was almost in the same position, so I understand how it can be. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the sherrif is undermining a part of this country that is essential for the maintenance of the country itself. If you look at the differential between forms of government and economy that hasn't stood the test of time, and those that have, one of the most important ideals is the ideal of property rights.

Declaring the government as a force that can ignore property rights is a very dangerous step and one that shouldn't be taken. It's bad enough we let eminent domain go.

What about human rights, don't they trump property rights? Last I checked, shelter was a need, not a luxury. So if you have renters who paid their money on time, you can't just throw them out on the street because their landlord defaulted.

There are already laws to protect people in this case, and it's the banks that are not following the law by having the Sheriff serve and evict people that are due more time to find an alternate place.

So, there are no other houses available? This is Chicago, not Tokyo. I can go on Craigs List in NYC and find hundreds of apartments, thousands if you include the boroughs. I know Chicago is no different.

The contract is between PEOPLE, not PERSON AND PLACE.

 

[Thump553]

This is potentially a huge problem, and has been for years. No one responsible denies the mortgage holder their property rights, but they must be balanced with the tenants' property and personal rights.

Every mortgage I've ever seen (many thousands) has an assignment of rents provision, where the mortgage holder can tell the tenant to pay the rents to it once the property owner defaults. The mortgage holder should have exercised this right a long time ago, to protect it and the tenant.

At a minimum the tenant should be given notice of the foreclosure lawsuit when it is commenced so they can protect their rights.

I've represented both sides of this battle-far more often than I wished. The best de facto solution I've seen is judges refusing to exercise their power in equity to grant a writ of restitution (ie, order the eviction) unless there is proof that the tenant has notice of the proceeding. That's going beyond what the law requires generally, but it is a humane solution.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Torn. Obviously, evicting innocent people isn't a helpful situation. Then again, neither is a LEO refusing to do his duty.

On the surface, it doesn't seem a whole lot different that those pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions due to "moral objections."

Actually, he probably has more time now to fulfill his other duties. With as many eviction notices this guy is receiving, evicting people must be all he has time to do.