You can't evict the government, they have "sovereign immunity"

[mcurphy]

Tenant doesn't pay rent for 13 months, can't be evicted because of "sovereign immunity"

DMV-Getting-Evicted

BELVIDERE (WIFR) – A local state agency is having some trouble after the landlord says she hasn't been paid in more than a year. It’s gotten so bad , the landlords are now evicting the Secretary of State’s Office from its current Belvidere location.

It’s not clear where the DMV will go, but what is clear is the Secretary of State’s Office can’t stay in the building on Pearl Street.

We spoke with one of the landlords, Diana Toft. Toft and her husband own the building on Pearl Street and they say they’re not willing to sign a lease because of the terms and offer in it. Toft says the state owes them 13 months of unpaid rent, saying the state hasn’t paid since June 29th, 2013. A representative from the Secretary of State’s Office says they’re not paying up because the Tofts haven’t signed the lease.

The state says they will keep an office in Belvidere and are looking at other locations and owners.
We’re told the process is in the courts right now, so it’s not clear when the DMV has to be out of that building. A representative from the state says it’s Illinois Law that in order for state agencies to pay for services, there has to be a signed lease. Since the Tofts haven’t signed one, the state hasn’t paid up.

UPDATE:BELVIDERE (WIFR) – The case is over for now for the couple who owns the building on Pearl Street that’s home to the Secretary of State’s office in Belvidere.

That means the driver’s license facility won’t be moving. There’s been no check since June 2013 and owner Diana Toft says this whole process has been disheartening and she feels her hands are tied.

That’s because lawyers for the state of Illinois argued the state has sovereign immunity, meaning it can’t be sued or evicted. In talking with the State’s Attorney in Boone County, the sate can be sued but only in a special court called the court of claims. That could allow the Tofts to get their back rent and possibly kick out the secretary of state’s office.

The Tofts haven’t had a lease with the state since December of 2012. State law says no lease, no rent, no money. The contract was drawn up by the state and the Tofts did not agree and that’s why they didn’t sign.

The lawyer for the Tofts says the couple voluntarily pulled their case and are mulling their options. They may take this case to the court of claims. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office says they are looking at other building in Belvidere, but for the short term, they are staying on Pearl Street.

There’s a for rent sign outside so they are also on the hunt for new tenants.

Absolutely ridiculous!! I couldn't imagine being a building owner, and having the tenant come to me with the terms of a lease! No wonder the owners didn't sign...I wouldn't either!

Moral of the story....DON'T RENT YOUR PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT

 

[Jumpem]

They should change the locks on the doors.

 

[olds]

Misleading title, wrong forum, need some coffee

 

[Rebel44]

Owners should shut down power and water.

 

[1sikbITCH]

If I owned that building there would suddenly be 2 years worth of "asbestos removal" and the building would be shut down come Monday morning. Sorry EPA regs!

 

[dmcowen674]

Hahahaha Illinois

That's out by Rockford

They deserve it.

They must have sought out the Govt to rent their building in the first place.

 

[IronWing]

the state can be sued but only in a special court called the court of claims. That could allow the Tofts to get their back rent and possibly kick out the secretary of state’s office.

The landlord didn't file in the court that has jurisdiction. The State is scum for not paying its bills but the landlord does have legal recourse.

 

[olds]

The landlord didn't file in the court that has jurisdiction. The State is scum for not paying its bills but the landlord does have legal recourse.

Hence, misleading thread title.

 

[DrPizza]

What were the terms of lease that the owners disagreed with? Anyone really think the state came up with some outrageous terms? Or is it possible that once the state had an office in there, the owners decided that they could give some of their own outrageous terms, else ridiculous raise in rent, simply because they thought they could get away with the state paying it? Pure speculation on my part, but both sides aren't known in this story.

 

[brianmanahan]

Hahahaha Illinois

That's out by Rockford

i was actually in rockford not too long ago

one half is nice

the other half... jeez, what a hole

 

[mcurphy]

i was actually in rockford not too long ago

one half is nice

the other half... jeez, what a hole

I agree, Rockford has some really terrible neighborhoods. Though, as the second biggest city in IL, that is probably to be expected. You will see a "bad side of town" in any big city.

 

[mcurphy]

What were the terms of lease that the owners disagreed with? Anyone really think the state came up with some outrageous terms? Or is it possible that once the state had an office in there, the owners decided that they could give some of their own outrageous terms, else ridiculous raise in rent, simply because they thought they could get away with the state paying it? Pure speculation on my part, but both sides aren't known in this story.

Excellent point, I hadn't thought about that.

 

[unokitty]

Record payment delays are also affecting grants to local school districts and payments to universities, local governments and transit districts.[1] Because the State is taking so long to pay health insurance claims for state employees, some doctors are reportedly requiring patients who work for the State to pay for their treatment in advance.

Above chart shows the trend in unpaid bills from the end of FY2002 through FY2010. The latest projection of $5.9 billion in unpaid bills at the end of the current fiscal year represents 20.4% of total estimated General Funds expenditures of $29.2 billion.

Wouldn't want to be trying to do business with Illinois.

Nor would I want to be be an Illinois employee looking for a doctor that would take my insurance...

Uno

 

[piasabird]

An accidental fire could solve the problem with a little insurance money.

 

[waffleironhead]

i was actually in rockford not too long ago

one half is a hole

the other half... jeez, what an even bigger hole

Fixed that for you.


That whole Rockford, Beloit, Janesville area is a hole.

 

[NoStateofMind]

What were the terms of lease that the owners disagreed with?

Does it matter?

Anyone really think the state came up with some outrageous terms?

Possibly but that's not the point.

Or is it possible that once the state had an office in there, the owners decided that they could give some of their own outrageous terms,

Yeah ownership kinda implies you set the terms of use. IDK about where you live but everywhere I've rented the OWNER provided the terms of lease not the tenant. smh

else ridiculous raise in rent,

They own the property and can set the rate at whatever they like. Don't like it? Leave. That's what the rest of us do. How is the "State" exempt? How might the powers be acquired that none of us possess individually?

simply because they thought they could get away with the state paying it?

That's possible as well but, again, their prerogative.

Pure speculation on my part, but both sides aren't known in this story.

Speculate all you want but please for the love of god don't go trying to set any policy/laws up with the mentality displayed above. Thanks.

 

[DrPizza]

<snip>
Speculate all you want but please for the love of god don't go trying to set any policy/laws up with the mentality displayed above. Thanks.

Perhaps, I didn't make the point clearly enough. My point is that it's possible that the owner made outrageous demands in the lease, simply because it WAS the state that was renting the property.

The owner may have taken the attitude, "I've got them over a barrel now! They've already printed business cards, made changes to websites, (etc.) I can ask for anything and get it."

The owner's proposed lease might have been something like, "Tenant agrees to pay for remediation of all asbestos on the property. Tenant agrees to pay to have all lead based paint stripped from the property. Tenant agrees to replace the roof on the property. Tenant agrees to a rate of $10,000 per month."

Perhaps the state read that and said, "fuck you, let's be reasonable. We paid $1000 per month the previous year. We drew up a realistic lease for you, based on the old lease, and included a generous 20% increase in rent."

 

[trenchfoot]

I wonder if the state government have considered utilizing eminent domain as a "bargaining chip" yet.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What were the terms of lease that the owners disagreed with? Anyone really think the state came up with some outrageous terms? Or is it possible that once the state had an office in there, the owners decided that they could give some of their own outrageous terms, else ridiculous raise in rent, simply because they thought they could get away with the state paying it? Pure speculation on my part, but both sides aren't known in this story.

excellent point!!

 

[Matt1970]

Perhaps, I didn't make the point clearly enough. My point is that it's possible that the owner made outrageous demands in the lease, simply because it WAS the state that was renting the property.

The owner may have taken the attitude, "I've got them over a barrel now! They've already printed business cards, made changes to websites, (etc.) I can ask for anything and get it."

The owner's proposed lease might have been something like, "Tenant agrees to pay for remediation of all asbestos on the property. Tenant agrees to pay to have all lead based paint stripped from the property. Tenant agrees to replace the roof on the property. Tenant agrees to a rate of $10,000 per month."

Perhaps the state read that and said, "fuck you, let's be reasonable. We paid $1000 per month the previous year. We drew up a realistic lease for you, based on the old lease, and included a generous 20% increase in rent."

So if you disagree with the terms you can stay rent free?

 

[Vic]

So if you disagree with the terms you can stay rent free?

Ideology won't evict a tenant who refuses to leave.

 

[PokerGuy]

The owner may have taken the attitude, "I've got them over a barrel now! They've already printed business cards, made changes to websites, (etc.) I can ask for anything and get it."

The owner's proposed lease might have been something like, "Tenant agrees to pay for remediation of all asbestos on the property. Tenant agrees to pay to have all lead based paint stripped from the property. Tenant agrees to replace the roof on the property. Tenant agrees to a rate of $10,000 per month."

So what? The owner is free to set whatever crazy terms of the lease they want, if you don't like it, don't lease the property. Regardless of whether the state didn't like the terms or that the owners didn't like the terms, the fact that the there is no agreement and thus no payment should be plenty of reason to evict them immediately, as would be the case with any 'regular' person. This is absurd.

 

[Zargon]

What were the terms of lease that the owners disagreed with? Anyone really think the state came up with some outrageous terms? Or is it possible that once the state had an office in there, the owners decided that they could give some of their own outrageous terms, else ridiculous raise in rent, simply because they thought they could get away with the state paying it? Pure speculation on my part, but both sides aren't known in this story.

the state has blanket contracts they try to use for everything

it takes MONTHS to get anything changed, its very frustrating(I'm a state employee)

 

[waggy]

Fixed that for you.


That whole Rockford, Beloit, Janesville area is a hole.

not true. you go out near cherry valley mall and its nice. or head up around rock valley college and its nice.

just don't head down toward the river...farther west you go the worse it gets.

 

[Zargon]

^^ true

my brother lives in Rockton and works in Rockford.