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

[Fern]

-snip-
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."

There was a previous lease, so somebody must be demanding substantial changes.

In any case, the state is acting badly here. If the state didn't like the new terms they should have moved. To sit there and not pay rent AND refuse to move is coercion.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Owners should shut down power and water.

Ironically they would probably be fined by the very same government for doing that, wanna guess what would happen if they don't pay the fine?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Well the owners do sorta own the property, in my opinion they can come up with whatever terms they desire so long as they are allowed by law. Raising the rent by whatever they want is fine. Requiring the lady working in row 3 to have sex with them once a month is not.

I am going to assume that since the state hasn't released absurd or illegal terms that there aren't any from the owners side. I also agree with a poster above, the tenant can negotiate terms in the lease but they can not demand them.

 

[Darwin333]

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 you think that the state should be able to dictate terms to the owner and the owner should be forced to accept them? What if the owner has another person willing to lease the building for $10,000 a month, why should the state be able to refuse to leave, refuse to pay anything, and not be forced to abide by the very laws they wrote?

 

[DominionSeraph]

So you think that the state should be able to dictate terms to the owner and the owner should be forced to accept them?

The state isn't forcing them to accept terms. There's no lease.

 

[Fern]

The state isn't forcing them to accept terms. There's no lease.

Of course they're forcing the landlord to accept their terms. If they weren't trying to force the landlord they would've moved out.

The state's terms are obviously:

1. Accept our contract. Or

2. We'll stay here and not pay rent (which the state's been doing for over a year).

On top of it, the landlord has had to incur legal fees and looks like they'll be incurring even more.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

The state isn't forcing them to accept terms. There's no lease.

Actually, it's even worse. There's no lease, and nobody is paying the landlord, but the state continues to make use of the property and refuses to move out.

Either accept the terms of the lease and make payments as per the contract, or decline the terms of the contract and move out. What the state is doing is absurd, they are abusing the landlord and using "sovereign immunity" as a shield to do so.

If nothing else, this should serve as a warning to other landlords that you need to be extremely careful before you lease to the state of IL. In fact, I'd have to be pretty desperate before leasing to the state of IL, lest they pull the same crap on me down the road as they're pulling on this landlord.

 

[chucky2]

Wait for DMV to be closed. Bring in large moving crew, move out entire contents of DMV to parking lot, cover with tarps, hire 24/7 onsite security until next business day, change locks and chain doors. Cancel 24/7 onsite security end of next business day - IL has their own, they're called the police.

Start lease negotiations.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Actually, it's even worse. There's no lease, and nobody is paying the landlord, but the state continues to make use of the property and refuses to move out.

The owners let them stay for a year without a lease thinking that the state would owe them whatever they asked (which they won't), then they took it to the wrong court. There's nothing to see here.

 

[cabri]

The owners let them stay for a year without a lease thinking that the state would owe them whatever they asked (which they won't), then they took it to the wrong court. There's nothing to see here.

The problem here is that the owners' should never have had to take the agency /state to court in the first place.

The "wrong" court is just a stall tactic for the misbehavior of the state.
Then the state may try a statue of limitations that since they were not kicked out initially; the existing lease is by default extended.

 

[PokerGuy]

The owners let them stay for a year without a lease thinking that the state would owe them whatever they asked (which they won't), then they took it to the wrong court. There's nothing to see here.

There was a lease in place. Once that lease was up, the state should have either signed a new lease, or declined to sign the lease. Under no circumstances was "stay, continue to use the property but refuse to pay anything" a valid option.

I don't know enough about IL law to know about the court jurisdiction, but what the state is doing is certainly wrong. They are ripping off the landlord. Of course you are fine with that, the state is always in the right, citizens are just there to serve the state in your mind.

 

[Darwin333]

The state isn't forcing them to accept terms. There's no lease.

By not moving out and allowing the owner to get another tenant they damn sure are attempting to force the owner to accept terms that they don't agree to.

Most people couldn't afford to not recieve rent on their property for over a year AND the legal fees the owners have had to pay so far. If that isn't the government forcing you to do something I don't know what is. Wait, you're the uber-genius right, I guess the owners could decide on their own to not accept the terms and give the state free rent for life so, umm, not forced?

How about extort, do you like that word better?

 

[Darwin333]

The owners let them stay for a year without a lease thinking that the state would owe them whatever they asked (which they won't), then they took it to the wrong court. There's nothing to see here.

LET them stay???? Is that what its called when the .gov comes in a refuses to leave your property, "letting them stay"? Exactly who do you suppose the owner should have called to evict the state from their private property and why should any lease/property/landlord and tenant disagreement need to be held in a court other than the ones already setup for such disputes just because it is the state that was leasing the property?

Lease expires, tenant and/or owner refuses terms in new lease, tenant refuses to vacate for over a year, tenant says it can not be evicted and has the power of the state behind it. Yup, that sure sounds like the owner let them stay to me too.

The state is literally squatting at this point.

 

[Darwin333]

Wait for DMV to be closed. Bring in large moving crew, move out entire contents of DMV to parking lot, cover with tarps, hire 24/7 onsite security until next business day, change locks and chain doors. Cancel 24/7 onsite security end of next business day - IL has their own, they're called the police.

Start lease negotiations.

State of IL calls in their own security (called the state police) and arrests owner, their moving crew and security and then sends owner a bill to move all their shit back in, owner gets boned even harder without the courtesy of even a little spit.

 

[chucky2]

State of IL calls in their own security (called the state police) and arrests owner, their moving crew and security and then sends owner a bill to move all their shit back in, owner gets boned even harder without the courtesy of even a little spit.

Arrests owner for what? The moving crew is hired and is working with permission of property owner. The secuity team is there to prevent theft/damage of items until the states security team takes over, so they won't be arrested.

I'm unsure why you think anyone would be arrested...

 

[cabri]

Wait for DMV to be closed. Bring in large moving crew, move out entire contents of DMV to parking lot, cover with tarps, hire 24/7 onsite security until next business day, change locks and chain doors. Cancel 24/7 onsite security end of next business day - IL has their own, they're called the police.

Start lease negotiations.

State of IL calls in their own security (called the state police) and arrests owner, their moving crew and security and then sends owner a bill to move all their shit back in, owner gets boned even harder without the courtesy of even a little spit.

The DMV may be open on a Sat.

When COB on Sat (or Fri), then change the locks and kill power to the building or (sub-section).

Most landlords will change the locks until they get proper paperwork in place to evict a tenant.

Same here.
Change the locks on a non-business day, seal up all doors/windows with plywood and wait for the state to respond legally. Maybe put up Hazard Warning signs also :biggrin:

The DMV and the State Police are not going to tear open the building without authorization from above.