Chicago Sherriff refusing to evict renters

[Rocket80]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html

This is a pretty interesting story. What should be done here? I can see both sides and am conflicted.

I actually have a friend in a similar situation (but here in California) where his landlord has defaulted on her mortgage, so basically he is stopping rent payments but also claims that he can't be evicted unless he gets his 2 months notice (as per the lease agreement - even tho that same lease agreement says he will pay her...ha) Seems a tad bit shady to me, but if it works it works. Any opinions?

 

[angelatc]

There's already a rather long thread on this

 

[Rocket80]

link?

 

[JaylieWoW]

Are the tenants still paying rent?

Why would the bank, who has taken over these properties be evicting tenants that are still paying rent?

 

[eric_cartman]

Are the tenants still paying rent?

Why would the bank, who has taken over these properties be evicting tenants that are still paying rent?

because even though the tenants are paying rent to their landlord... the landlord isn't paying the mortgage to the bank... therefore, the bank forecloses. if the bank was smart, they would let the renter stay in the home, and then just collect the rent from the tenant... but that's now how it works.

the real problem with this sheriff is that if he is not foreclosing on anyone... then everyone can just stop paying their rent and mortgage and live in these places rent free. it's a huge moral hazard that will just make delinquency worse. i'm sure the sheriff thinks he's doing a good and moral thing by allowing people to stay in their houses... but he's just making the housing crisis worse.

and if people get foreclosed on, it's not like they'll be homeless. there are plenty of places to rent for really cheap prices. so it's not like they'll all be out on the street, they'll just have to rent a different place instead

 

[Badger Paul]

The rebellion continues...

 

[Santana28]

and if people get foreclosed on, it's not like they'll be homeless. there are plenty of places to rent for really cheap prices. so it's not like they'll all be out on the street, they'll just have to rent a different place instead

i dont know where the heck you live, but "really cheap rent" isnt exactly an option in the chicago area, unless you plan to get shot in a drive by anytime soon.

 

[max]

the real problem with this sheriff is that if he is not foreclosing on anyone... then everyone can just stop paying their rent and mortgage and live in these places rent free.

the article didnt say he stopped foreclosing....he just stopped kicking out innocent renters....

the onus should be on the bank to determine if the loan on the house was to an actual inhabitant (owner occupied)...or to an invevestor (non owner occupied)...

if the bank did their homeowork it would be beneficial to them because then they could collect the rents while they put the house on the market

 

[westmich4paul]

I say as long as they are paying their rent on time and what rent they contractually agreed to then they deserve to stay. The City should put someone in charge of colecting the rent and paying the mortgage off. I am assuming they the owners of said building were charging enough rent to make a profit I mean who would be this stupid?

Make the Mortgage company accept the renters contractual rent agreements as mortgage payments but let the Mortgage company take back said ownership of Property until it can be sold to another owner who then can renegotiate the leases as they expire. But to throw these people who have paid their rent and have lived up to their contractual obligations of the lease out in the streets is wrong all the way around.

 

[John E]

I think the sheriff raises a good point... hmmm

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

A Sheriff with BALLS!! Says he is suspending foreclosure evictions!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

 

[AbolishTheGovt]

Not sure how I feel about that...

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Since you never watched the video, I suggest you do before making a comment.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here's how I see it. many of these apartment buildings are probably either section 8, or low income that are owned by "slum lords" ...people who buy up these apartment buildings and get involved with the government subsidies programs. REZKO..Obama's associate, is one of these. Obama and ACORN...the Community Reinvestment Act etc...enables this sort of thing. I am with the sheriff...don't kick out those folks who are paying their rent..I would say many of them ARE section 8 people and get their rent paid by the government...the slumlords probably aren't paying their mortgages. tones

 

[dannno]

if the bank was smart, they would let the renter stay in the home, and then just collect the rent from the tenant... but that's now how it works.

That would be ideal, however I doubt they have the ability to manage to many rental properties.

I've heard all about these "lease to own" deals happening on foreclosed homes.. The banks really should have some mechanism to do something like that so people who are paying rent can stay.

 

[ghengis86]

So what about the contract rights of the bank? those go out the window? wow. now try and get the bank to make a loan for more rental properties. gonna be a lot tougher, with higher rates, since banks can't foreclose on delinquent properties.

when a sheriff can make a personal decision on when and how to enforce the laws, we're screwed.

and what about these lanlords? there are fraud laws too

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

If no one is in the house, it will be gutted in no time. It is better for everyone to keep tenants in the house.

 

[ghengis86]

If no one is in the house, it will be gutted in no time. It is better for everyone to keep tenants in the house.

This is true; but what about the law or the lack of enforcement of the law, by the SHERIFF! What if he suddenly thought it was in the public interest to not enforce warrants for offenses he didn't agree with? what if he stopped sending deputies to domestic abuse calls, since keeping parents together is in the best interest of the kids, in his opinion?

seriously, i understand that shit will hit the fan, but not enforcing court orders?

 

[CMoore]

Maybe someone in Illinois can answer this one

Under Illinois law what happens to a lease when the property changes hands?
For example when the landlord sells the property to someone else.
Does the lease terminate? Does the lease stay in effect with the new owner becoming the new landlord?
Once there is a foreclosure and title to the property is now with the party that held the mortgage, is that party not the new landlord?
I want to know how the mortgage companies are getting these writs to have the people evicted? And I really do not understand why they are evicting paying tenants. If the tenants are NOT paying, then the bank could go to court and file an action to have them evicted. But the tenants would have to have notice and a chance to be heard. It is that "due process" thing, you know.

I am really puzzled that people are just being evicted without any notice whatsoever. I don't think this kind of thing would happen in every state.

 

[ghengis86]

Under Illinois law what happens to a lease when the property changes hands?
For example when the landlord sells the property to someone else.
Does the lease terminate? Does the lease stay in effect with the new owner becoming the new landlord?
Once there is a foreclosure and title to the property is now with the party that held the mortgage, is that party not the new landlord?
I want to know how the mortgage companies are getting these writs to have the people evicted? And I really do not understand why they are evicting paying tenants. If the tenants are NOT paying, then the bank could go to court and file an action to have them evicted. But the tenants would have to have notice and a chance to be heard. It is that "due process" thing, you know.

I am really puzzled that people are just being evicted without any notice whatsoever. I don't think this kind of thing would happen in every state.

Wouldn't the eviction notice go to the landlord, not the tenant? There are usually 4 or 5 instances in the courts eviction operations where the person being foreclosed upon can file motions to delay the proceedings, or come to some resolution other than foreclosure. but, all this communication goes through the landlord, not the innocent tenant.

and to be fair, banks are not structured to be landlords or rental property caretakers. this would put an administrative and logistical burden on the bank. banks run numbers, thats what they do for a business; if it were profitable to the bank to negotiate contracts with tenants, or keep properties occupied to limit property damage/theft, they would do it.