Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Peter Fitzgerald, then and now
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Wait; Froehlich; Mulligan; Hoffman; McAuliffe; Coulson; HDems (use all caps in password)
Posted in:
* The setup…
As the nationwide mortgage crisis puts the squeeze on homeowners, the Cook County sheriff’s office is on pace to evict more people than ever from foreclosed homes.
At least it was until Wednesday, when Sheriff Tom Dart announced he wouldn’t do it anymore.
Dart cited the growing number of evictions that involve rent-paying tenants who suddenly learn their building is in foreclosure because the landlord neglected to pay the mortgage. By refusing to do any foreclosure-related evictions, the hope is that banks will change their policies.
As it happens, the decision also will spare from eviction those legitimately in foreclosure.
* Dart explains…
Too many times, our deputies arrive at a home to carry out a mortgage foreclosure eviction, only to find a tenant — dutifully paying their rent each month — who is unaware their landlord stopped using that rent money to pay the mortgage. They had no fair warning that they were about to be thrown out of their home.
That’s because, in many cases, the banks have done nothing to determine, in advance, who’s living in the building — even though it’s required by state law. Instead, those banks expect taxpayers to pay for that investigative work for them.
That stops today.
We won’t be doing the banks’ work for them anymore.
* The Illinois Bankers Association responds…
“By ignoring the law and his legal responsibilities, he is carrying out ‘vigilantism’ at the highest level of an elected official,” the statement read. “This cannot be acceptable to anyone, regardless of their viewpoints.”
The statement noted numerous laws are in place to protect homeowners and renters, including provisions for giving notice.
* Question: Do you agree or disagree with Sheriff Dart’s decision? Explain fully, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Peter Fitzgerald, then and now
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Wait; Froehlich; Mulligan; Hoffman; McAuliffe; Coulson; HDems (use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Gee..that Tom Dart…what a swell guy! Only problem is that the Sheriff is now deciding what laws he’s going to enforce and which he’ll turn a blind-eye towards. Not a good idea since the statute already spells out the rights of renters as well as homeowners. This just looks like a PR gimmick.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:29 am
I agree this is a gimmick. I posted this story last night and I got 12 comments on my blog. Most supported this move as compassionate. I don’t think the Sheriff should be selective in his applications of the laws.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:32 am
If the banks are required to find out who is living in a building and provide notice of proceedings to them, and they aren’t, then I say good for Sheriff Dart. While it may not exactly be his job to determine whether a bank has complied with the law, these are unprecedented times. If you can do a little something to protect the people who are getting screwed, then more power to you.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:33 am
If the sheriff has a lawful order of eviction, I don’t think it’s up to him to decide whether to serve it or not. We surely don’t sheriffs second-guessing court orders and deciding what they will and won’t enforce.
Comment by ChampaignDweller Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:35 am
If the banks are not doing their jobs, that is an issue for another part of the justice system. Sheriff Dart’s job is to uphold the law. He should do so.
Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:42 am
Law enforcement pick and choose what laws they are going to enforce all the time. When was the last time you got a ticket for going 70 in a 65 mph zone. I don’t know enough about what the banks should or shouldn’t be doing; but if its a large problem with the banks not doing their end of the job it sounds like some enforcement action against the banks needs to be taken.
Comment by KP Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:42 am
I have absolutely no sympathy with the bankers in this situation. They need to give the tenants time to find a new place to live. The tenants who have been paying their rent all along should be properly informed about the situation so they have time to move to another apartment.
When I told my 87-year-old mother the story, she told me about the evictions during the depression. There were sheriffs then who refused to evict families into the streets. Even had neighbors show up in support of the tenants.
There is one family down state that she told me about who got mnost of their land by snapping up forclosed farms for pennies on the dollar. Even today it is hard for the old-timers to talk about this time in history. Now more than ever, we need to understand how close we came to losing it all.
Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:45 am
I support this move by Dart. It’s not for any policy reasons, but only because I like that he’s sticking it to the man.
For those who complain that this is “vigilantism,” or that Dart is taking the law into his own hands, remember that there is a long precedent of giving police and prosecutors wide discretion in how to enforce the law. Police officers aren’t required to arrest every vagrant, and I don’t think the sheriff has to evict everyone at the direction of a bank.
I do think Dart is being extremely savvy by tying his policy to the single unfairest abuse of foreclosures: tenants who have paid rent and were not even aware of the proceedings. It’s reasonable, easily justified, and will result in a legislative victory for Dart that will allow him to revoke the new policy.
Meantime, people like who just like it that someone is sticking it to the banks, have a news hero.
And the banks just look like evil Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:47 am
— wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:36 am:
Back in the Depression, there were county sheriffs who refused to serve foreclosure papers or enforce evictions. I’m surprised an ambitious sheriff like Tom Dart hasn’t picked up on that.–
Good to see you’re paying attention, sheriff.
To the issue, I’m glad he’s doing it, especially for the renters. Lot of those rental properties are in trusts, and no one even knows who the owners are, much less what they’re doing with the rent money.
Goodness sakes, we’re violating every rule of the free market to bail out AIG (nice after-bailout party, fellas) and all the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street. Let’s not be sticklers when it comes to folks literally getting tossed into the street.
If Dart can buy some people some time to either move with dignity or make new arrangements to stay, I’m all for it. And if it encourages banks to negotiate new deals to let them stay, then Somebody Give Me an Amen, for Brother Dart.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:52 am
The sheriff is doing the right thing. Everyone yells about “the law is the law” and “he can’t deciede what laws to enforce and what laws not to.”
If the shefiff at the local level beleives that people are being pushed out of thier homes despite keeping up thier end of the deal (paying rent) I say hip hip horay for the sheriff.
Comment by Speaking At Will Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:57 am
I agree with Dart. Banks need to follow the 120 day rule and get the names right.
If I buy a New Samsung 52 inch plasma tv off the back of a truck for $250.00, will they let me off because I did not now it was stolen? Caveat Emptor. It is not the bank’s fault that renters deal with deadbeat owners. Banks should deal directly with the renters once they find out the situation..if they ever do.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:57 am
I am sure that all of those who are siding with the bankers on this issue are not the ones who will find their belongings on the street for the world to see (and likely pilfer). Why is it that when an elected official shows compassion for those who cannot help themselves, in this case renters (who were in the dark over their landlord’s financial state), people come out of the woodwork to label him or her as “grand standers”? God forbid this be your grandparent, mom, dad, sister, brother, neice or nephew.
I am sometimes blown away by the callousness of people.
Comment by Joe in the Know Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 11:59 am
Dart is a good man. This is the right thing to do.
Comment by Undercover Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Amen, for Brother Dart
Comment by 618er Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:04 pm
Explain your answers, people. Final warning..
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:05 pm
Fully oppose. If there’s a problem with banks following the law, then there are avenues to pursue and/or stop that. And please don’t call me inconsistent, because I have no patience for Goldman or Morgan either. And, man, I hate Goldman!
PS: Supporting this move isn’t really “sticking it to the man.” The US taxpayer may well be levered to the value of the bond backed by that house now. The rent ain’t helping the bond price.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:06 pm
The Sheriff is doing the right thing. I have heard that sheriff’s in a couple other U.S. cities are doing the same. Too little attention has been paid to how the foreclosure crisis is impacting renters. The banks need to both follow the law and go beyond that. It is inexcusable that a renter regularly paying their rent find out about the status of the property from the sheriff.
There is a lot that can and should be done to reform tenant protections in this situation, but for now, Dart is applying prudent judgement in a time where the law are not matching up with reality.
Comment by montrose Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:06 pm
Why should the County Sheriff’s office do the due diligence required of the Banks? The law states that they must inform the tenants and find out who is renting the property. If they don’t bother with that stage, then it’s their problem, not the Sheriff’s.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:06 pm
This is an excellent move by Sheriff Dart. If anyone’s seen how foreclosure orders are issued in the courts, you would know that the process is very “rote” and there is only a cursory review made by the judge’s of the banks’ submissions - to the point that attorneys handling the banks’ foreclosure actions can often handle dozens of different claims in one short court call.
State law requires 121 days notice to the tenants before they can be evicted. If foreclosure orders are being entered without the courts considering whether this has occurred, I think it is very reasonable to conclude the foreclosure orders are invalid and place no authority on the Sheriff to evict.
Sheriff Dart recognizes the injustice of what is happening to tenants and has acted to make sure the protections offered under Illinois law are followed. He deserves all the kudos he is sure to get for this decision down the road.
Comment by Four Doors Down Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:10 pm
Sounds like another flash and dash move by another ambitious Democrat. Could Dart be among the legions considering a run in the next gubernatorial primary.
Absolutely, renters should not be evicted without
proper and adequate notice just because the landlord isn’t paying the bills. But the first thing to do is to compel the banks to follow the law, and, should the law be inadequate, to get an emergency law put into effect. How hard can this be? And how many of these evictions fell into the
innocent renter category as a percentage of the whole. Do we want to live in a society where people who don’t pay their bills get an indefinite pass. Only the innocent should get a pass, not everybody.
So many of our elected officials like to forget…
you have to do the work. Might be worth looking at
where banking industry bribes, uh, I mean campaign contributions are going too. Maybe that’s why
there’s not much of a political outcry on behalf of the evictees, thereby allowing Mr. Dart a bit of political grandstanding. Win win for all but
the evictees.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:13 pm
In this situation, there may be a classic conflict between the law and justice.
If the tenants have ben paying their rent and have not received some kind of due process in terms of notification about the need to move and adequate time to do so, then justice is on the side of Sheriff Dart.
Banks should furnish evidence that some kind of due process notification has been funrished and and a decent interval has been allowed for tenants to relocate. Absent any evidence that banks have met their obligations, then I think Dart’s decision is the right thing to do.
Comment by Captain America Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:16 pm
I do think the Sheriff should carry out the law. At the same time, maybe we should change the law so there is less involvement at the city and county levels.
I thought about this while walking around my neighborhood yesterday, looking at the neon “City of Elgin” eviction stickers on various doors. Lenders gave out bad loans. People took loans they couldn’t afford. Why should the City have to spend taxpayer dollars to print these stickers and send out people to notify home owners (or renters) of evictions? This should be the lenders’ responsibility.
If they want to come to the property and empty it out and put new locks on the door they can call the police as a last resort and say “These people won’t leave our property. Please escort them off.” Most of the time it won’t get that far. It doesn’t seem fair at all that the lenders can get away with sending letters or making phone calls and then the municipal (or in this case, county) workers have to do all the dirty work on someone else’s dime.
If I rack up credit debt that I can’t afford to pay back the city I live in doesn’t get involved at the expense of all the other residents.
Comment by jessica Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:19 pm
Dart is wrong. IF the foreclosure notices are not proper, let AG Madigan deal with that.
IF banks are not doing what they ought to in law, let AG Madigan deal with that.
We CAN NOT let officials ABUSE their discretion. You might like it today, but what about tomorrow when someone else is enforcing 9or not)the law?
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:23 pm
What’s striking is how the only mention of most commenters is how Dart isn’t following the law. It appears from what he’s saying and the examples in the article, the banks aren’t following the law and perhaps are committing perjury if they claim to have done all their due diligence.
Dart already tried to pass a law to help with this and the banks and mortgage industry stopped it. This is similar to when fire departments started levying fines on repeated false alarms. A law requiring any bank to pay for the taxpayers costs when they haven’t carried out what it has claimed it has done in court filings should be non-controversial.
Dart is stuck wasting taxpayer resources for private entities and then having no recourse. He may be held in contempt of court and he admits that–but if he is held in contempt, why aren’t the banks and mortgage companies that don’t do what they claim to have done in an eviction filing?
Comment by archpundit Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:35 pm
Two bills related to this topic were considered in the Spring session: SB 2064/HB5672. Neither bill passed. The issue really comes down to which party (the lender,the borrower, or the Sheriff) will notify the tenant of the impending foreclosure and who incurs the cost for that notice. It typically takes 12-15 months to actually foreclose on a property in Cook County-so there should be plenty of time for someone to notify the tenants. The Sheriff’s office, instead of refusing to carry-out the order, could advise the impacted tenants AT THE BEGINNING, of the foreclosure process of the County services available to them. Perhaps that would be a better alternative.
Comment by culatr Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:42 pm
pat collins,
But we’ve already had that historical argument. Like it or not, sheriffs in the depression that refused to do evictions are not remembered as abusers of power.
And in this case, there’s actually a legal peg to hang one’s hat on. The Sheriff’s office is continuing to do evictions based on non-foreclosure–e.g. not paying one’s own rent. It’s just foreclosure related evictions they aren’t doing, and specifically it’s because they can’t tell who is an innocent rent-paying tenant that the mortgage company did not bother to inform, and which ones are just in over their heads.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:44 pm
Good for Dart. It’s the decent thing to do. And while I am sure Dart has no political motives here, the same tactics won Jim Traficant an Ohio congressional seat. The fact that Traficant is now in prison had nothing to do with his refusal to serve eviction notices. “Beam me up, Scotty…
Comment by 10th Indy Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:44 pm
I agree with what Dart is doing except where the process was thoroughly completed. However, I would suggest that the courts are incompetent in their orders if they are not ensuring that the proper notice(s) have indeed been given. Judges can and are extremely lazy in follow through depending on lawyers to do the detail work. Where Dart’s action or lack thereof is due to the failure of proper following of procedures I would expect action be taken against the lawyers, judges, and foreclosing entities. I would like to see a follow up story on Dart’s excercising judgment based on procedural deficiencies. If that is his basis for refusal to evict then I applaud his actions as the law has Not been satisfied - judges are not infallible, just lazy.
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:45 pm
Arch nailed it.
Dart IS enforcing the law. He is saying the banks are not doing what the law requires them to do and therefore until they do, and can prove it, he is not serving illegal or improper eviction orders. Since it is difficult to sort out the confusion - because of banker perjury, he therefore is staopping all evictions.
Sounds like a smart sheriff to me.
But I won’t cheer him until he puts one of those lying, thieving bankers in jail for perjury.
Comment by anon sequitor Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:46 pm
“But I won’t cheer him until he puts one of those lying, thieving bankers in jail for perjury”
If you think the cost of credit is high now, what do you think will happen when law enforcement refuses to implement orders of the court? Every person that pays their bills on time, lives within their means,etc…will now pay a little higher interest rate on credit cards and other loans and receive a little less interest on their savings accounts as a result of this action.
Comment by culatr Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 12:59 pm
“The Sheriff’s office, instead of refusing to carry-out the order, could advise the impacted tenants AT THE BEGINNING, of the foreclosure process of the County services available to them”
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Sheriff’s office does not get pulled in at all until the very end of the process, when there is an order to evict. Putting the responsibility on them in the beginning makes no sense. Outside of the owners, the banks are the first to know when a foreclosure is coming, so they should have the responsiblity of making sure the tenants get proper notice.
Comment by montrose Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:09 pm
I suppose those of you who feel that Dart is doing the right thing would also cheer if the Cook County Treasurer refused to send real estate tax bills because of the economic crisis? Elected officials must do their jobs, even if they don’t like it.
Comment by Old Shepherd Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:18 pm
Ol’ Shep, there’s a wee bit of a difference between receiving a tax bill and getting tossed out in the street, don’t you think? And again, it sounds like he’s just trying to make sure everyone’ following the law before he enforces that drastic step.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:22 pm
I think Tom Dart is most definitely doing the right thing. I can’t believe how heartless some people are on this issue. Elected officials should think for themselves and act in a way that is, above all else, moral. We need to help people who are victims of abusive and greedy corporations.
Comment by Sense & Sensibility Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:23 pm
What a country!! To think I stupidly pay my mortgage every month because I thought I had to do so to keep my home…I guess no foreclosure being served on the delinquent house loan, no repo on the delinquent car loan and no shut off on the utilities for non payment during the winter months would give people plenty of money to bolster the economy on fun purchases!! Maybe the Sheriff will also stop issuing high fee traffic tickets given his concern for the financially impaired!! Truly, I am not sure what the incentive is to play by the rules anymore.
Comment by JoeTaxpayer Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:25 pm
Let’s stop and think about this. Major fiancial institutions abdicated their legal and fiscal responsibilities and our societal response is to bail them out to the tune of at least $700 billion. The bailout benefits both responsible banks and irresponsible ones. They are being sheltered from normal legal repercusions of their decisions — bankruptcy. By not helping with evictions Dart is sheltering people from from the normal repercusions of their decisions. It’s hard to justify sheltering banks but not borrowers — or their tenants.
Comment by Political Observer Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:26 pm
Mr.Dart is playing a dangerous game.He’s violating contract law in the U.S constitution.Mr. Dart is helping cut the demand for real estate in Cook County.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:27 pm
Although I disagree with much of the action advocated by the SEC and Treasury, their authority is coming from acts of Congress. Unlike congressmen, a sheriff is not a lawmaker; he’s an enforcer.
To commenters like Sense & Sensibility, how would you like to see sheriffs around the county put their concept of morality above the law? Would this principle still apply in counties with very socially conservative sheriffs?
To make a law, legislate.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:30 pm
Interesting case, and since it appears both sides are “right”, perhaps the Sheriff needs to be somewhat selective about which ones he enforces? Explain to the banks that if in the course of the eviction, it turns out that perjury was why the renters get tossed out unlawfully, that there will be a price to be paid for that… Just make sure ALL the rules are followed by all of the parties. Probably not a pratical or popular position though…
Comment by pchappel Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:37 pm
culatr - In the case of a foreclosed rental property, the landlord did not pay his/her/their obligations timely. Most renters continue to pay the landlord each month, who knows what he does with the money, until they are evicted by the sheriff.
The real problem in the law, not the sheriff. The foreclosure law does not have any provisions for renters residing in a foreclosed property. Also, neither the bank or the landlord are held responsible for telling a renter that the property is being foreclosed.
So, how would you feel when the sheriff arrives at your door saying get out and you just sent your rent to a deadbeat? Also, you don’t have any savings to put down a deposit on a new place for your family to live and you’ve got 24 hours to get out. Can you even try to imagine what that would be like?
Comment by sneaker Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:39 pm
Sheriff Dart has no authority to refuse to comply with his responsibilities under a valid court order. As sheriff, he does not get to decide whether a court order is consistent with her personal concept of “justice.” It’s as simple as that.
I find it quite interesting that many of the commentors above who applaud the action (inaction) of the sheriff, are the same folks who rail about the Governor refusing to go along with state laws when those laws offend his sense of “justice.”
Yes it is rotten that tenants who evicted with little or no warning in situations where their landlords did not pay the mortgages. However, there is a body that can establish a solution for this problem, it’s called the Illinois General Assembly. Perhaps the Governor can call another special session of the General Assembly to address a real crisis for a change - and give them a drafted piece of legislation to consider, for a change, that would address this situation.
Comment by Just the Facts Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:40 pm
INTENT is the key word in our laws. If someone like a renter does not have an INTENT to defraud then they shouldn’t be coldly and heartlessly evicted. My wife started her day by declaring Dart our “Hero for the Day!” I am continually ashamed and disgusted by some of our politicians (Bush & Blago top this list) who have been elected and RE-elected. Maybe this time the voters got it right with Dart!
Comment by Obamalac Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:41 pm
I’m not unsympathetic to the argument that Dart doing this could create all sorts of problems–in fact, Dart seems to get this and he’s pulling a stunt in the best sense of the word.
He tried to raise the issue the responsible way, got nowhere, and now he’s being purposely irresponsible to get attention to the problem. But before he was irresponsible, the banks and their lawyers were irresponsible in not carrying out their duty to identify the residents of the foreclosed properties and they are telling judges they have done that. Why shouldn’t the banks and lawyers working for them be held in contempt first for essentially false court filings claiming to have followed the legal process when they clearly have not?
Comment by archpundit Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:42 pm
I can’t support the Sheriff disobeying a court order to evict. To me, it should put him in some type of contempt of court. It is the courts that should suspend the evictions-not the Sherrif.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:43 pm
I think this is a prudent response to unique circumstances. From what I read, it seems some landlords were robbing Peter to pay Paul, but even Paul wasn’t getting the money.
The burden of proof is on the tenant–if they can show dutiful payments of rent I think they should be allowed to fulfill the terms of their lease. Of course, the lender would receive future rents but their recourse for the property is with the original borrower. Delay foreclosure until the end of the lease–at least the lender will generate some income, which hasn’t been the case for a year or more to get to the foreclosure stage.
What, are renters going to have to ask landlords for written proof of their mortgage payments each month? The delinquent borrower is the villian here, not the renters or the sherrif.
Comment by Vote Quimby! Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:43 pm
===The real problem in the law, not the sheriff. The foreclosure law does not have any provisions for renters residing in a foreclosed property. Also, neither the bank or the landlord are held responsible for telling a renter that the property is being foreclosed.
Actually, the law requires notice to anyone with an interest in the property. This is what Dart is angry about. His guys show up, find a renter who has never been notified, and he has to deal with the litany of problems that come from that. If the banks were truly notifying these people, the problem is very different and far less sympathetic.
Comment by archpundit Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:49 pm
Sheriff’s were just enforcing the law in the Jim Crow South when they arrested black people who defied segregation. Some Southern officials refused to a party to this — because they viewed it as immoral. Tom Dart is a moral man standing up against an immoral situation. He is an elected official. If the voters want him evicting more people they can let him know at the ballot box.
Comment by Political Observer Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:49 pm
Sheriff Dart has one point. Occupants who otherwise have lived up to their contracts, should not be put out on the street. The Bank/ mortgage holder should be required to demonstrate that the occupant being removed is in violation of their contract.
In the case of occupants who pay their rents in a timely fashion, the funds should be directed toward the institution and a process to allow for a transition should start then.
That being said, I believe it is unlawful for the Sheriff to refuse to do his job.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:51 pm
I understand the Sheriff’s argument, but he is sworn to uphold the law. What he is doing is breaking the law.
Comment by Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 1:59 pm
Instead of seeing this as a conflict between financial institutions and the Cook County Sheriff, I see a failure of the Illinois legislature.
When a lending institution performs a foreclosure they should be required to notify tenants at some point in the process.
With all the piddly stupid stuff the Illinois legislature passes, it seems like this is an obvious correction that would improve the lives of all concerned.
The financial institutions should want tenants notified in a reasonable manner. If they oppose notifying tenants in a reasonable manner then they get no sympathy from me.
The only people who “lose” if tenants get notified as part of the foreclosure process are landlords. But it the landlord isn’t paying the mortgage, it does seem questionable that s/he should be getting the rent check. Yes, utilities have to be paid in some cases, but still….
How long should it take to fix this problem in the Illinois legislature?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 2:00 pm
It seems to me that no one is obliged to follow an immoral law.
Comment by Sense & Sensibility Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 2:00 pm
If the banks are foreclosing on people without properly notifying tenants, perhaps the Illinois legislature should levy large fines on banks for failure to comply with the law.
And I’d be OK with attaching criminal penalties to individuals who fail to notify tenants. After throwing a few suits in jail for six months, I’ll bet the banks get a whole bunch more conscientious about notifying tenants in accordance with the law.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 2:04 pm
And really, if the GA is opposed to his action, they can always make a statement in the House.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 2:06 pm
chic ster,
I thought this affects all foerclosures, not just rental properties with tenants.
Comment by taxmandan Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Too many of these evictions are fraudulent evictions. If Sheriff Dart were to comply willingly with them, he would make himself a conspirator in the fraud. It’s not terribly unlike Gov. Ryan putting a moratorium on executions when too many Death Row inmates turned up innocent.
What Dart is doing is undeniably moral. Moreover, I believe he will find it to be legally defensible. As an elected office holder, he is more than an automaton and has decision making authority. And responsibility. I applaud him on this.
Comment by Ann O'Namus Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 2:36 pm
taxmandan-
It does affect all foreclosures- because, from what I can tell, banks are lazy/dishonest and judges may be inattentive. These failings make it impossible which are the valid orders and which are the fruit of laziness/dishonesty.
I expect there will be a story coming soon about the judiciary stepping up scrutiny of the foreclosure process to make sure banks are properly identifying and noticing renters.
Comment by Rich O Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 3:02 pm
Cook County Sheriff (and former State Representative) Tom Dart is a personal freind of mine. nevertheless, I disagree with this political move even if I feel for rent-paying tenants in Cook County. The law is clear on this issue and I am aware of a number of bills that were passed this session which effectively codified notice mechanisms for tenants to protect from “surpise” foreclosure evictions. This unilateral, ill-though out, precedent-setting move by Dart is clearly a political move..2010 gubernatorial run perhaps?
Comment by Black Ivy Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 3:08 pm
Did this ever happen to you?
Would you like to get a notice this afternoon from the Sheriff informing you that you have to pack everything up, find a new home, relocate new schools for your kids, take time off from work, reroute your mail, find storage for your stuff if you can’t find a new place, find money you weren’t expecting to spend, after realizing that the deposits you put down on your rental and the month’s rent you just scraped together are no longer available?
You got 30 days!
So, has it ever happened to you? How would you like to explain to your kids why they have to move? Explain to your boss? Family life is stressful enough without coming home this afternoon and have Sheriff Tom Dart sitting on your stoop, giving you, your wife, your toddler, your two kids, the old heave-ho while the neighbors watch.
Well, it happened to me.
Fortunately it occured before I had a wife and family. Fortunately it happened while I was a student without much stuff. But I still lost money I didn’t have. I still had to come up with cash enough for two month’s rent. I still had to pass an application detailing my credit record including my eviction.
I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
So, while you folks sit thinking about today’s QOTD, be honest. Consider how your life would be impacted by this fiasco. Consider how you would be able to handle this. This is about your neighbors. It is about people just like you.
I support Mr. Dart. To the bank who sends the Cook County Sheriff to throw you out into the snowbank, you are nothing more than a loser. It was through their greed and negligence that they gave your former landlord a mortgage deal they pocketed. They took a risk and lost. The landlord to the risk and lost. It is dead wrong to expect the families at the receiving end of these lame mortgage transactions to be punished, shamed and ruined over their misdeed.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 3:28 pm
Did this ever happen to you?
Would you like to get a notice this afternoon from the Sheriff informing you that you have to pack everything up, find a new home, relocate new schools for your kids, take time..
Let’s not forget the family pet that gets dumped when they can’t find a new home that will accept it and the charge from the utility companies to move service and on it goes.
The problem is that the law does not define who is responsible for telling tenants when rental property goes into foreclosure. Naturally, landlords have everything to lose if they tell and it makes sense that the bank should be responsible. But, what if you originally purchased the property as your main residence and then later decided to upgrade and rent out the old house? If you get into money problems and can’t pay your mortgages and one you’re going to let go is the rental property. Would the bank know it was rented?
Another problem is the way mortgages are securitized and sold. The loan servicer, the guy accepting your payment, may not be the lender.
Comment by sneaker Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 3:49 pm
As I see it, this amounts to a work-to-rule by Dart, in other words, working by the letter of the book. Banks should not be able to just go and throw people out in the street — they should have to go through a procedure more than a judge fast-tracking the process and skirting the edge of the law.
And in PARTICULAR, tenants need protection from delinquent landlords. If the bank gets the building, they ought to get the tenants too as far as I’m concerned, no matter whether the property is residential or commercial.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 3:51 pm
I won’t take one side or the other on this particular case, because I don’t know enough of the facts on the ground. On the surface (and even deeper) this is is an example of a fascinating ethical question. On the one hand, the rule of law is very important, so important that even silly laws should ordinarily be followed. I would put the laws against recreational marijuana use in that category. The law is silly, but not so onerous that one is justified in undermining the general rule of law by not following it. A desire for recreational drug use is not sufficient cause for civil disobedience. On the other hand, if people who are paying their rent are being precipitously evicted by circumstances out of their control and previously unknown to them, I would say that even if that is legal, it is so unjust that the implementation of the law should be suspended until the law is fixed.
Comment by jake Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:05 pm
And you know, while managing property can be a headache, at least if you have a tenant, the chances of vandals breaking in to strip the plumbing, electric etc. is much smaller. Plus maybe an agreement can be made with the tenant to cut the grass and such so the property doesn’t become an eyesore and a detriment to the community. I would think the lien holders would prefer to keep the tenants for that reason.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:05 pm
I agree with 100% with Dart as it relates to tenants who’s landlords are being foreclosed on but they have paid their rent. But I don’t agree with stopping all foreclosures. I use to own apartment buildings and believe me, getting the tenants kicked out for non-payment is a long, tough & expense road. You usually lose at least 2-5 months rent from the non-payers. These people have had their day in court and if they are not kicked out and the apartment or home rerented that is what causes the landlord to be in arrears himself and cause the foreclosure in the first place.
Another thing being overlooked here, is the sheriff’s office has some leaway in the timing of when to force these evictions. They usually have a backlog and they usually also take a “time out” when the wheather gets bad. So he may not be disobeying the law as of yet.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:14 pm
Finally, a good Sheriff of Nottingham!
Comment by The Federalist Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:23 pm
Been There,
It said in the article that only foreclosure evictions are being stopped. They are continuing to do foreclosures for failure to pay rent.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:50 pm
The really scary part is that housing values are falling below loan amounts which means more and more people will start walking away from bad deals. Why pay $3500 a month on a $400,000 loan on a house worth $230,000 when you can rent a house down the block for $1300 a month. I suppose there will need to be some elected officials taking risks like the Sherrif because this bubble is exploding.
Comment by Dark Clouds Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:57 pm
As has been said by several posters, there is no conflict between what Dart is doing and the law. Section 15-1701(h)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure says:
“In a case of foreclosure where the tenant is current on his or her rent, or where timely written notice of to whom and where the rent is to be paid has not been provided to the tenant, or where the tenant has made good‑faith efforts to make rental payments in order to keep current, any order of possession must allow the tenant to retain possession of the property covered in his or her rental agreement (i) for 120 days following the notice of the hearing on the supplemental petition that has been properly served upon the tenant, or (ii) through the duration of his or her lease, whichever is shorter.”
The banks can’t simply kick tenants out. What Dart is doing is just and legal. If it’s politically popular, too, then bless him.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 4:59 pm
cermak_rd. I had not read the full story posted here. Yesterday on the news they said he was stopping all foreclosures. They must have reassessed their stance. Thanks
Comment by Been There Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 5:05 pm
The banks should prove to the sheriff that they followed the law in those cases where there are tennants. If they do, Dart has a responsibility to evict them. If the occupants are not tennants, they should be out immediately. They’ve had enough notice as to what is going to happen.
Dart’s political stunt is going to cost the taxpayers.
Comment by Silent Majority Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 5:36 pm
AA isn’t a lawyer and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I do try to do my homework before I go to school, though.
I believe Anon 4:59’s post is exactly on target and quotes the correct statutory cite. In short, rent-paying tenants in good standing can’t be evicted overnight due to a landlord’s foreclosure.
Kudos to Sheriff Dart for reading the big red lawyer books.
As an aside, Nearly Normal wrote this morning: “There is one family down state that she told me about who got mnost of their land by snapping up forclosed farms for pennies on the dollar.”
AA is well-acquainted with this family. They actually got control of all this Central Illinois land, some of the finest farmground in the US, through the tiny-family-owned bank that foreclosed on many family farms during the Great Depression. The patriarch of the family, who orchestrated all of these transactions, was so hated in the area that when he died the family had to pay pallbearers to carry his casket. AA would like to say that they later lost it all in ENRON or in casinos, but nope. They’re still loaded.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 5:40 pm
Complete PR stunt. I glad I don’t live in Cook County. However, the one positive thing about this, he probably needs fewer Sheriffs Police…..did ya hear that Todd?
Comment by downhereforyears Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 5:45 pm
Sheesh, what a bunch of stupid comments today on this topic. I certainly hope everyone criticizing those who for daring to want to stay in the apartments they pay for owns their home outright, their cars, have their credit cards paid off and retirement stowed away in a mattress. If not, it might be tomorrow that the market catches up to you. Then what will you say? But I paid …, But I was up on the payments …
Sorry. Sucks to be you.
What an amazing display of selfishness.
Only a few, intelligent and rational people got it right.
If people stay in the buildings, rent is still collected and the banks that own the property actually collect money.
Hey, there’s an idea. Keep a viable business (rental property) going.
Oh, I’m sure a vacant building would be worth a lot more. Because everyone is getting development loans these days.
Kudos to Dart for applying a bit of common sense to the situation. Thumbs down to the banks for being as shortsighted as most of the people commenting here.
Comment by Frank Booth Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 6:27 pm
Hey, FB. Gimme a call.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 6:34 pm
I think Dart is doing the right thing and he explains it quite well, much better than I could. I know someone who moved because of precisely this situation; he and his family were lucky because he could read the clues and come to the right conclusion. He’s a legal immigrant worker. He’s got my vote if the sitution arises; what of it?
Comment by Ahem Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 8:33 pm
People have been thrown in the street, are being thrown in the street and people will continue to be thrown in the street. The law is in effect.
The Bolsheviks haven’t taken over. It’s just that there’s so much more of it going on now, under what everyone is saying are historic circumstances, that maybe we can pause for a while and make sure it’s being done lawfully and justly. And try to let these folks keep their dignity.
For those who have a problem with that, see you in church.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 9, 08 @ 9:19 pm