How long will my employer keep paying me if I refuse to perform my job functions?

lindylady said:shahen said:
On this board, linear thinking strikes again. It's amazing how some of you are incapable of any sort of empathy. .

By linear thinking do you mean logical thinking? Empathy has nothing to do with it. Before soemone can be evicted they must be notified several times that eviction is pending and it can not occur during below freezing days or if it snowing ect.

This is someone who has sworn to uphold the law taking the law into his own hands and creating chaos. That is worse and worse for society.

No I meant just what I wrote. In this case, it's the tendency to see things in black and white with no ability for insight or empathy. It doesn't matter that in this situation that people who have faithfully paid their rent are being thrown out onto the street at a moment's notice - and I do mean a moment because when the sheriff shows up they are there to put you out right then - but the outrage is because the sheriff is not following the rules. It doesn't matter that these people have been victimized just like the banks who for some odd reason seem to be getting the lion's share of sympathy here. There's something wrong with that.

On the tape, the sheriff's deputies went to evict an ill, elderly bedbound woman but of course they decided not to. What would you have had them do, pick her up out of her bed and set her on the sidewalk? Talk about bad for society.

Oh and the people who are notified are the owners of the property, not the renters. No notice and law-abiding, bill-paying people are literally put out on the streets. And you're wringing your hands because the sheriff didn't follow the rules.

I am naive ...

I thought the police were hired to uphold the law.
I thought the owner was the recipient of Rent....Can't owners sell their properties with renters in them? So why can't banks be the new owners after satisfying the foreclosure auction?

ES

kloczkow said:Blackwater Contracted to Evict People in Foreclosed Homes

CHICAGO (AP) – Sources have just confirmed that mortgage loan companies are contracting with Blackwater Worldwide to assist in the eviction of people still living in foreclosed homes. Though Blackwater Worldwide has not yet confirmed this, we have several reports of Blackwater contractors stealthily lurking through Chicago in full military fatigues with camouflaged furniture dollies and armored moving vans.
Blackwater Worldwide, better known for contracting with the US State Department for “protection” work in Iraq, is moving forward with the company's newest initiative, Operation Deadbeat. Just recently, it has been confirmed that model homes are being constructed at Blackwater training sites for what is presumed to be tactical planning purposes.

Joan Readford of Easthampton was removed from her home this morning. “The men ran up to my door in formation. After serving the papers, they staged an attack of the first floor, packaging up my breakables and putting my appliances in a separate interrogation area. The house was packed up in about thirty minutes. Those assholes were very efficient and swept the floor right before they jumped into the armored moving van.”

In recent news, Cook County sheriff Dart has refused to evict renters whose landlords have quit paying the mortgage. He was quoted as saying that eviction can be part of his job but, “What isn't part of our job, however, is to carry out work on behalf of the multi-billion-dollar banks and mortgage industries.” It seems that the multi-billion-dollar banks and mortgage industries can’t wait for Sheriff Dart’s morals to be changed so they have taken the evictions into their own hands.

An unnamed Blackwater source has shared with us that he and several other Blackwater employees have undergone intensive moving training. “Many people think our only job is to kill and torture. This isn’t so. We undergo weeks of training in the art of wrapping valuables and box labeling. Just last week, we blew up a townhouse, moved it to a ¾ acre lot with a view of the lake and pieced it back together. That's customer service.”

what i learned...

If I am evicted, the evicting agency will help me pack ????

gldpurd said:Excerpt from the Chicago Tribune October 10, 2008.
Full article here.

State law that took effect Jan. 1 requires that renters be given 120 days notice before being forced to move by a foreclosure. But Dart says the banks often don't bother to determine who is living in the house when obtaining an eviction order. When deputies go to the house and find a tenant who isn't named on the papers, they have to halt the eviction and go back to court—at which time the banks are happy to take the names of the current occupants, add them to the order and start the 120-day clock.

In the past, if deputies found no one home when they arrived with an eviction order, they often entered the house and hauled the contents to the curb (where they were frequently looted by neighbors). But the department stopped that practice because it's impossible to know if the occupant was notified legally. Now if deputies find nobody home, they leave.

All those wasted visits and all that time running back and forth to court cost taxpayers about $100,000 a year, a sheriff's spokesman said. And that number will likely rise. The department was on pace to do 4,500 evictions this year —more than twice what it did in 2006—before Dart hit the brakes.

Only about one-third of foreclosure evictions involve renters...

Dart wants lenders to provide an affidavit saying they've given legal notice to the occupants of a foreclosed home before seeking an eviction order.

This article makes the sheriff's case sound quite a bit better. Basically, the lenders have been lazy about determining who is living in the house they are taking ownership of, and making the police do their fact finding for them. And if some renters weren't home and lost all their belongings, oh well.

I do think that the sheriff could have made his point without stopping ALL evictions though. The vacant evictions definitely had to stop, but they could have continued to evict people who were home and properly named on the eviction order. The banks would have more incentive to do their due diligence and name the proper people on the eviction orders because they would want the sheriff to resume the vacant evictions to keep things moving (how many owners would just not answer the door when they came to evict otherwise?) I do have to admit that the his demand for sworn affidavits from the lenders is genius. If the lender provided it, and it turned out they screwed up and some tenant had their stuff left on the curb because of it, it would provide a pretty good basis for said tenant to sue whoever swore the affidavit for any of their property that was stolen, and for their expenses as a result of the flawed eviction order. In the current situation, who could be help liable? The police who moved John Doe's stuff to the curb when they only had an order allowing them to evict Bob Smith? Or would liability fall on the lender who sought an eviction order for a specific address, but named the wrong occupant?

To put pressure on the banks to do their own legwork, the police could continue evictions, but either slow down their paperwork, or not record the names of the tenants living at a house when the eviction order was incorrect. That would push the banks to find this info out for themselves, and maybe even convince them to be proactive about notifying renters in advance of foreclosure.

While I don't like the idea that with the current policy, deadbeat owners get to squat in their houses longer, and people can drag out the eviction process longer by using a fake ID and claiming to be a renter, I have to say that the actual renters should be given top consideration here. If they are paying their rent and unaware of the foreclosure, there is no justification for them to be thrown out on the street without their legally required notice. While the banks are also getting hurt by deadbeat owners, they are the ones who decided that it was a good idea to give out creative mortgages to those deadbeats. Messy foreclosures are part of the risk that the bank assumes when making the loan. On the other hand, when a renter enters a lease, they should be able to have faith that they won't ever have their belongings tossed out without notification. There is never a situation where that that is legal, notice is always required, whether for non-payment of rent, or because the landlord got foreclosed on.

If the owner is being foreclosed upon isn't a notice posted on the structure? Wouldn't the renter see that and suspect something is up?

ES

Mithrin said:gldpurd said:Excerpt from the Chicago Tribune October 10, 2008.
Full article here.

State law that took effect Jan. 1 requires that renters be given 120 days notice before being forced to move by a foreclosure. But Dart says the banks often don't bother to determine who is living in the house when obtaining an eviction order. When deputies go to the house and find a tenant who isn't named on the papers, they have to halt the eviction and go back to court—at which time the banks are happy to take the names of the current occupants, add them to the order and start the 120-day clock.

In the past, if deputies found no one home when they arrived with an eviction order, they often entered the house and hauled the contents to the curb (where they were frequently looted by neighbors). But the department stopped that practice because it's impossible to know if the occupant was notified legally. Now if deputies find nobody home, they leave.

All those wasted visits and all that time running back and forth to court cost taxpayers about $100,000 a year, a sheriff's spokesman said. And that number will likely rise. The department was on pace to do 4,500 evictions this year —more than twice what it did in 2006—before Dart hit the brakes.

Only about one-third of foreclosure evictions involve renters...

Dart wants lenders to provide an affidavit saying they've given legal notice to the occupants of a foreclosed home before seeking an eviction order.

This article makes the sheriff's case sound quite a bit better. Basically, the lenders have been lazy about determining who is living in the house they are taking ownership of, and making the police do their fact finding for them. And if some renters weren't home and lost all their belongings, oh well.

I do think that the sheriff could have made his point without stopping ALL evictions though. The vacant evictions definitely had to stop, but they could have continued to evict people who were home and properly named on the eviction order. The banks would have more incentive to do their due diligence and name the proper people on the eviction orders because they would want the sheriff to resume the vacant evictions to keep things moving (how many owners would just not answer the door when they came to evict otherwise?) I do have to admit that the his demand for sworn affidavits from the lenders is genius. If the lender provided it, and it turned out they screwed up and some tenant had their stuff left on the curb because of it, it would provide a pretty good basis for said tenant to sue whoever swore the affidavit for any of their property that was stolen, and for their expenses as a result of the flawed eviction order. In the current situation, who could be help liable? The police who moved John Doe's stuff to the curb when they only had an order allowing them to evict Bob Smith? Or would liability fall on the lender who sought an eviction order for a specific address, but named the wrong occupant?

To put pressure on the banks to do their own legwork, the police could continue evictions, but either slow down their paperwork, or not record the names of the tenants living at a house when the eviction order was incorrect. That would push the banks to find this info out for themselves, and maybe even convince them to be proactive about notifying renters in advance of foreclosure.

While I don't like the idea that with the current policy, deadbeat owners get to squat in their houses longer, and people can drag out the eviction process longer by using a fake ID and claiming to be a renter, I have to say that the actual renters should be given top consideration here. If they are paying their rent and unaware of the foreclosure, there is no justification for them to be thrown out on the street without their legally required notice. While the banks are also getting hurt by deadbeat owners, they are the ones who decided that it was a good idea to give out creative mortgages to those deadbeats. Messy foreclosures are part of the risk that the bank assumes when making the loan. On the other hand, when a renter enters a lease, they should be able to have faith that they won't ever have their belongings tossed out without notification. There is never a situation where that that is legal, notice is always required, whether for non-payment of rent, or because the landlord got foreclosed on.

Sure we are mad at the Banks for the upcoming depression and the official recession that we are in, but this prevailing mentality to not take responsibility for the contracts that you enter in to and to place blame on the bank is running rampant. It's like people want to sooth their souls for making a mistake and blame someone else.

In my escrow closing on the last property that I closed, if I did not understand something then I asked. The closing took the most part of the day and we broke for lunch.

When entering into a long term contract you can also bring your ATTY to the closing and review the Doc's. Some of them even have a 3-day right of recision.

So this argument from "the victims being fooled" is really their own naivity and no one is to blame but them. OK OK...there will now be a whole slew of posts from victims bla bla BLA

ES

nycll said:Who is really surprised that the banks dropped the ball in notifying the renters? Afterall they are the ones who screwed up the underwriting. Their staffing is never meant to handle such high volume of foreclosures.

nycll,

This was tha part of your post I keyed in on (in bold below)...could you explain this further? I assume you mean something other than underwriting? I think you mean the eviction forms...

ES

Afterall they are the ones who screwed up the underwriting.

nycll said:ElectricSavant said:Sure we are mad at the Banks for the upcoming depression and the official recession that we are in, but this prevailing mentality to not take responsibility for the contracts that you enter in to and to place blame on the bank is running rampant. It's like people want to sooth their souls for making a mistake and blame someone else. I was only commenting the case of renters. The tennants didn't sign the mortgage loan, did they? Read the following again--in fact, I will post this to quick summary:

Sheriff Dart's side of the story, reported by Chicago Tribune on Oct 10, 2008

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-1010edit1oct10,0,5832658.story

"State law that took effect Jan. 1 requires that renters be given 120 days notice before being forced to move by a foreclosure. But Dart says the banks often don't bother to determine who is living in the house when obtaining an eviction order. When deputies go to the house and find a tenant who isn't named on the papers, they have to halt the eviction and go back to court—at which time the banks are happy to take the names of the current occupants, add them to the order and start the 120-day clock."

"All those wasted visits and all that time running back and forth to court cost taxpayers about $100,000 a year, a sheriff's spokesman said. And that number will likely rise. The department was on pace to do 4,500 evictions this year —more than twice what it did in 2006—before Dart hit the brakes."

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the grey area, as it often turns out. Because if it were a clear cut case of the sherriff refused to uphold the law, the banks, which have sophisticated legal representations, would have tried (and have succeeded) to put a stop to it.

We keep it real in Chicago!!!!