CHICAGO (AP) - Residents of foreclosed properties in Chicago and other parts of Cook County don't have to worry about deputies forcing them out. Sheriff Tom Dart says that starting Thursday his office won't take part in evictions.
Dart says he's concerned that many of the people being evicted are renters who were unaware that their landlords have been failing to pay their mortgages. He says his deputies have no way of knowing whether they're removing someone who has defaulted on a loan or someone who has been faithfully paying rent.
Dart says he thinks he's the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop such evictions during the ongoing foreclosure crisis.
Dart says the number of mortgage foreclosures in Cook County has skyrocketed and will probably keep rising.
------------------------
Oh great! Why enforce laws with which you disagree?
"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."
Message edited by: nycll on 2008-10-13 08:28:23 CDT
WTF difference does it make if they're evicting someone who owned the property or someone who rented it? I assume the eviction process there requires notification, even to tenants.
It's a crummy situation but if the new owners don't want the renters there and follow the typically lengthy and tedious process to evict the renters, then that's their right.
Today's multiple choice reality check question of the day. . .
Sheriff Tom Dart is:
A. A disgruntled home owner with a 5/1 ARM about to adjust 5 percent higher. B. Up for re-election and has given up on the traditional methods of remaining in office (such as lowering crime). C. Oblivious to the concept of a "lease," and it's magical powers of solving the "who owns this house" confusion. D. All of the above.
soundtechie said:But if you don't evict, then the renters keep paying rent and only crooked landlord profits from the sher'fs largesse.Renters could just stop paying rent and trash the place - if the sheriff isn't going to evict.
BrainySmurf said:Today's multiple choice reality check question of the day. . .
Sheriff Tom Dart is:
A. A disgruntled home owner with a 5/1 ARM about to adjust 5 percent higher. B. Up for re-election and has given up on the traditional methods of remaining in office (such as lowering crime). C. Oblivious to the concept of a "lease," and it's magical powers of solving the "who owns this house" confusion. D. All of the above.
Step 1: Find a nice Condo or House to rent. Make sure it's in Cook County. Step 2: Pay Security Deposit. Step 3: Start saving your monthly rent because you no longer need to pay it in order to stay.
Side note to landlords. Background checks have just become enormously important. No more renting to people with bad credit, because they no longer have anything to lose. Maybe even increase Security Deposit to something like 6 months.
Hopefully, banks will react either jack up interest rates in Chicago or stop issuing mortgages their altogether until this lazy sheriff gets the boot from voters.
DiMAn0684 said:BrainySmurf said:Today's multiple choice reality check question of the day. . .
Sheriff Tom Dart is:
A. A disgruntled home owner with a 5/1 ARM about to adjust 5 percent higher. B. Up for re-election and has given up on the traditional methods of remaining in office (such as lowering crime). C. Oblivious to the concept of a "lease," and it's magical powers of solving the "who owns this house" confusion. D. All of the above.
E. wants to see his name on CNN.comF. wants to see his name on FW.
other than it being a P.I.T.A. why don't the banks just take over the landlord position from the defaulting mortgage holder?... its not like people are busting down the banks doors to buy houses. why not make some money? I know the real estate investing crowd often will pay a little more for an occupied property.
I would not be so quick to judge. I see two greedy parties (lending institution and landlord) and one innocent party (renter) in this dispute. The big gorilla (lending institution) is try to evict the innocent renter. The renter has lived up to his/her obligations by paying the rent and is no less innocent than the taxpayers who are paying for a mess they did not create. This case has legal merits and the Sheriff is wise to stay on the sidelines until it is heard in court. If anything, many of the lending institutions are partly guilty for this mess and the plight of the renter.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
