Illinois sheriff scolds banks for evictions of 'innocent' renters

Socrtease

Verified User
This guy is a decent human.

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- An outraged sheriff in Illinois who refuses to evict "innocent" renters from foreclosed homes criticized mortgage companies Thursday and said the law should protect victims of the mortgage meltdown.

Sheriff Thomas J. Dart said earlier he is suspending foreclosure evictions in Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago.

The county had been on track to reach a record number of evictions, many because of mortgage foreclosures.

Many good tenants are suffering because building owners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

"These poor people are seeing everything they own put out on the street. ... They've paid their bills, paid them on time. Here we are with a battering ram at the front door going to throw them out. It's gotten insane," he said.

Mortgage companies are supposed to identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction, but sheriff's deputies routinely find that the mortgage companies have not done so, Dart said.

"This is an example where the banking industry has not done any of the work they should do. It's a piece of paper to them," Dart said.

"These mortgage companies ... don't care who's in the building," Dart said Wednesday. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way.

"On top of it all, they want taxpayers to fund their investigative work for them. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today."

Dart said he wants the courts or the state Legislature to establish protections for those most harmed by the mortgage crisis.

In 1999, Cook County had 12,935 mortgage foreclosure cases; in 2006, 18,916 cases were filed, and last year, 32,269 were filed. This year's total is expected to exceed 43,000.

"The people we're interacting with are, many times, oblivious to the financial straits their landlord might be in," Dart said. "They are the innocent victims here, and they are the ones all of us must step up and find some way to protect."

The Illinois Bankers Association opposed the plan, saying that Dart "was elected to uphold the law and to fulfill the legal duties of his office, which include serving eviction notices."

The association said Dart could be found in contempt of court for ignoring court eviction orders.

"The reality is that by ignoring the law and his legal responsibilities, he is carrying out 'vigilantism' at the highest level of an elected official," it said. "The Illinois banking industry is working hard to help troubled homeowners in many ways, but Sheriff Dart's declaration of 'martial law' should not be tolerated."

Dart was undeterred Thursday.

"I think the outrage on my part with them [is] that they could so cavalierly issue documents and have me throw people out of homes who have done absolutely nothing wrong," Dart said. "They played by all the rules.

"I told them, 'You send an agent out, you send somebody out that gives me any type of assurance that the appropriate person is in the house, I will fulfill the order.'

"When you're blindly sending me out to houses where I'm coming across innocent tenant after innocent tenant, I can't keep doing this and have a good conscience about it."
 
a good point why should businesses be able to externalixe the cost of evictions back onto the taxpayers. It is a cost of doing business and they should eat it.
They should be billed for evictions at the minimum.
 
tough situation. Not the banks fault that the landlord is a douche and it's not the fault of the renter either. Beware of who you pay your rent to I guess.

As for the sheriff, he needs to do his job and STFU. It's not his place to decide.
 
tough situation. Not the banks fault that the landlord is a douche and it's not the fault of the renter either. Beware of who you pay your rent to I guess.

As for the sheriff, he needs to do his job and STFU. It's not his place to decide.
They are evicting LOTS of people who are getting NO NOTICE of the eviction until the Sheriff's dept show up. Landlords cannot themselves summarily evict someone without notice. Mortgages need to specify if it is a rental property or a personal home. If it is rental property then the renter should get the exact same notice that they are going to lose their residence. There MUST be due process in eviction proceedings.
 
They are evicting LOTS of people who are getting NO NOTICE of the eviction until the Sheriff's dept show up. Landlords cannot themselves summarily evict someone without notice. Mortgages need to specify if it is a rental property or a personal home. If it is rental property then the renter should get the exact same notice that they are going to lose their residence. There MUST be due process in eviction proceedings.


The association said Dart could be found in contempt of court for ignoring court eviction orders.




It says courts sent the orders, Soc. They, apparently, had already had their due process. I guess a common response when the sheriff show up to evict you would be "EVICTION?! I don't know what you're talking about!"
 
The association said Dart could be found in contempt of court for ignoring court eviction orders.




It says courts sent the orders, Soc. They, apparently, had already had their due process. I guess a common response when the sheriff show up to evict you would be "EVICTION?! I don't know what you're talking about!"
The court sent orders to evict. Orders are not issued until there has been a hearing. Order are the logical conclusion to hearings. They don't seem to be able to show that the Renters were served with the notice to evict PRIOR to the hearing and the order. I have dealt with evictions and forclosures. Even in forclosures where the owner agrees there is a quick hearing or stipulated orders sent. I am willing to bet that there is no record of notice to the resident but ONLY the owner.
 
What I don't get is why the new owner (i.e. the bank) doesn't take the property subject to the leases.
Because it is not a sale it is a seizure. Not only that but even in most sales the new owner cannot be held to the lease as they exist. They have to give a reasonable period to relocate and they can even change the rent with sufficient notice. Typically they take subject to security deposites and such but not always to the terms of the lease.
 
There has never been any process in this sort of situation.

I had a house I was renting get foreclosed while we were renting.

We had a friend at the Sheriff's dept, so we got about 10 days notice before they came to the door with the eviction notice.

If the bank mailed stuff out, it would have been address to the owner, not the tenants. I didn't open his mail.
 
There has never been any process in this sort of situation.

I had a house I was renting get foreclosed while we were renting.

We had a friend at the Sheriff's dept, so we got about 10 days notice before they came to the door with the eviction notice.

If the bank mailed stuff out, it would have been address to the owner, not the tenants. I didn't open his mail.
We were offered to buy the house at a reduced cost, we took it up and bought with about 40K in equity in our first home. :dunno:
 
We were offered to buy the house at a reduced cost, we took it up and bought with about 40K in equity in our first home. :dunno:

The house we were in was sold for an embarrassingly low price.

But this was during a rare layoff, so I wasn't going to buy anything.
 
Here in Florida, I dont know about Illinois, the bank is required to give proper notice to the renter. If that is not the case in Illinois the law should be changed. Here you have to serve notice, via a process server to the renter. I belive it gives them 30 days notice.

I belive its fair for the bank to evict someone after a 30 say notice.
 
They are evicting LOTS of people who are getting NO NOTICE of the eviction until the Sheriff's dept show up. Landlords cannot themselves summarily evict someone without notice. Mortgages need to specify if it is a rental property or a personal home. If it is rental property then the renter should get the exact same notice that they are going to lose their residence. There MUST be due process in eviction proceedings.
This is because many 'investors' bought the property as a "second home." This way they only need 10% down where a true investment property typically needs 20% down, and the interest rate is lower for 2nd home than for investment props. That is fraudulent action (filing a false instrument). The bank only serves the landlord the legal papers.

AS A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR AND A LANDLORD, I agree with the Sheriff!
 
What I don't get is why the new owner (i.e. the bank) doesn't take the property subject to the leases.
Typically, the law says they don't have to do that. They need to liquidate, and occupied = harder to move.
 
Here in Florida, I dont know about Illinois, the bank is required to give proper notice to the renter. If that is not the case in Illinois the law should be changed. Here you have to serve notice, via a process server to the renter. I belive it gives them 30 days notice.

I belive its fair for the bank to evict someone after a 30 say notice.
This
 
Back
Top