Another socialist do-gooder may be giving us a glimpse into the future. The Cook County Sheriff says he will no longer evict homeowners or tenants from properties that are involved in a foreclosure. This is my greatest fear heading into the coming depression - that the morons in the government will waive their magic pens and make evictions illegal (or delay them). That isn’t what has happened in this case - this is just one socialist do-gooder that feels sorry for those being evicted. However, I believe that it does give you a glimpse into the wacko socialist mind!
What will happen when the socialists gain control next January? Will they put a moratorium on foreclosures or evictions? If so, why would any tenant ever pay the rent? When tenants fail to pay the rent, who will bail out the landlords in this country? I believe that this is a very realistic scenario that is a direct threat to the business of any landlord! Remember Hillary’s plan to put a moratorium on foreclosures?
Nobody will be the landlords out. Remember, we (the landlords) are the BAD people making $$$ off of poor desperate souls just trying to get by. We should be more understanding of why they can’t pay and try to work a “solution” to the nonpayment other than eviction.
Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be? :rolleyes
BTW, I wonder if any of that Sheriff’s deputies are prepared to arrest their boss for illegally impeding an eviction/foreclosure because that is exactly what is happening. He cannot simply “decide” not to do his job (at least hopefully, without consequences). No different than him saying, “I’ve decided not to arrest anyone for stealing IF they were stealing in order to sell those stolen items to pay for their power bill.”
Well, that is dumb. They should still evict people.
But I don’t think it’s much for us to worry about.
The key part of that is “evictions…that are involved in a foreclosure”. As long as you & I (landlords) pay our bills, and WE are never foreclosed on, they will still evict tenants for us when someone does not pay their rent to us. =-)
“Dart did say, however, that evictions not related to inability to pay mortgages on time will continue. Such evictions would include renters in apartment building who don’t pay their rent or violate lease agreements.”
As long as you maintain your level of property management and pay your mortgage, I dont think you will have a problem.
I think this is the first step to just cause eviction. Tenant advocates don’t push for full protection anymore. They put these rules in place piecemeal.
The Communist Party USA, whose program then included struggling for a socialist revolution, spearheaded an effort to organize the unemployed and fight back against the injustices incurred during the depression. Communists organized Unemployed Councils and led a vigorous struggle for a moratorium on evictions and direct aid to the dispossessed.
The only thing you need to realize to put this is perspective is that the Democratic Party has now been hijacked by socialists. So, just substitute the Democratic Party for the Communist Party in the above paragraph and I believe that shows what’s likely to happen in the near future. Just think about what’s already happened: AIG nationalized; Big banks nationalized on a worldwide scale; the government bailing out big banks and giving middle class taxpayers the bill; Hillary Clinton proposing a moratorium on foreclosures; Freddie and Fannie effectively nationalized; and the government effectively nationalizing all home loans by making their terms subject to government whims. We’re up to our necks in socialism and the water’s rapidly rising.
What they are saying is that if we as landlords don’t pay our mortgage and we get the house foreclosed on, they will not evict our tenants. I agree with that and as a matter of fact I think the landlord that took the rent and didn’t pay the mortgage needs to have his butt thrown in jail for theft. What I do have a problem with is during the debate John McCain decided that the government was going to buy everybody’s mortgage and write them down to the present house value. He is going to do that with your money. WHO CAN WE VOTE FOR? THEY ARE BOTH MAD MEN.
It sounds like that Sheriff should be fired. You can’t just enforce the law when you want to and decide which laws/judgements you’ll just blow off. It sounds like he’s letting emotions and personal views get in the way of doing his job. I also agree with what Bluemoon said about LLs who take the rent, but don’t cover the bills. I also can’t believe what Sen. McCain is proposing for the mortgages. This is pathetic. I think you all know how I feel by now about upstanding citizens who pay their bills footing money for people who got into situations they couldn’t handle. I will say I’ve already voted for Sen. McCain. I had to get my absentee ballot in the mail in enough time to allow it to be counted. I still think he’s the better of the two. Sen. Obama scares me - for so many reasons I don’t even know where to start (and not racial or anything related to that). Maybe by next election we’ll get an independent candidate who legitimately has a chance. Oh, and I didn’t know this until I got my ballot. There’s actually an all female ticket from the green party. Thought that was interesting.
Why should renters be penalized because some landlord was irresponsible and foreclosed? Imagine if you signed a lease & had your furniture moved somewhere and were told you had to leave a month or two later? At a minimum the renters should be paid moving costs by the landlord in this situation.
If crap like this happens, I will get the deadbeats out, it helps if they are already somewhat scared of you. There are plenty of ways to legally entice them to leave. Once they are out, here in Raleigh, there is still one class of tenants that won’t be protected, and there is still plenty of them to go around. And I’ll be damn sure to rent only to them. Thats right, I will discriminate (something I DO NOT do now), when you have the dirty commies running the show, you gotta take drastic measures. So I will only rent to those without rights in this country.
Pretty sad huh? But that is business, it ain’t love that makes this world go round’!
Every landlord does things different. However, I’d say that the great majority use some sort of written lease. In almost every written lease (that was drafted by an attorney and that includes the Office Depot specials), there is a clause something to the effect that the landlord has the right to mortgage the property. So while it may not be laid out in simple terms, it is stated plainly to the tenant that there can be, and probably is, a mortgage against this property WHICH MEANS that it can be foreclosed upon by a bank.
Yes, it would suck to be in the tenant’s shoes, but if they have signed a lease with a clause to the effect above, they have knowingly entered into the contract with that possiblity happening.
And there is a way for a renter to “check up” on the landlord. It’s as simple as putting in a clause in the contract stating that the tenant has the right to check on the mortgage and the payments on said mortgage.
All of this is secondary to the fact that the Sheriff is violating the law by refusing to evict someone from the new owner’s (the bank) property, which they acquired legally.
In this case the tenants are innocent, so they don’t deserve to be kicked out. It’s quite unfair. Some people pay their last dime to move in, security deposit, first month, turn on utilities, move furniture in, then they find out that they have to move again soon after.
That is NOT RIGHT and saying this will lead to the gov forbidding evictions shouldn’t even be tied to this scenario. Normal evictions, the tenants are deadbeats and definitely at fault, this scenario the tenants are innocent.
I agree the tenants are innocent, but on the other hand the bank is innocent also and doesn’t deserve to be stuck with tenants. Banks are not in the business of being landlords. Of course, the landlord is the one that really should be paying for the tenants to move.
Again, on a personal level, it sucks. However, it IS right, at least from a legal standpoint (in most cases). There are simply too many unknown variables to determine exactly where the legal line stands, but generally speaking (as I posted above), if everything is in line, the tenants CAN be evicted even if they’ve paid every payment on time.
It’s not like the tenants aren’t given any warning about this either, folks. The notice of default, foreclosure notice, etc and anything else that particular state law envolves is POSTED on the front door of the property in question, in almost all cases, months before an actual foreclosure and eviction process begins. At any time during this period, the tenant could be doing a number of things, like determining where they legally stand, contacting the landlord about making the payments directly to the bank themselves, possibly suing the landlord, STOP paying the monthly rent (perfectly legal in this situation, in most states), or maybe as simple as moving.
And as stated, there are too many unknowns here. We’re getting that he doesn’t want to kick out paying tenants. I wonder, where exactly does he get his info that they ARE paying tenants? I’d wager from the tenants in question. Now, Mike and I both know that tenants never lie and all, but a police officer probably should rely on a bit more evidence than “I really did pay all my payments.”
And finally, the law is the law until it’s changed. You may not like it, I may not like it and the Sheriff may not like it. But like it or not, he DOES have to enforce it.
As I understand the situation, the tenants had been paying their rent on time but the landlord collected the rents and did not pay his mortgage loan. The lender either foreclosed or is preparing for a foreclosure and all the rent paying tenants are being evicted with either no notice or such short notice that they would not have time to find a new home and relocate.
It appears that the sheriff was trying to keep the rent paying tenants from suffering such harsh consequences from a foreclosure caused by the landlord’s rent skimming.
A more compassionate solution would have been to at least give the tenants notice to vacate if the lender insists on a vacant building with a reasonable period of time for the tenants to relocate. Even better, the lender could have left the tenants in place and just put their own property management in place until the property was sold. The lender could offset the foreclosure costs and perhaps some of the mortgage balance due with rent collections. If the property sold at the foreclosure auction, maybe the new buyer would like to inherit the current tenants with no interruption in occupancy.
I symphathize with the sheriff for trying to shelter the innocent bystanders (the tenants). Even though the sheriff’s civil disobedience may result in some punitive action for his failure to execute the eviction orders, I admire his courage for doing it.