ETHICS - Eviction and failing to follow a court order

[Broomstick]

This is a real life situation - the Cook County (Chicago) sheriff is refusing to evict some people.

Chicago's Cook County won't evict in foreclosures; sheriff says honest renters were thrown out

CHICAGO (AP) _ The sheriff here said Wednesday that he's ordering his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties because many people his office has helped throw out on the street are renters who did nothing wrong.

"We will no longer be a party to something that's so unjust," a visibly angry Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said at a news conference.

"We have to be sure that when we are doing this — and we are destroying some people's lives — we better be darned sure we're talking about the right people," Dart said.

Dart said he believes he's the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop participating in foreclosure evictions, and the publisher of a national foreclosure database said he's probably right.

"I haven't heard of any other sheriff unilaterally deciding to stop foreclosures," said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of the Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac, Inc. He said the sheriff in Philadelphia helped push a moratorium on foreclosure sales, but that involved owner-occupied homes and not renters.

Dart said that from now on, banks will have to present his office with a court affidavit that proves the home's occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings.

Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days, but Dart indicated that the law has been routinely ignored.

He talked about tenants who dutifully pay their rent, then leave one morning for work only to have authorities evict them and put their belongings on the curb while they are gone.

By the time they get home, "The meager possessions they have are gone," he said. "This is happening too often."

In many cases, he said, tenants aren't even aware that their homes have fallen into foreclosure.

This week, an attorney asked that Dart be held in contempt when his deputies did not evict tenants after determining they were not the owners and did not know about their landlord's financial problems.

A judge denied the attorney's request, Dart's office said, and Dart said that after talking to the Cook County state's attorney's office, he is confident he is on solid legal ground.

"My job as sheriff is to follow court orders, absolutely," he said. "But I'm also in charge of making sure justice is being done here and it is clear that justice is not being done here."

The state's attorney's office said it would not comment on conversations with Dart because his office is a client.

Foreclosures have skyrocketed around the country in recent months and Dart said the number of foreclosure evictions in Cook County could more than double from the 2006 tally of 1,771. This year the county is on pace to see 4,500 such evictions, he said.

Dart warned that because the eviction process on foreclosures can take more than a year, the number is sure to climb even higher.

"From all the numbers we have seen, we know (they) are going to be exploding," he said.

Sharga said there are more than 1 million U.S. homes in foreclosure — with about a third of that number occupied by someone other than the owner.

"That number will continue to get bigger," he said.

Dart said he believes banks are not doing basic research to determine that the people being evicted are, in fact, the homeowners.

He said that in a third of the 400 to 500 foreclosure evictions his deputies had been carrying out every month, the residents are not those whose names are on the eviction papers.

Nor, he said, are banks notifying tenants that the homes they're renting are in foreclosure. He added that when banks do learn the correct names of those living on foreclosed-upon property, their names often are simply added to eviction papers.

"They just go out and get an order the next day and throw these people's names on there," Dart said. "Whether they (tenants) have been notified, God only knows."

Evictions for nonpayment of rent will continue, Dart said, explaining that those cases already have gone to court, his office is confident the people being evicted are who the landlord says they are, and there is no question the tenants are aware of what is going on.

Dart said it's only fair for banks to give occupants of a foreclosed property adequate notice before forcing them out.

"You are talking about a lot of people in rental situations living paycheck to paycheck," he said. "To think they are sitting on a pool of money for an up-front deposit, security deposit, is foolishness."

For discussion: is Dart in the right or the wrong here? I'd like to see what people think before I weigh in on this issue which is not a hypothetical - I live just a few miles from Chicago, after all, this is the country sharing the west border of the one I live in. This issue is by no means confined to Cook County, it's happening throughout the region (and probably nationwide).

[Covenant]

I think it's justice that he refuse to follow these orders, if or if it's right is something else entirely. It's certainly good--and it's usually better to be good than right, isn't it? In any case, I'd rather let a few bad renters stay in their homes a few more days than for a single good person to be thrown out and have their posessions picked over.

[General Zod]

If the mortgage companies aren't following due process then it's pretty clear he's in the right. Evicting someone with no notice whatsoever is a real dick move whether the owner paid on time or not.

[Kanastrous]

His decision is just.

Whether or not it's legal, I don't know.

[Wicked Pilot]

Dart said that from now on, banks will have to present his office with a court affidavit that proves the home's occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings.

Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days, but Dart indicated that the law has been routinely ignored.

He talked about tenants who dutifully pay their rent, then leave one morning for work only to have authorities evict them and put their belongings on the curb while they are gone.

By the time they get home, "The meager possessions they have are gone," he said. "This is happening too often."

He's not refusing to evict, he's just refusing to evict before all due process has been carried out. Before you can throw someone out of their home there are steps that have to be taken, and those steps exist for damn good reasons.

I don't see where a controversy exist, the guy is an officer of the law and he's fucking acting like one.

[CaptainChewbacca]

ITs only 'controversial' in that he's making sure the law is enforced properly to protect people who are innocent of wrongdoing. This guy should be commended, and I'm glad the judge backed him. About time banks and real estate managers started doing things properly.

[Broomstick]

Dart said that from now on, banks will have to present his office with a court affidavit that proves the home's occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings.

Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days, but Dart indicated that the law has been routinely ignored.

He talked about tenants who dutifully pay their rent, then leave one morning for work only to have authorities evict them and put their belongings on the curb while they are gone.

By the time they get home, "The meager possessions they have are gone," he said. "This is happening too often."

He's not refusing to evict, he's just refusing to evict before all due process has been carried out. Before you can throw someone out of their home there are steps that have to be taken, and those steps exist for damn good reasons.

I don't see where a controversy exist, the guy is an officer of the law and he's fucking acting like one.

I don't see the problem, either, but there's definitely a contingent in this area yelling "throw the Sheriff in jail!". Mostly banks, but there has been some rather vitrolic statements like the following from the Chicago Tribune op-ed page.

Should the sheriff stop evictions?

Once I was visiting a cousin and he suggested we go for a ride. When we went out of the house, I wasn't sure which vehicle we were taking. "Is this your truck?" I asked. "No, it's not mine," he said as he got in. "It belongs to the bank. They just let me drive it." That's a good thing to remember if you're a homeowner or a renter. Unless you've paid off the mortgage and hold the title free and clear, it's not your house. It's the house of someone else, who is letting you live there. That would also be a good thing for Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart to remember as he refuses to carry out evictions from foreclosed properties.

Why should the sheriff be enforcing eviction notices in the first place? Because of a simple but important matter known as property rights. If you found me in your living room without permission, you'd expect the cops to come and take me away, and so would I.

A foreclosure is no different in principle. When you take out a mortgage, you agree to make the payments and the lender agrees to let you live in the house. When you abrogate your end of the deal, the other party has the right to do likewise. Someone who fails to pay the mortgage has no more right to stay in the house than I have to take up space on your couch.

Dart complains that some lenders don't give rental tenants fair notice that the landlord is delinquent, which means the eviction notices comes as a complete surprise. Is that fair? Maybe not. But it's one of the consequences that go with the convenience of renting. If you want to avoid the perils of irresponsible landlords, you're advised to take out a mortgage yourself. Otherwise, you have to choose your landlord carefully and hope for the best.

Enforcing eviction notices is no one's idea of a pleasant task, but if Dart doesn't want it, he should find another job.

Truly, this shows all sorts of contempt for people who rent, for those caught up in the current mess, and a definite favoring of the banks. Libertarian property rights run amok? You weren't properly notified before being put on the street? Boo-fucking-hoo, sucks to be you.

I don't get it, but there was enough of this sort of sentiment that I thought I might be missing something.

[salm]

Dart complains that some lenders don't give rental tenants fair notice that the landlord is delinquent, which means the eviction notices comes as a complete surprise. Is that fair? Maybe not. But it's one of the consequences that go with the convenience of renting. If you want to avoid the perils of irresponsible landlords, you're advised to take out a mortgage yourself. Otherwise, you have to choose your landlord carefully and hope for the best.

That´s a load of bullshit. It´s much better to change the law so that the renters have to be notified a sufficient time before getting thrown out than just doing what this dumbass suggests. He acts as if there was a problem to just let this be handled by a simple law. It is not. We can just create a law that solves this problem.
It will be a bit more inconvenient for the banks but that´s not much of a price to pay if peoples lives don´t get fucked up in exchange for it.

The Sheriff is absolutely right to do what he´s doing.


I kind of like the renting system here which is strongly in favour of the renter.
You can not be thrown out without reason.
Reasons are:
- You didn´t pay the rent
- The owner or one of his family members needs it to live in


Even then you can´t be tossed out automatically.
- if you can´t find another reasonable replacement
- if you can find something else but you will have something new within a year anyways (e.g. you´re currently building a house)
- you´re very old
- you´re poor and can therefore not find another place
- you have a lot of kids and can therefore not find another place.

[Broomstick]

Dart complains that some lenders don't give rental tenants fair notice that the landlord is delinquent, which means the eviction notices comes as a complete surprise. Is that fair? Maybe not. But it's one of the consequences that go with the convenience of renting. If you want to avoid the perils of irresponsible landlords, you're advised to take out a mortgage yourself. Otherwise, you have to choose your landlord carefully and hope for the best.

That´s a load of bullshit. It´s much better to change the law so that the renters have to be notified a sufficient time before getting thrown out than just doing what this dumbass suggests. He acts as if there was a problem to just let this be handled by a simple law. It is not. We can just create a law that solves this problem.
It will be a bit more inconvenient for the banks but that´s not much of a price to pay if peoples lives don´t get fucked up in exchange for it.

According to the sheriff we already have a law requiring 120 day notification (or maybe it's 90 days... or maybe there's some circumstances that dictate the length.) Apparently, the banks just throw names on the eviction notice... but the banks say they have properly notified people and the people saying otherwise are lying.

It seems awful simple and straightforward, but the details seem to be fucking things up. Once more, people are asking why the banks don't simply continue to collect rent, but the banks want the property empty. They don't want to be landlords. But you have to wonder why they're so eager to foreclose but nothing is selling anyway. It would seem to me (ignorant renter ) that the banks would be better off with even a partial mortgage payment (or collecting rent) than with an empty building that can't be sold in the current market, but then, I'm not a banker.

Clearly, a renter who isn't paying rent is an entirely different story, but that's not we're talking about here. These are (apparently) people who faithfully pay their rent on time for years who are being tossed on the street.

[salm]

Perhaps the banks don´t have the logistical infrastructure built up and simply aren´t able to collect the rent so they figure that it financially makes more sense to throw the people out, repair the homes and sell them off as soon as they´re worth something again or something like that. Perhaps it´s too costly to set up an infrastructure like that and would only pay off if the banks intended to stay landlords for several years?

Isn´t there a way for the banks to prove that they sent the notifications within the time limit? They should be required to send the notificatons by registered post or something like that. Something that they´re able to prove that the renters got the notifications.

[Count Chocula]

Broomstick wrote:

It would seem to me (ignorant renter ) that the banks would be better off with even a partial mortgage payment (or collecting rent)

...

Renter's agreements are between the owner of a property and the renter. If Mr. Overextend rents his house to Mr. & Mr. Justgettingby, Mr. O has the legal claim on the property's rent. Banks in foreclosure proceedings are not granted right of rental contract transference, as their litigation is against the property.

One solution, it seems to me, would be for banks to determine if the foreclosed property is being rented and petition for the right to transfer a rental contract to the bank as part of the foreclosure proceedings. Of course, that would require some foresight, willingness, time and empathy on the banks' part - none of which show up on a 10-Q .

[CmdrWilkens]

Two small notes:

1) The action he is taking requiring a court affadavit from the companies that they have complied with the law is commendable in so many ways. Not in the least if someone is evicted at this point and was not given noticed then they have the bank on the hook for perjury in addition to failure to disclose and that's a much more serious charge.

2) I love how so many folks such as the Op-Ed writer hark back to the "I don't own it, the bank does" mantra. The only problemis that its WRONG. You do own the property and it is both real and titled in your name. You have the right to use it within the bounds of the contract which sold the proeprty to you. What the bank has is a secured interest in the property. Yes it gives them certain rights but they do not OWN the proeprty. They have no right to make demands on use or control (outside of any negotiated in the loan contract in order to secure the money) they have no right of access nor any means by which to interrupt your quiet enjoyment of the property. It may be a small distinction but the bank does not own your property. You carry title only it is not clear because the bank has a secured interest.

[Count Chocula]

CmdrWilkens' sig:

"We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result.... We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. " -Edward R Murrow

Off topic, but my wife and I watched Good Night and Good Luck Wednesday night. One aspect of the movie that jumped out at me was the precision, clarity and brevity with which Murrow and others used the language. Hell, even the archival footage of Joseph McCarthy's Senate hearings and rebuttal to Murrow are marvels of effective speech.

I can't recall a single congressman in the last ten years who spoke as well, and as effectively, as any of the reporters and Senators in the movie. It really shows you how far our educational system has fallen.

[General Zod]

CmdrWilkens' sig:

"We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result.... We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. " -Edward R Murrow

Off topic, but my wife and I watched Good Night and Good Luck Wednesday night. One aspect of the movie that jumped out at me was the precision, clarity and brevity with which Murrow and others used the language. Hell, even the archival footage of Joseph McCarthy's Senate hearings and rebuttal to Murrow are marvels of effective speech.

I can't recall a single congressman in the last ten years who spoke as well, and as effectively, as any of the reporters and Senators in the movie. It really shows you how far our educational system has fallen.

Unlike the movies, real politicians don't get to re-take the scene like actors do when it comes to speeches or debates. This is an inherently flawed comparison.

[Count Chocula]

Zod, Murrow's role was indeed played by an actor, but with words Murrow himself said.

The video clips of McCarthy's hearings, and his rebuttal to Murrow, were not actors but actual footage from the time. Milo Radulovich's interviews are also archival footage. Heck, he's more articulate than most college grads these days!

[General Zod]

The video clips of McCarthy's hearings, and his rebuttal to Murrow, were not actors but actual footage from the time. Milo Radulovich's interviews are also archival footage. Heck, he's more articulate than most college grads these days!

And you base this on . . .what? Something resembling actual data or just a few encounters you've decided applies to everything? This sounds like a standard case of "good old days" bullshit.

[Alferd Packer]

What I hope will follow from this is that most states pass renters' laws similar to those here in New Jersey. The story in the OP would not occur in New Jersey because renters cannot be evicted without cause in the event of foreclosure, and the new owner (the bank) must maintain the property in the same way the landlord did. The remainder of their lease must be honored, and any attempts to intimidate the tenants into leaving(like changing the locks while they're at work) or serving an eviction notice without properly adhering to the law is a criminal act, requiring the police to protect the tenants--up to and including arrest of the landlord or his workers.

Frankly, I can't imagine renting a place in a state where the tenant protections aren't as strong as they are here. If anything positive comes from all the shit that's happening these days, I hope that a nationwide strengthening of renters' rights is one of them.

[Molyneux]

I know that "to protect and to serve" is specifically the LAPD motto, not a motto of police forces in general, but still; it looks like this sheriff is taking those words to heart. The fact that the one judge who's gotten involved so far ruled in his favor seems to be encouraging, as well.

[Solauren]

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this Sheriff.

The banks are required, by law, to tell the renters the property has been foreclosued and they are now facing eviction. In otherwords, just tossing them out is illegal.

The Sheriff is mearly saying 'you know what, I'm actually going to check the paperwork before doing anything related to banks now'.

Which, when dealing with any kind of organization, is always a good idea.

[Count Chocula]

Which, when dealing with any kind of organization, is always a good idea.

That's also notable for the location: Cook County, IL, home of the Chicago political machine and the 'vote early and often' mindset. It would be interesting to see the angle Chicago PD takes on in-city foreclosures.

[Covenant]

Which, when dealing with any kind of organization, is always a good idea.

That's also notable for the location: Cook County, IL, home of the Chicago political machine and the 'vote early and often' mindset. It would be interesting to see the angle Chicago PD takes on in-city foreclosures.

They're just doing their job, but I've always had a very good experience with the Chicago PD, but any big-city police force is one step removed from the iron-fisted control mechanism they have to be in a time of crisis. What we're seeing here is just the guy in charge looking at it from a human perspective and saying "This is bullshit, I'm putting the brakes on this," and making other people do their job too. Really, these people may end up being evicted, but they do deserve some warning. What's worse than being thrown out on no fault of your own is to have all your stuff put out on the curb and picked over by looters without ever being able to hear about it from anyone, and I think the police do have a responsibility to not enable crime like that.

It's possible Dick Durbin will step in to do something, which'll be good, as he's currently running election ads. There's basically zero chance of him not being re-elected though. The race I'm interested in is if Bill Foster our Fermilab Scientist gets sent back to the House. I think it's the House. I don't care--I always vote yes when it's related to particle accelerators.

[Count Chocula]

any big-city police force is one step removed from the iron-fisted control mechanism they have to be in a time of crisis.

True. I think the Cook County Sheriff is on the right path, and it would be nice to see this attitude spread.

[Broomstick]

Which, when dealing with any kind of organization, is always a good idea.

That's also notable for the location: Cook County, IL, home of the Chicago political machine and the 'vote early and often' mindset. It would be interesting to see the angle Chicago PD takes on in-city foreclosures.

The Chicago PD doesn't do "in-city" evictions, the Cook County sheriff does that. In other words, Dart has put a halt to this in the city of Chicago as well as the rest of Cook County. It is highly unlikely the Chicago PD would take that task on as they have more than enough to do otherwise.

t on no fault of your own is to have all your stuff put out on the curb and picked over by looters without ever being able to hear about it from anyone, and I think the police do have a responsibility to not enable crime like that.

That precise scenario - people go to work, their stuff is put to the curb, and it's looted by the time they get home - is EXACTLY the scenario that Dart is objecting to and no longer wants to be party to. Apparently, it happened on several occasions with the sheriff only finding out after the fact that the evicted party was never properly notified. My take on this is that Dart isn't refusing to carry out ALL evictions, what he is insisting upon is that no one is evicted without notice.

Also add into this mess the fact that the number of rental units in the region have been falling for decades, the foreclosures are eating into the ones that are left, and the widespread flooding we had in September further reduced vacancies and even 120 days may not be enough to find a new place to live. But at least you can save your valuables, perhaps rent a storage unit, or stash things with friends (one of whom also might be kind enough to let you sleep on a couch) to reduce the chances of winding up living in a cardboard box or under a bridge.

[Molyneux]

Quick question for anyone here who would have more legal experience than me: would something like the "stuff left on the curb all day for looters to pick through" kind of behavior leave the evicting parties liable for the value of any stolen property, if they didn't give the evictee the legally required warning ahead of time? I hope so.

[CmdrWilkens]

The video clips of McCarthy's hearings, and his rebuttal to Murrow, were not actors but actual footage from the time. Milo Radulovich's interviews are also archival footage. Heck, he's more articulate than most college grads these days!

And you base this on . . .what? Something resembling actual data or just a few encounters you've decided applies to everything? This sounds like a standard case of "good old days" bullshit.

Well relax, he was making a qualitative assessment based on archival footage. Do you have a better source for finding out how and in what forum politicians of the 50s addressed their audiences? Sure he didn't sit down with a couple horus worth of footage but what he did watch is, in part, historical record NOT re-enactment. From that he made a qualitative judgement about the spekaing style of 1950s pols versus modern pols.