Home : Blogs : Lane Bailey - REALTOR & Car Guy : Lane's Blog - Looking out from the garage

Chicago Sheriff Refusing to do Foreclosure Evictions

This is from the 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.

Here is a link to the story.

on the face of it, I am offended that the Sheriff in Cook County is refusing to do his job. And that is specifically and exactly what is going on here. I'm sure it isn't fun... and I have accompanied Sheriff's Deputies on a Foreclosure Eviction... but that is not the point. The point is that the mortgage holder has a legal right to repossess the property. The Sheriff standing in the way is breaking the law... that he has sworn to uphold.

But there is more to it...

I may be an unsympathetic meanie... but I am also logical. First of all, I can see that in the case of renters that have been making their rental payments on time... those that the Sheriff of Cook County is trying to protect... they are the victims. They did what THEY were supposed to do. The owner didn't do what THEY were supposed to do.

But, as an officer of the court, the Sheriff NEEDS to be held in Contempt of Court and go to jail... that is what the "Rule of Law" means... If not for the Rule of Law, we have Anarchy.

But I think there ARE some things that CAN be done.

I think that the owners/landlords of these properties that are taking the rental payments and not paying the mortgage are defrauding the tenents. And I think that they need to be charged. And jailed if found guilty. After a few dozen of these folks go to jail, there will be a shift in how landlords view their cashflow.
There is NO reason that the Sheriff's Office can't determine if the person that answers the door is the mortgage holder (kick them out) or a renter (let them stay while a solution is found). So, why not kick out the people that aren't renters instead of giving a break to people that can't afford to live in the house.
Banks are missing a BIG opportunity here. If there is a renter in the house, they should rejoice and cultivate that renter. They have two different options that would accomplish the goals of the bank and the occupant.
- Let them continue to rent, but pay the bank instead of the foreclosed former mortgage holder. The bank is getting income on the outstanding loan... They could even sell the property WITH the renter to investors. I would bet that there would be a whole new category of investors that would step up to take performing properties.
- Sell them the house. They are making their payments. they have shown a level of responsibility that the "owner" failed to show.

The point is that those solutions don't violate the Rule of Law, nor do they further victimize the renters that are actually following through on THEIR responsibilities.

But, the reckless actions of the Cook County Sheriff fail to hold accountable those that are responsible. For that, and for breaking the law, he needs to suffer the consequences.

I'd love to hear from you...

Posted by Lane Bailey - REALTOR & Car Guy on 10/08/2008 02:59 PM

Comments (16)

Financial Meltdown in the Mortgage / Finance Channel

repo, foreclosure, financial crisis, politics, ethics

Originally posted at: Looking Out From the Garage: Chicago Sheriff Refusing to do Foreclosure Evictions

Post is included in group: Almost Anything Goes
Post is included in group: Blatant Politics
Post is included in group: Fixers, Flips, and Rehabs
Post is included in group: No Writer's Block Allowed!
Post is included in group: Silent Majority

16 Comments on Chicago Sheriff Refusing to do Foreclosure Evictions

OCT

2008

Lane - I have to agree with you here. This is insanity. Boy am I going to have wonderful stories to tell my future children. Twenty Bucks says Ben Franklin is rolling over in his grave.

It's a very complex situation. I'm just glad I'm not the sheriff. It would be heartbreaking to evict people - especially with children.

I have only had to do it one time to know how unpleasant it is to move someone out on the street. But I am not a charity and neither is the lender we need to have the authorities do their job.

Here's a thing (not "the" thing): the tenants have likely been informed that the house has foreclosed, via a visit from a real estate person to inform them of this fact. It's unpleasant on both sides; it's brutally forthright; it's a person providing facts. This is BEFORE any eviction aspect.

They are likely offered "cash for keys", as a courtesy- a pittance, relative to the cost of relocating, but WARNING that something is definitely awry. Phone numbers for confirmation provided (I'm assuming).

By the time an eviction actually hits, this tenant- WHILE VICTIMIZED- has received notice prior to a sheriff appearing. It's ugly, but deciding to believe a crooked landlord is the responsibility of some renters who find themselves to be yet another victim of this wretched market. I agree 100%- prosecute the landlord for fraud; and, while you're at it, check the loan app used to apply for the "investment" property.

There are so many blighted properties that it makes a lot of sense to allow the renters to remain with a NEW lease to the bank and with the agreement that they will be responsible for managing the yard, any repairs, etc.

So I'm just wondering about the sheriffs - why are they refusing to do the evictions? Just too many to do? There's a scenario I wouldn't have anticipated!

It is so sad...I know of two people here that were paying rent and came home to find there things on the street. No there was no agent that showed up. When a sheriff who is pledged to up hold the law, refuses to obey the law, we are in big trouble.

If the law is wrong,change it but don't violate it.

I agree with you about landlords being charged for accepting rent and not paying their mortgage, However there needs to be some legislation to protect renters. When property is sold and it is leased, the lease goes with the property, I think the renter should have 60 days to relocate and they pay the rent to the mortgage company. jmho

Jason - I think that there are a bunch of guys that drafted our Constitution that would love to beat some politicians senseless...

Vicki - I could do it... for those that didn't hold up their end of the deal. I know that if someone took my kids out of my house with me because I wasn't taking care of my responsibilities... it would change my life.

Terry - I went to one, and seeing the kids toys and such was heartbreaking. I am glad the people weren't there or a couple of parents would have gotten a "motivational speech."

Laurie - The Sheriff is saying that the appropriate letters are NOT being delivered. The people don't know they are being evicted. I agree with your position though... until someone doesn't find out until it is too late to do anything.

Mary - The Sheriff is refusing because he says that renters aren't getting advance notice as required by law and they don't want to check ID.

Missy - I too think that the law has to rule. If the law is wrong... change it. Those that are bound to uphold it need to do just that.

Paul - I agree with you... but wouldn't it make sense for a bank to keep a renter in place as long as needed... instead of allowing the property to join the sea of inventory? I don't think they should be forced... I just think it is good business.

OCT

2008

I'm shocked. There has got to be more to this than a sheriff trying to do the right thing for tenants. After all, this is Chicago we're talking about. The law often takes the law in its own hands there, with absolutely no regard to what the law actually says. When part of the Sheriff's job stops being evictions, then the Sheriff can refuse to do them, but until then, the Sheriff should do the job he is paid to perform.

I'm all for the little guy standing up to authority and doing what's right, but I don't believe that is the case in this situation.

Lane, I agree wholeheartedly that it would be in the lenders best interest to keep the renters as long as possible, the benefits are obvious, and there is still plenty of time in the process to give them a 30 day notice.

While I agree it's not a pleasant task to forcibly evict someone from their home...owner or tenant... the Sheriff has an obligation to uphold the law. He can certainly advocate for advanced notice or any other statutory changes he sees fit, but if he refuses to perform his job, he should be relieved of his position.

OCT

2008

Elizabeth - I think it is more a populist stand for someone that is thinking about a higher office...

Paul - I could find investors to buy properties that could immediately cash-flow... lots of them. The banks could dump them easily.

Jesse - I am right there with you.

OCT

2008

Great post, Lane! I am skeptical that all tenants receive letters or phone calls warning them that the house they're renting is going to be foreclosed on, and furthermore giving them a deadline to move. I like your suggestions for solving the problem, which is only going to get worse in the coming months.

Cheers,

Robin

Robin - Thank you. Keep in mind that I don't think the Sheriff's actions are justified. But I think the banks should seriously look at ways to mitigate their losses...

OCT

2008

Hi Lane,

You will have to forgive me for not understanding the rules in the US - I came across this story as the Sheriff made it all the way on to the evening radio news here in the UK yesterday and I wanted to know more about it. "The Google" brought me here.

As far as I understood it he took these actions because despite asking those foreclosing to carry out some basic actions, none of them had and this was the only way of getting their attention. It obviously worked somewhat. Maybe sometimes someone has to shout loudly to get the system to work better or to be improved. Families and old folks on the streets through no fault of their own is not the mark of a living society.

As I say I don't follow the rules in the US but a basic sensible solution has to be that the party looking to enact the foreclosure should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the tenants know that this is going to happen, and making sure that notice is given in plenty of time. If its a bank then surely, as you point out, their interest is served in having a paying tenant in place rather than having to sell, especially with values falling as they are at present. Otherwise thats another shortfall all of us taxpayers have to fill - I'll see your $700bn and raise you to $1tn as Mr Brown has just done - and he didn't even have to ask for it.

Of course the rule of law is something we (and we do have that in common these days across the pond) both respect. But at some point someone has to point out where the law is just plain wrong or has a serious "hole" which this seems to have.

Rules here are, happily, a little more balanced. Unfortunately those charged with reposession or debt management are poorly regulated, and in some serious cases dishonest and those they deal with are ill-informed about their rights. Something some of us are trying to change.

Good blog entry though.

Chris

Chris - I can see both sides of the issue... and I have sympathy for those that are evicted from rental homes, despite holding up their end of the agreement by paying their rent. But the problem I have at the core is that the Sheriff, by refusing to evict people from homes they don't own, is effectively denying private property rights to the rightful owners. That is a pretty dangerous situation, where the court has ruled, and the person responsible for upholding the law was refusing to follow it...

I think that attention was needed, but I also think that as a court officer and law officer, the sheriff needs to be held accountable for failure to uphold the law.

As King for a Day... I could fix SO many things... but I'm not, and I can't.

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?