Posted on 10/08/2008 3:32:06 PM PDT by blueyon
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
What a mess. Can’t really blame the sheriff either.
Chicago should forfeit all Federal funding until they agree to enforce the law.
I suggest you read the article before posting.
“Can’t really blame the sheriff either.”
Oh really?
I don’t care what the article says, they are required to obey lawful instruments, PERIOD! It is not up to law enforcement to ponder and debate the merits of a particular case, nor is it up to them to make blanket assessment. I don’t give a rat’s ass about extenuating circumstances - whatever, they should obey the law and enforce it. It is up to the legal establishment to judge the merits.....
It doesn’t make any difference. The property owner’s rights must be upheld. The people must be evicted no matter if they were paying their rent.
Yeah, you’re right. This is another one of those “slippery slope” arguments. You can either be for private ownership of property or against it, there’s really no in between.
Unless the law says that the new owner is obligated to provide free rent to people squatting on the property, the sheriff is refusing to provide quiet title to the property. that’s why the sheriff’s department goes there to perform the eviction, and not community organizers. The sheriff is supposed to enforce the law, not interpret it as he sees fit.
Illinois law requires all tennants be provided a 120 day notice of eviction when associated with bankruptcy. In the case the report is referring none of the tennants have been notified and continued paying rent. The owners collected the rents, along with loan proceeds and fled the country. BY LAW, these people cannot be evicted for at least another 120 days.
BTW...it is the Courts error in not providing notices. Numerous other cases within Cook County have also been reported.
I agree, read my post #9.
True, but given the recent history of mortgages being sliced, diced, repackaged and resold multiple times, I think it's reasonable for a mortgage holder to document properly the provenance of his ownership before eviction can take place.
Now, you bring up the LAW - at least we’re talking about the same thing now. It is still not up to Law ENFORCEMENT to determine whether these people have valid excuses or just scamming like many do. What we’re talking about are property rights and ownership. If rights have been abrogated, legal recourse is available. It his highly unlikely that the instruments were issued with having the benefit of completed the legal requirements for such. My advice is to consider the bleeding heart press’ motivation for writing this story in the first place.
Ve ver only dooink our chobs putting the chews on the trains, it vas ze law!
People who think like you make great nazis.
Can’t really tell what’s happening here. In most places, if not all, the tenant must be joined in the foreclosure process if you want to get rid of him. So I don’t see how the tenant could not know that the landlord is not paying the mortgage.
It’s not really for the sheriff to decide whether the tenant can be removed. That’s for the courts to decide in most locales.
My suspicion is that his refusal to enforce the law is based on his ignorance of how the law works. If the tenant says he did not know that the landlord was being foreclosed, then I would check to see if he was joined in the foreclosure process. If so, he’s out of luck.
If he’s stopping evictions where the tenant was joined, then I suspect that if this continues, there won’t be too many lenders willing to make mortgage loans in his county.
It may be that US law is different than in most of the rest of the world, but a landlord foreclosing doesn’t automatically mean that the tenants are liable for eviction. When the owner defaults, the property goes to the bank but the bank still has to honor existing rental contracts unless, of course, the tenant is behind on the rent or in some other way in violation of the rental contract.
Also, evicting a tenant who is paying the rent seems like pretty bad business.
I could be wrong about this so if anyone knows better, please enlighten me.
Can’t really blame the sheriff either.
You sound like a ‘thought-Nazi’ yourself, fella. Does the phrase ‘rule of law’ mean anything to you?
I don’t know how it is in Ill., but most of the foreclosures in Cal are not part of a bankruptcy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.