Posted on 10/08/2008 3:32:06 PM PDT by blueyon
In Florida (and I suspect Ill. as well), if you foreclose a mortgage and don’t join the tenant in the foreclosure as the holder of a junior interest, then the purchaser at the foreclosure sale will simply take subject to the lease and the tenant gets to stay, as long as he’s paying the rent. If you join the tenant in the foreclosure process, as you are supposed to do, then he can’t very easily complain that he did not know the landlord was not paying the mortgage.
My suspicion is that either the sheriff does not understand how the foreclosure process works, and is simply taking the tenant’s word for it when they claim they did not know, in which case the sheriff is in the wrong, or more likely, the mortgage holder neglected to join the tenant in the foreclosure process, in which they are in the wrong.
This is Chicago and Cook County we're talking about. Hussein will make sure the dollars continue to flow.
BTW different states have different laws and rules to follow. A sheriff is an ELECTED official. He/she has EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY by virtue of the office he/she holds. The sheriff has the obligation to ensure that all the "I's" are dotted and the "T's" are crossed. If the court, in the opinion of the sheriff has not complied with the procedure, the sheriff is obliged to decline to enforce the order. It actually happens more often than most folks realize. It just doesn't make the news.
The property in the case reported is a commerical real estate, ie, apartment complex.
See my post #23.
It has been our experience that foreclousures mwean the lender will automatically initiate eviction. They don’t see to want to pay for property management.
I hope we can meet some day. I’ll let you call be a nazi. You’ll only get to do it once before you decide it wasn’t a good idea.
Here’s a tip. Bubble tea straws are easier to take nourishment through than a soft drink straw.
Well that’s alot of evictions. In that case it may accompany a bankruptcy. I’m not experienced with commercial foreclosures.
Wasn’t that one of the provisions of the “bailout bill” to begin with? (”private” security firms would be utilized for evictions.) I think this is a really bad idea.
A county Sheriff has considerable powers under a written constitution but it trends towards the high side - there should not be a provision for them to ignore the law. Taxes go towards maintenance of police, fire, and sheriffs, etc, DOT and so on. Those agencies should be required to do their job. Watch for the rise of parallel, unaccountable and nebulously funded organizations that interpose themselves between you and government in your “community”.
oooo you scare me! Please don’t talk mean. Any time, any place.
That's not a bad idea if you're paying a fairly substantial amount of rent for a home in an area of fairly rapidly declining house values.
Internetz = Serious business.
The argument you support is EXACTLY the argument the NAZIs used in trying to defend their actions after the war. IWAS JUS FOLLOWING ORDERS. I didn't kill the jews, I just drove them to the camp. I didn't kill the jews, I just took their clothes and shaved their heads. I didn't kill the jews, I just sold the cyklon-B. I didn't kill the jews...
I saw it. I, for sure, wouldn’t take it lightly at being called a Nazi —particularly for espousing a right to due process of a lawful instrument. I reiterate, if the instruments were legal, they must be enforced. Recourse - legal recourse follows. Without law, and respect thereof, we are nothing more than the third world petty African dictatorships from whence our potential next-president-to-be sprang. Without law and respect of our Constitution, we will be defenseless if he wins.
In the US, landlord/tenant law varies from state to state. I only know Missouri and Kansas law, as those are the states in which I’m licensed to practice law. They have very different landlord/tenant laws. In Missouri, foreclosure is a nonjudicial process, and the lender has to follow a procedure in the foreclosure statute, and send and publish notices in a specific way at specific times. In Kansas, a lender must file a lawsuit to foreclose.
Thus, depending on the state, the lender may or may not have a duty or notify the tenant of a foreclosure, and may also be entitled to evict the tenant in the event of a foreclosure. Much of this is governed by state statute, although sometimes the terms of the mortgage contract and the tenant’s lease come into play as well.
The way it works here is that if the mortgage is prior to the lease, then the mortgage holder can get rid of the tenant by joining him in the foreclosure process. From reading the other posts, it appears that the law in IL is that you join the tenant in the foreclosure process simply by giving him notice that the mortgage is being foreclosed. That gives him the opportunity to protect his rights by discontinuing rent payments or even by bidding at the foreclosure sale, if he likes.
So if the foreclosure was done correctly, then he should not be in a position to complain that he did not know the landlord was not paying the rent.
Apparently, the sheriff is complaining about the fact that the courts did not send the proper notice to the tenant. If that happens, then the tenant’s rights are not eliminated by the foreclosure process, and they’ve got to redo the foreclosure process.
There is a need to verify that the occupants be verified as renters or owners lying. If they are truly renters, then, the house must be an investment. The house must be forfeit and the renters told to send the rent to the bank.
I don’t think there is any state where they can get rid of the tenant’s rights without at least notifying him. If you remember from your law school days, there was a Florida case decided by the US Supreme Court in which it held that due process requires a meaningful notice to the defendant in order to use the legal process to dispossess someone of their property rights. I forget the name of the case.
Fuentes v. Shevin
http://supreme.justia.com/us/407/67/
Not directly on point, but this case has been used ad nauseum to restrict deprivations in the context of civil remedies.
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.