Posted on 10/08/2008 3:32:06 PM PDT by blueyon
That is the radio report I heard earlier today, which begs two questions...
Why should renters rate special consideration that owner-occupiers can't enjoy?
Alternatively, if deadbeat renters can't be evicted, I think it's a slick alternative.
We, here in the US are accustomed to the rule of law working most of the time. That much of the rest of the world does not is because the government fails to enforce the rule of law. The police are supposed to enforce the law for the protection of the people, not just to do what the government says.
The government proceeds from the people, the government does not get to act unjustly. That's my point.
With the bailout bill, a judge can intervene on interest rates, payment schedules and amounts. I think those in trouble will have a 2 year window before the law can come knoking on your door (then comes the appeal process).
Can you imagine the temptation to abuse the system now?
This reminds me of the Roman empire when Ceaser gave free grain and housing to the masses. After a while the “taxpayers” (farmers) gave up when their taxes got too high.
“The police must not enforce laws that are not morally defensible.”
That is an not a defensible position. You cannot leave it up to the individual cops to decide what is morally defensible. Then you would have police within the same city enforcing separate rules. One cop may not think that law A is morally defensible while another cop may think it is. That is not rule of law, that is not justice, that is anarchy and chaos and a quick way to hell.
Law enforcement officers do not "hang up their rights and responsibilities " at the door. The carry them with them always. If they choose to enforce a law or not (there is some leeway) they have to expect that they will have to live with the consequences of their choice.
Again: The police are a part of us, they don't drop down from "police planet" to do their job thence to return. They too, live with the consequences of the choices they make. Yes, they do have an obligation to use discretion. They are permitted by our system of laws both in the letter and the spirit, to use discretion.
As a mundane example, did you ever have a cop give you a break on a traffic ticket?
Mis-prison of a felony?
The banks are realistic. If the tenants are paying rent the bank will in many cases allow them to remain while the property is marketed, giving them time to make other arrangements. The courts are also likely to side with the tenant in an eviction proceeding, as happened with one of my transactions recently.
The court ordered that the tenant be given a month to month lease and 60 days notice to vacate when the property sold in return for rent payments and cooperation with showings.
So, of course, after two (late) payments he stopped paying at all; five months later we ended up having to have the constable remove him and his family.
No good deed ever goes unpunished!
That’s why I would never own rental properties because of the freeloader and entitlement mentality these days. The owner is almost guaranteed to take a loss.
You mean that all those politcally connected RAT county employees can't get their jobs done? Surprise, suprise, surprise!
In Missouri, I think the tenant’s opportunity to be heard comes in the eviction proceeding itself, which is judicial and has specific notice requirements. The nonjudicial foreclosure statute doesn’t require notice to tenants per se; the foreclosing lender must notify them only if they record a request for notice with the recorder of deeds. I bet that some tenants have a good defense to eviction if their leases don’t have any language terminating the lease upon foreclosure of the property. However, I imagine many of them either don’t know it, or just don’t assert any defenses in the eviction proceeding.
“Law enforcement officers do not “hang up their rights and responsibilities “ at the door. The carry them with them always. If they choose to enforce a law or not (there is some leeway) they have to expect that they will have to live with the consequences of their choice.”
In a way, law enforcement officers DO hang up certain rights. I work in a division of federal enforcement and I have some leeway but that leeway is written into the law. We have certain criteria that we can follow but we can’t just not enforce the law.
“They are permitted by our system of laws both in the letter and the spirit, to use discretion.”
That is what is wrong with this country now. Whenever I hear “the spirit” of the law I think of congress every time it rapes the Constitution. Congress uses that phrase every time they do something outside the boundaries set by the Constitution.
“As a mundane example, did you ever have a cop give you a break on a traffic ticket?”
No, I have not. I once got a ticket because the front wheels of my truck were over the line in a handicap space on a downtown street. I could have whined about it and talked the officer out of the ticket but I had, in fact, broken the law. I paid my ticket and went on with my life. I was asked, as part of my hiring process, would I have any trouble citing people that I know or who are related to me. My answer then was it would be now...No. The law must be applied equally, without any stretching of interpretation. My advice to anyone in law enforcement is that if you have moral problems enforcing a statute, maybe law enforcement is not your proper line of work.
What if the tenant is in possession? In Fla., the tenant gets notice if he’s of record OR IN POSSESSION. If he’s in possession, then the mortgagee is on notice of his interest even if he’s not recorded, and takes subject to his rights if he doesn’t join him in the foreclosure.
If it turns out the court in this case *did* follow the relevant procedures to the letter, would you view the eviction as morally defensible?
A hypothetical: Suppose your wife/child/etc was bleeding to death and you could speed to the hospital and save them. Would you? If you say yes, then you acknowledge that there are exceptions to the law about speeding. (even if you don't get caught, you've violated the law) If you say no, then you belong in the camp of those absolutists who rule countries like the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, etc. Fine company to keep. Only they believe there is one law for you and the masses and another for themselves.
You have choices to make. Not all the choices are clear cut.
That is what is wrong with this country now. "Whenever I hear “the spirit” of the law I think of congress every time it rapes the Constitution. Congress uses that phrase every time they do something outside the boundaries set by the Constitution." But every law congress passes is constitutional until decided otherwise by the court, isn't it? If no, then you're not a constitutionalist. If yes, then you must believe that there are exceptions to the rule.
"In a way, law enforcement officers DO hang up certain rights." No, we voluntarily relinquish privileges, not rights. You ALWAYS have rights. Rights come from God. You may choose not to exercise them, but you don't give them up. You merely subordinate your privilege to exercise them for a cause greater than yourself or for a paycheck or, perhaps, both.
Probably. But let’s say it’s blizzard conditions, -20 and the tenant is going to be without shelter. What would you do?
Well, continuing with the assumption that the tenant had been given adequate notice of eviction, I'd ask him why he had decided to stick around until blizzard season.
But seriously, my first response would be to still remove the tenant, and then take him to a shelter (perhaps the sheriff's office). If there was absolutely nowhere for the tenant to go, I would let let him stay until the blizzard passed or until some other shelter was available. Then, I would come back to complete the eviction.
Extreme, emergency circumstances like this aside, don't you agree that officers have an obligation to evict tenants when given legally valid orders to do so?
Assuming everything was kosher, of course, but I wouldn’t assume so until I verified it. Too many young officers take short-cuts and don’t do their homework. A tenant who has paid his/her rent and is the victim of circumstances should be given every consideration. As the undersheriff I tried to instill this in my deputies. I recall in my academy days (many years ago) something about “To Protect and to Serve...” not either or but both.
I’ve dealt with many, many @$$holes in my years, but every one got a measure of courtesy, at least as much as they would allow.
I don’t think it makes any difference. Leases are generally not recorded in MO, so the mortgagee would generally have no way to know identity of the tenant. In the post-foreclosure eviction actions I’ve seen, the lender/new owner is required to post notice at the property, and usually names the tenants as “John Doe and Mary Doe” and attempts to serve them personally at the property. Posting is sufficent to give the court jurisdiction over the property to award the owner possession, though personal service is required for jurisdiction over the tenant himself. If the tenant still has a valid leasehold, it’s up to him to plead that as an affirmative defense or counterclaim in the eviction action.
An owner can take back possession as early as 10 days after getting judgment as to possession by the court. As a practical matter, however, most judges will delay entering judgment in a situation where the tenant has been blindsided by the foreclosure, so as to give them time to find a new place and move. Also, some lenders will work with tenants who are paying rent and need extra time to move.
Finally, I neglected to mention earlier that while the foreclosing lender is not required to notify tenants by name, they routinely send notice to the owner at the property address, so the tenants usually know that something is up well before the foreclosure sale takes place and they get notice of the eviction.
This is stupid. Knock on the door and tell the tenants the new address to send the rent.
Here in Fla, they don’t typically record leases either, though you can. What usually protects the tenant is that the mortgagee is charged with notice of any interest of parties in possession. So if the tenant was in possession at the time the mortgage was recorded, then the mortgagee takes subject to his rights. If he comes along afterward, but the mortgagee does not give notice to him of the foreclosure proceedings by joining him in the foreclosure action, then again, the tenant’s rights are not affected by the foreclosure. If the tenant comes after the mortgage, and the mortgagee does join him in the foreclosure, then his rights will be eliminated, but at least he will have advance notice—he can stop paying rent and he can even defend the foreclosure or bid at the sale if he wants. If he comes along only after the foreclosure has already begun, then he is charged with notice of the foreclosure, and he takes subject to the results of the foreclosure.
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.