Cook County Sheriff Suspends Evictions from Forclosure

Originally posted by Heatburger
reply to post by irishgrl

 

I apologize if I seemed insensitive...I know I adopted a holier-than-thou attitude..creating a preemptive defense for myself, I guess, because I didn't want to be lashed out at for working at a big bad bank. I know they suck. I know they're greedy, but a handful of bankers do have heart

it's a very small minority, but we do exist.

fair enough...lets hope the GOOD banks prevail. Sometimes its the small neighborhood banks/stores/businesses that are the best. I remember reading about this bank that started in Harlem that was strictly to help Harlem residents begin saving and eventually working their way up to home ownership....was started by a former Harlem resident herself if I remember correctly.....my point is, I know its possible for ethical, caring folks to do well NOT at the expense of others.

anyway, pax.

wow...
it is so nice to hear some good news for a change...
it isnt too often we come across people like this anymore - i applaud this gentleman & hope that we start hearing news like this more often - people need to try to help others as much as they can in times like these.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by born²]

Again, Loam makes a post that rises above the murkiness of people who don't want to read and just interject.

Dart is purely protecting (i.e. delaying eviction of) renters when their landlords screw up. Having lived in a many apartments, I think it's a great thing. There's a hell of a lot of people renting in Cook County and a hell of a lot of horrible landlords (again, I know from experience).

One thing that wouldn't hurt to have added in to your leases nowadays would be an eviction due to foreclosure clause. Something to the extent of "In the event my rented property goes into foreclosure while I am a tenant, I am to receive 60 days notice before I can get evicted yada yada yada." I've actually added a similar clause into every lease I've ever signed ... probably harder to slip by nowadays though.

reply to post by piacenza


You are way wrong on this one There may be a small percentage like that but most of them just wanted a home and got one on an arm feeling that getting a home would improver there credit before the balloon and end up being able to go for a prime rate.

You are listening to too many jerks and not understanding that most people just needed a break.

Originally posted by amatrine


How can he do that if the bank owns the property?

I can see it helping people, but as to being legal I do not see it.
I think it is up to the renters to see if a property is in trouble before
you rent. If it happens you have a suit against the one who rented to you, but it would be a civil matter.


www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Legal ? Look here what banks do :

Google Video Link

They created money out of nothing until they reached their limit, now they got their bailout, why do they still want people's homes ?

Good on him. A true American hero. That's the kind of people that should be leading the US. The people in Cook County are lucky to have him as their sheriff.

I went to the Chicago, Cook County, Sheriff's office webpage to learn more and then after reading realized exactly what is going on. To sum up, people who rent homes and pay their rent payments each month are being affected by home owners who own those same homes who then can't pay their mortgage. So, it's the renters who are getting the shaft even though they are good paying customers. So, I say contact the cook county office and give your vote of approval and to encourage them to share their right and lawful 'think outside of the box' actions to other sheriff's offices, etc. Strength in numbers and apparently most of our support, as the regular girl or guy, is going to come from people in local power. Just my two cents.

Originally posted by pai mei

Originally posted by amatrine


How can he do that if the bank owns the property?

I can see it helping people, but as to being legal I do not see it.
I think it is up to the renters to see if a property is in trouble before
you rent. If it happens you have a suit against the one who rented to you, but it would be a civil matter.


www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Legal ? Look here what banks do :

Google Video Link

They created money out of nothing until they reached their limit, now they got their bailout, why do they still want people's homes ?

Well now, isn't that just like Google! Your vid is down.

Boycott Google, I'm telling you!

What is up with that ? It seems they always come down these days.

Ama

I'm finding this hard to believe, but perhaps it is correct. The Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds sold the fraudulently AAA rated mortgages to China and Europe and elsewhere. It's understandable that some people might be unhappy about that. The source of the news is said to be Russian, so perhaps it's dubious, but it seems to say that Chinese police now have the legal right to foreclose on mortgages on American soil.

/3tav8k

I'm sure this man is thinking about the humanitarian side but I'll tell you this.

The BANKS WANT this. Otherwise they have to pay to maintain the properties, heat them in (coincidence? WINTER) as well as be tarnished as the enemy. They are getting free security, so like is happening in Michigan (houses harvested of their copper pipes etc), does not happen and further devalue their assets.

Don't worry, when the markets pick back up, if ever & if the houses are marketable again, these people will be out sooo fast out on their asses: rain or shine, winter or summer.
The people SHOULD leave and get into a much smaller rental, regardless. They can't afford these bloated overpriced houses framed in compressed hamster shavings to begin with!

Save money, enjoy much cheaper heating in a smaller space and wow! What a great way to let the banks HAVE IT while they are down.

reply to post by Atlantican


The banks should want this. They could arrange to have the rent sent to them and avoid having the property sit empty over the winter like you say, plus get a little return on their investment in the meanwhile.

But then the banks should have been more willing to work with the original mortgagees too. It would have saved them, and all of us, a lot of grief and money.

They just want their cake and to eat it too, I think.

They want to be allowed to make bad loans and not have to deal with the repercussions both financial and in terms of inconvenience caused by striking new deals with those who got caught up in the bad loans.

I dont feel one bit of pity for the bankers. I have heard too many stories of people who tried in good faith to set up alternate arrangements with them before they ever defaulted on a payment only to be rebuffed.

And for those who were so certain bailing these guys out to the tune of 700 billion was such a good idea, do you still think so? Doesnt seem to be doing a heck of a lot for us, the markets are still going to hell in a handbasket, and now we have signed away the money too.

Good for the Sheriff. I hope it is the beginning of a trend.

What a concept! LOL...it's about time someone in authority stands up for people.

For those who don't know how it works and are wondering if he can do this:

Well, yes, he can. In a foreclosure the bank sends notices to the "owner(s)" of the house telling them that they must vacate the premises by a certain date. They HOPE that the "owner(s)" leave(s) on their own so they don't have to go through the eviction process. That's where the Sheriff comes in. The Sheriff (at least in Ohio) handles all evictions including those for foreclosures and tenants under a lease. The mortgage company or landlord must go to the court to get an order of eviction (which is not usually a very short and inexpensive process). The Sheriff is called to enforce the order, which may involve physically removing the person from the house (A person can be arrested for trespassing in most cases if they are still on the property after an official eviction notice). So if the Sheriff doesn't do the eviction then the person may just get to stay in the house for quite some time before anyone figures out another way to get them out.

I suppose he COULD get in trouble for disobeying a court order (contempt of court), but that all depends on how many friends the Sheriff has in the local courts (if the prosecutor is friends with him, I doubt there will be any charges filed).

Just on the news. Bush wants yet another bailout so he can buy hares of the banks, to own the mortgages.

When is it going to stop?

Ama

reply to post by amatrine


As far as I know this sort of thing can be done... kicking people out to the curb. we shoudl all be asking the Landlord or Banks to du rthis mis deed.


""" APPLAUDING THE SHERRIFF... whose sworn duty is to serve and protect the public..""" THANK YOU, for showing others what is happening out there. It is wrong.. it is simple injustice...

Big money makers (similiar to wall street republicans ) are running from responsibilties and leaving their mess for others to clean for them. Just like wall street ? who wants to bet that the landlords might be republicans ?

Just like ROBIN HOOD, "Please do not take from the poor to give to the rich." it is just wrong ... in this case ..it is the Sheriff who sees the injustice and is not willing to participate.

We really should call back the landlords and find justice in how are they going to help their tenants.. they should be accountable for this...

As far as I know this sort of thing can be done... kicking people out to the curb.

before this country is rebounces ,... there are going to be similiar stories everywhere....

reply to post by amatrine


You have got to be F!£&*ng kidding me?!?!?

I applaud the Sheriff's dedication to humanity, but his willingness to ignore the law when he's taken an oath to UPHOLD the law disturbs me. Right now, people applaud this man because he's made a decision that appeals to the best of our human nature, but what if next time he chooses to ignore a law that appeals to only half of us?

Also, banks aren't the only ones who set up amortization on homes. Individuals do it also. So say I own a house outright and set up a mortgage for a family that stops making the payments. The taxes and maintenance still have to be paid on this property. As the owner on paper, am I supposed to absorb the loss because times are tough right now?
The banks are villified because they handle hundreds of thousands of such loans. They run a business and don't take human nature in account. Is that surprising?

If this trend continues in Cook County and bleeds off into other counties, I can see the following happening:

1. Banks may fear local law enforcement will not enforce evictions when the time comes due and therefore could make acquiring a home loan much more difficult. They may require more money down or scrutinize the borrower to a larger extent when making a decision. Ultimately it could lead to fewer loans than what there are now, which isn't many given the mess the financial markets are in.

2. New laws may be drafted that say a federal judge can replace a defiant sheriff with someone of their choosing, which would bypass the local electoral process and take more power AWAY from the states. That's not what you want.

I don't see this as being a good precedent to set at all. I think the sheriff is playing with fire on this one.

I live near Chicago & saw him on the news last night. He knows that he is opening the door for legal problems but he doesn't want to be a part of something that he feels is wrong.
I think he is setting a great example for others!!