Sheriff tells deputies not to help in foreclosures

[Okie Medicvet]

Illinois lawman too many innocent renters are being made homeless

CHICAGO - The sheriff here said Wednesday that he’s ordering his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties because many people his office has helped throw out on the street are renters who did nothing wrong.
“We will no longer be a party to something that’s so unjust,” a visibly angry Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said at a news conference.
“We have to be sure that when we are doing this — and we are destroying some people’s lives — we better be darned sure we’re talking about the right people,” Dart said.
Dart said he believes he’s the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop participating in foreclosure evictions, and the publisher of a national foreclosure database said he’s probably right.
“I haven’t heard of any other sheriff unilaterally deciding to stop foreclosures,” said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of the Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac, Inc. He said the sheriff in Philadelphia helped push a moratorium on foreclosure sales, but that involved owner-occupied homes and not renters.
Dart said that from now on, banks will have to present his office with a court affidavit that proves the home’s occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings.
Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days, but Dart indicated that the law has been routinely ignored.
He talked about tenants who dutifully pay their rent, then leave one morning for work only to have authorities evict them and put their belongings on the curb while they are gone.
By the time they get home, “The meager possessions they have are gone,” he said. “This is happening too often.”
In many cases, he said, tenants aren’t even aware that their homes have fallen into foreclosure.
This week, an attorney asked that Dart be held in contempt when his deputies did not evict tenants after determining they were not the owners and did not know about their landlord’s financial problems.
A judge denied the attorney’s request, Dart’s office said, and Dart said that after talking to the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, he is confident he is on solid legal ground.
“My job as sheriff is to follow court orders, absolutely,” he said. “But I’m also in charge of making sure justice is being done here and it is clear that justice is not being done here.”
The state’s attorney’s office said it would not comment on conversations with Dart because his office is a client.
Foreclosures have skyrocketed around the country in recent months and Dart said the number of foreclosure evictions in Cook County could more than double from the 2006 tally of 1,771. This year the county is on pace to see 4,500 such evictions, he said.
Dart warned that because the eviction process on foreclosures can take more than a year, the number is sure to climb even higher.
“From all the numbers we have seen, we know (they) are going to be exploding,” he said.
Sharga said there are more than 1 million U.S. homes in foreclosure — with about a third of that number occupied by someone other than the owner.
“That number will continue to get bigger,” he said.
Dart said he believes banks are not doing basic research to determine that the people being evicted are, in fact, the homeowners.
He said that in a third of the 400 to 500 foreclosure evictions his deputies had been carrying out every month, the residents are not those whose names are on the eviction papers.
Nor, he said, are banks notifying tenants that the homes they’re renting are in foreclosure. He added that when banks do learn the correct names of those living on foreclosed-upon property, their names often are simply added to eviction papers.
“They just go out and get an order the next day and throw these people’s names on there,” Dart said. “Whether they (tenants) have been notified, God only knows.”

Click for related content
Nearly 1 in 6 homeowners are ‘under water’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27089919/)


Evictions for nonpayment of rent will continue, Dart said, explaining that those cases already have gone to court, his office is confident the people being evicted are who the landlord says they are, and there is no question the tenants are aware of what is going on.
Dart said it’s only fair for banks to give occupants of a foreclosed property adequate notice before forcing them out.
“You are talking about a lot of people in rental situations living paycheck to paycheck,” he said. “To think they are sitting on a pool of money for an up-front deposit, security deposit, is foolishness

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27090355/


You know, it is good to read a story like this one that comes along every once in a while, about a man who does his job, and abides more to the spirit of th law than the letter of the law..major props to him! Not that it will happen, but I hope he gets a freakin medal for doing the right thing!

[ADD]

Tom Dart rules

[mongo]

as a renter, i can get behind this kind of thinking.

[billysocal]

You're really only getting the right to have 120 days' notice that you're getting booted, but that's better than having a rude awakening when you get home from work.
It would still suck to get booted when it's the owner that didn't pay.

[Genius]

Besides, who is winning with these foreclosures? The banks aren't. They posses the properties, which then sit empty, and they don't get paid. They put them on the market, and no one is buying, even at severely reduced prices. The tenants obviously don't win, and neither do the owners. I think in crisis situations such as these, everyone would be better served by examining the situation case by case and renegotiating mortgages and payments. That way, the financiers are able to continue to receive something, and no one ends up booted. I know it isn't the way things are supposed to work, and should never be the norm, but this isn't exactly familiar territory and kicking out renters with no notice does not serve the public good at all.

[Claydon]

So the Sheriff is not upholding the law. Well, thats cool, because after all, we are going to bail out the banks for billions for their shennanigans, lets just not hit people for their personal debt as well. Personal responsibility is completely dead in this country, perfect for Obama supporters.

[Morfin]

Allow me to give the curmudgeon's view:

The sheriff is not allowed to decide which laws he will or will not enforce: His job is to enforce the laws and execute judicial orders. He should be held in contempt of court for ignoring a court order -- even if he thinks, in his Robin Hood brain, that he is doing the right thing. What is going to happen next: Is he going to be given an arrest warrant for someone who he doesn't think should be arrest and then ignore the warrant?

Those people/banks/lenders foreclosing on those properties are entitled to equal protection of the laws, just like the renters are. What about their rights. This is vigilante justice, pure and simple.

Dart complains that many of the people being evicted are renters who haven't done anything wrong or haven't been given proper notice. If that is the case, that the law was not followed, then, again, that is a failure of the judge for issuing the order, not for the sheriff to apply his own views upon. Unless the renters have a lease that survives foreclosure, then they have no rights against foreclosure -- their recourse is against their landlord on the contract.

I am not trying to be hyperbolic, but this isn't a sheriff's job to decide which court-ordered evictions he is going to enforce.

[Hanover Fist]

Allow me to give the curmudgeon's view:

The sheriff is not allowed to decide which laws he will or will not enforce: His job is to enforce the laws and execute judicial orders. He should be held in contempt of court for ignoring a court order -- even if he thinks, in his Robin Hood brain, that he is doing the right thing. What is going to happen next: Is he going to be given an arrest warrant for someone who he doesn't think should be arrest and then ignore the warrant?

Those people/banks/lenders foreclosing on those properties are entitled to equal protection of the laws, just like the renters are. What about their rights. This is vigilante justice, pure and simple.

Dart complains that many of the people being evicted are renters who haven't done anything wrong or haven't been given proper notice. If that is the case, that the law was not followed, then, again, that is a failure of the judge for issuing the order, not for the sheriff to apply his own views upon. Unless the renters have a lease that survives foreclosure, then they have no rights against foreclosure -- their recourse is against their landlord on the contract.

I am not trying to be hyperbolic, but this isn't a sheriff's job to decide which court-ordered evictions he is going to enforce.

I think you should read the article. He didn't say he wasn't going to enforce the law, he said he wasn't going to enforce it if the occupants weren't the owners and there wasn't documented evidence that the occupants had received at least 120 days notification of foreclosure (which is in fact an actual Illinois law). That is a big difference between him disregarding the law.
I have absolutely no problem with him taking this position, I would think as a public servant not only is he acting properly, he should be compelled to act like this as it is in the publics best interest.

[Morfin]

I did re-read it, as well as today's article in the Chicago Tribune. Link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-sheriff-foreclosureoct09,0,6213711.story). Please note the other county sheriffs who disagree with his position.

Dart acknowledged he is at risk of violating court orders to evict and could be found in contempt. But he says he also is responsible for making sure justice is being done. "We will no longer be a party to something that's so unjust," he said.
. . .

Still, most officials in surrounding counties, also struggling with unprecedented levels of foreclosures, found the move beyond the scope of a sheriff. In Will County, Sheriff Paul Kaupas was apprehensive about halting evictions and suggested the courts should suspend eviction orders.

Pat Barry, spokesman for Kaupas, said, "If we disregard the law, what kind of message are we sending?"

Kane County Sheriff Patrick Perez said he understood Dart's motivation, having worked in the civil division dealing with evictions.
. . .
Dart said he will resume foreclosure-related evictions when lenders agree to do their own due diligence in figuring out who is living in foreclosed properties.Note that this last quoted sentence, which is different from that of the first posted article from three days ago.

Originally, Dart was reported as saying that he would enforce the eviction notices when there was proper notice, affidavit, etc. (I have no problem with this being his position, if that is his job -- to evaluate the eviction notices and orders -- if it is the court's job and he receives an eviction order, it is not his job to re-do the work the court did or should have done. I do not know the answer to this question.

But in today's article, the headline and last sentence I quoted above speaks of Dart's office suspending all foreclosure evictions, which implies even the ones that he considers valid. Again, I do not know which position is the actual one: suspending all evictions or just those that are not, in his mind, valid.

The overall problem I have is that this sheriff, whose job is to execute court orders is acting in a grandstanding, vigilante manner because he and his office are perceived as the bad guys who have to do the dirty work of evicting people. But that is part of his job: not just catching crooks, but evicting people according to court orders.

[Hanover Fist]

I agree with that. If his position is going beyond what is legally required then yes he is over stepping his authority and should be removed from office.

I was going by what was in the original article, and thought he was acting properly by erring on the side of the renter. If , however, he is just disregarding all eviction notices then he is considering himself above the law and action needs to be taken against him.

[Genius]

So the Sheriff is not upholding the law. Well, thats cool, because after all, we are going to bail out the banks for billions for their shennanigans, lets just not hit people for their personal debt as well. Personal responsibility is completely dead in this country, perfect for Obama supporters.
You're such a fuck. Everything in the country is Obama's fault? How about some personal responsibility from the Bush administration, of which we've seen absolutely none of for eight years? What happens to personal responsibility when the leader of the free world has none to speak of? Go fuck your bitter, whiny, endlessly-partisan self.

[Swurgen]

You're such a fuck. Everything in the country is Obama's fault? How about some personal responsibility from the Bush administration, of which we've seen absolutely none of for eight years? What happens to personal responsibility when the leader of the free world has none to speak of? Go fuck your bitter, whiny, endlessly-partisan self.

Partisan people who constantly blame 'the other side' are just too stupid to realize that all politicians are on the same team and it's not 'our team'. Way to inject politics into an irrelevant totally apolitical thread.

[locke8]

The sheriff is not allowed to decide which laws he will or will not enforce: His job is to enforce the laws and execute judicial orders. He should be held in contempt of court for ignoring a court order -- even if he thinks, in his Robin Hood brain, that he is doing the right thing. What is going to happen next: Is he going to be given an arrest warrant for someone who he doesn't think should be arrest and then ignore the warrant?


why can't he decide to do something for himself? in this circumstance, no one is really getting fucked over besides the judicial system. i realize that Dart's kind of thinking could snowball into further independent decisions, but those should be dealt with separately, if they were to happen. i think his robin hood actions are quite noble, honestly. i don't think i should have to do something just because the man is telling me i have to. if i go to jail, fuck it, at least i'm not living as a bitch to an unjust or poorly executed 'law'.

[Claydon]

You're such a fuck. Everything in the country is Obama's fault? How about some personal responsibility from the Bush administration, of which we've seen absolutely none of for eight years? What happens to personal responsibility when the leader of the free world has none to speak of? Go fuck your bitter, whiny, endlessly-partisan self.

I did not BLAME obama, what I indicated was that this no responsibility society that is developing is perfect for the obama supporter.

[locke8]

I did not BLAME obama, what I indicated was that this no responsibility society that is developing is perfect for the obama supporter.

explain.

[Archangel]

You're such a fuck. Everything in the country is Obama's fault? How about some personal responsibility from the Bush administration, of which we've seen absolutely none of for eight years? What happens to personal responsibility when the leader of the free world has none to speak of? Go fuck your bitter, whiny, endlessly-partisan self.

Yeah, but acting the tough conservative and calling out those pussy liberals for everything that's wrong makes his wine-sipping, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, wannabe élitist faggot arse feel all manly and shit, so it's all right.

[Le Goat]

Yeah, but acting the tough conservative and calling out those pussy liberals for everything that's wrong makes his wine-sipping, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, wannabe élitist faggot arse feel all manly and shit, so it's all right.

Anyone else laugh at the irony?

[Archangel]

What irony? There's no wannabe whatsoever here.

[Archangel]

Claydon talking trash about Americans, not too long ago. (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=2937642)


EDIT: Looks like he did a 180 because an Asian chick told him to. (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=2959371&postcount=2925)

[Morfin]

why can't he decide to do something for himself? in this circumstance, no one is really getting fucked over besides the judicial system. i realize that Dart's kind of thinking could snowball into further independent decisions, but those should be dealt with separately, if they were to happen. i think his robin hood actions are quite noble, honestly. i don't think i should have to do something just because the man is telling me i have to. if i go to jail, fuck it, at least i'm not living as a bitch to an unjust or poorly executed 'law'.

Why can't we have this sort of action? Because, quite simply, our Society is based on governance by laws and enforcement of laws by the courts. If one government official, here, a sheriff, decides to ignore that, to impose his own set of rules, then that is wrong. No different than if he did not like that the court found a person innocent of murder due to a constitutional right violation -- a so-called technicality -- and the sheriff decides that that isn't fair to the victim's family, so he shoots the person.

Yes, that is somewhat hyperbolic and I am not saying that anarchy will result, but the point is that the sheriff's job is to execute court orders -- not to decide to execute only those that he agrees to.

There is no question that there is a legitimate sense of "score one for the little guy" or "Robin Hood justice" behind what he is doing, and a part of me cheers for what Dart is doing. But, in order to have a fair and orderly society, he just cannot do this.

[mongo]

morfin, you're an idiot to believe that sheriffs, police officers, etc..., don't impose subjective views of the law every single day. the only thing that makes this different is that it hit the papers. people who think that every one will, should, and can abide are retards.

[fuldstændigamok]

morfin, you're an idiot

You could have stop there, you know...

[mongo]

You could have stop there, you know...

i know.

[Morfin]

I'm an idiot? Tell me something my wife doesn't already tell me 10 times a day.

[Morfin]

morfin, you're an idiot to believe that sheriffs, police officers, etc..., don't impose subjective views of the law every single day. the only thing that makes this different is that it hit the papers. people who think that every one will, should, and can abide are retards.

You are partially right, but wrong in this instance. You are right that police make subjective decision on whether to arrest or write a ticket all the time. 35 in a 25 mph zone? Yes/No.

But there is a difference between that and serving and enforcing a court order. With the ticket and arrest, the police officer is imbued with a certain amount of discretion, sanctioned implictly and explicitly by their bosses, prosecutors, and courts. But with serving and executing a court order, arrest warrant, or other court paper, their job has no discretion -- they are functionaries ordered to do a job.

That is the difference. On a Saturday night, I doubt you have the focus or sobriety to understand.

[mongo]

You are partially right, but wrong in this instance. You are right that police make subjective decision on whether to arrest or write a ticket all the time. 35 in a 25 mph zone? Yes/No.

But there is a difference between that and serving and enforcing a court order. With the ticket and arrest, the police officer is imbued with a certain amount of discretion, sanctioned implictly and explicitly by their bosses, prosecutors, and courts. But with serving and executing a court order, arrest warrant, or other court paper, their job has no discretion -- they are functionaries ordered to do a job.

That is the difference. On a Saturday night, I doubt you have the focus or sobriety to understand.

you're a fucking cuntrag if you think these renters should suffer. i know you're like 70 years old, i know you preach to all the kids here about how to make their life better (aka, just like yours. and that would blow, imo). but take a step back out of your fucking lawyer suit and realize that this sheriff, following his moral standards, is doing something good and decent for society. our laws, sometimes, run past the point of being rational and into the zone of unfair. at least he took a stand, unlike most of the jerk off attorneys and lawyers in this "great land". lulz.

[Hanover Fist]

Mongo you're just wrong in this instance. I would have agreed with you had the Sheriff stuck strictly to not evicting those who hadn't received the legally required 120 days eviction notice. The fact that he has decided to ignore all evictions is complete horseshit. If I was the Mayor or Governor I would have him fired/recalled immediately. You cannot have a public servant making arbitrary decisions like this that go against the law of the land.
Does it suck for the people being evicted? Yes. Is life fair? No.
If they have been given the proper 120 days and still haven't taken care of finding a new place to live then they are fucking stupid and lazy, and nobody should feel sorry for them anyway.

[mongo]

Mongo you're just wrong in this instance. I would have agreed with you had the Sheriff stuck strictly to not evicting those who hadn't received the legally required 120 days eviction notice. The fact that he has decided to ignore all evictions is complete horseshit. If I was the Mayor or Governor I would have him fired/recalled immediately. You cannot have a public servant making arbitrary decisions like this that go against the law of the land.
Does it suck for the people being evicted? Yes. Is life fair? No.
If they have been given the proper 120 days and still haven't taken care of finding a new place to live then they are fucking stupid and lazy, and nobody should feel sorry for them anyway.

and what makes you think they were given the proper 120 days? i mean fuck, they don't own the place. i'm sure the 120 day notice went to the owners. there had to be some reason he said this. it was not just off the cuff guaranteed. and no, life isn't always fair, but that doesn't mean that law abiding renters should take the stick up the ass for the owners.

[Hanover Fist]

Like I said, the original article stated that he would not evict anyone that there was not proof of having been given the 120 days notice, to which I wholeheartedly agreed, seeing as how it is not only morally right but also Illinois law.
However, the follow on article stated that he would go further and not evict any renter regardless of the 120 days notice. That is bullshit.

[mongo]

i did not read the following article. also, i'm a science major. i only use common sense when arguing this type of shit. oh how i wish there was an equation to prove all of you wrong.

[ADD]

I'm an idiot? Tell me something my wife doesn't already tell me 10 times a day.

You have an awesome cock?

[Morfin]

you're a fucking cuntrag if you think these renters should suffer. i know you're like 70 years old, i know you preach to all the kids here about how to make their life better (aka, just like yours. and that would blow, imo). but take a step back out of your fucking lawyer suit and realize that this sheriff, following his moral standards, is doing something good and decent for society. our laws, sometimes, run past the point of being rational and into the zone of unfair. at least he took a stand, unlike most of the jerk off attorneys and lawyers in this "great land". lulz.

I don't preach and I didn't here: I took a stand, which, if if I read your anger-issue-laden rant correctly, you took issue with.

Like I said, the original article stated that he would not evict anyone that there was not proof of having been given the 120 days notice, to which I wholeheartedly agreed, seeing as how it is not only morally right but also Illinois law.
However, the follow on article stated that he would go further and not evict any renter regardless of the 120 days notice. That is bullshit.

i did not read the following article.

If you didn't even read the article, then STFU.

also, i'm a science major. i only use common sense when arguing this type of shit. oh how i wish there was an equation to prove all of you wrong.

1) I am not a science major. I HAVE A FUCKING SCIENCE DEGREE IN ADDITION TO MY LAW DEGREE. So, again, STFU.

2) Here is an equation from someone who has a science degree to you, who says they use common sense when arguing (even though you refuse to read the article being discussed):

MONGO = Angry young man destined to be a bitter, angry old man.

Now, once you get done with your banning period, STFU.

[Tar Heel]

So the Sheriff is not upholding the law. Well, thats cool, because after all, we are going to bail out the banks for billions for their shennanigans, lets just not hit people for their personal debt as well. Personal responsibility is completely dead in this country, perfect for Obama supporters.

He is following the law. he just realized that in many cases only the property owners were being notified of the eviction. Then many of the renters were getting evicted with no notice. The law states that the people being evicted must be notified 120 days ahead of time. The banks were adding the renters names to the papers days befor ethe evictiona and expecting these people to be out because they had notified the property owner. All the Sheriff is doing is making sure that there is documented evidence of the renters being notified 120 days in advance of the eviction.

So you're wrong. The Sherrif saw where people who are not responsible for the current financial crisis are being punished for those that are. Then he found a legal way to at least make sure the renter are informed and documented as such with plenty of time to find new residence.

[Tar Heel]

Like I said, the original article stated that he would not evict anyone that there was not proof of having been given the 120 days notice, to which I wholeheartedly agreed, seeing as how it is not only morally right but also Illinois law.
However, the follow on article stated that he would go further and not evict any renter regardless of the 120 days notice. That is bullshit.


That I agree with.

[pauluncg01]

That I agree with.

Same here. Evicting people from their homes isn't going to stimulate the economy. When people buy stuff, where are they going to put it? Instead of forclosing on people, let the banks be the landlords, rent out the homes, and charge them a reasonable rent, and at some point give them the option of purchasing. And if they don't pay the rent, hire another agency to evict them.

[freegood]

Yeah, but acting the tough conservative and calling out those pussy liberals for everything that's wrong makes his wine-sipping, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, wannabe élitist faggot arse feel all manly and shit, so it's all right.

I call them angry midget rants. They're bitter and predictable like a midget's cute little swings.

[Deadhead Derek]

Besides, who is winning with these foreclosures? The banks aren't. They posses the properties, which then sit empty, and they don't get paid. They put them on the market, and no one is buying, even at severely reduced prices. The tenants obviously don't win, and neither do the owners. I think in crisis situations such as these, everyone would be better served by examining the situation case by case and renegotiating mortgages and payments. That way, the financiers are able to continue to receive something, and no one ends up booted. I know it isn't the way things are supposed to work, and should never be the norm, but this isn't exactly familiar territory and kicking out renters with no notice does not serve the public good at all.
Or allow those renters with a proven payment history to take over the forclosed houses for the former rent. yes, property owners rights, issues yadda yadda, but tell me they wont be sitting empty otherwise.