Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Desertdog on October 09, 2008, 02:14:50 PM
-
To me the loan companies are just plain stupid if they foreclose on a house and evict the occupents that is up to date on theire rent payments. They should get a court order for them to collect the rent when they foreclose. To me, it is better to have property that is bringing in something than nothing.
Illinois sheriff scolds banks for evictions of 'innocent' renters
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- An outraged sheriff in Illinois who refuses to evict "innocent" renters from foreclosed homes criticized mortgage companies Thursday and said the law should protect victims of the mortgage meltdown.
Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff Thomas J. Dart says too many renters are being evicted for landlords' problems.
The county had been on track to reach a record number of evictions, many because of mortgage foreclosures.
Many good tenants are suffering because building owners have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."
"These poor people are seeing everything they own put out on the street. ... They've paid their bills, paid them on time. Here we are with a battering ram at the front door going to throw them out. It's gotten insane," he said. Watch Dart slam mortgage companies »
Mortgage companies are supposed to identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction, but sheriff's deputies routinely find that the mortgage companies have not done so, Dart said.
"This is an example where the banking industry has not done any of the work they should do. It's a piece of paper to them," Dart said.
"These mortgage companies ... don't care who's in the building," Dart said Wednesday. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way.
"On top of it all, they want taxpayers to fund their investigative work for them. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today."
Dart said he wants the courts or the state Legislature to establish protections for those most harmed by the mortgage crisis.
In 1999, Cook County had 12,935 mortgage foreclosure cases; in 2006, 18,916 cases were filed, and last year, 32,269 were filed. This year's total is expected to exceed 43,000.
"The people we're interacting with are, many times, oblivious to the financial straits their landlord might be in," Dart said. "They are the innocent victims here, and they are the ones all of us must step up and find some way to protect." Watch sheriff announce he won't evict innocent tenants »
The Illinois Bankers Association opposed the plan, saying that Dart "was elected to uphold the law and to fulfill the legal duties of his office, which include serving eviction notices."
The association said Dart could be found in contempt of court for ignoring court eviction orders.
"The reality is that by ignoring the law and his legal responsibilities, he is carrying out 'vigilantism' at the highest level of an elected official," it said. "The Illinois banking industry is working hard to help troubled homeowners in many ways, but Sheriff Dart's declaration of 'martial law' should not be tolerated."
Dart was undeterred Thursday.
"I think the outrage on my part with them [is] that they could so cavalierly issue documents and have me throw people out of homes who have done absolutely nothing wrong," Dart said. "They played by all the rules.
"I told them, 'You send an agent out, you send somebody out that gives me any type of assurance that the appropriate person is in the house, I will fulfill the order.' iReport.com: How hard have foreclosures hit your neighborhood?
"When you're blindly sending me out to houses where I'm coming across innocent tenant after innocent tenant, I can't keep doing this and have a good conscience about it."
-
Is it even legal to evict a tenant w/o prior notification?
I wonder if there is more to this story.
-
It isn't here. 280 days.
-
The lease is a contract between the tenant and the landlord. The bank was never a part of that deal. Why should they be bound by it?
If I was a lender, I'd be reluctant to lend on a house if the local laws made it impossible for me to foreclose.
-
Devils in the details. He's saying ultimately that the banks aren't doing thier homework on the residents of the house, and then issuing forclosures.
-
The lease is a contract between the tenant and the landlord. The bank was never a part of that deal. Why should they be bound by it?
If I was a lender, I'd be reluctant to lend on a house if the local laws made it impossible for me to foreclose.
Because it's not quite fair if a deadbeat landlord also fails to inform the tenants who pay every month, and the tenants get their stuff thrown out in the street?
That is what NH's law protects. If that happens, the residents get 280 days from the date of notice of change of ownership to leave.
This is also talking about apartment complexes and rented condos, remember.
-
Video story:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/cook-county-sheriffs-office-to-suspend-mortgage-foreclosure-evictions.html
Interview:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
What is it with reporters and headlines?
You read something like "No foreclosure evictions my watch" and you are pre-conditioned to think there are actually deadbeat renters who are getting off the hook because of this. This is about dead-beat landlords.
-
Video story:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/10/cook-county-sheriffs-office-to-suspend-mortgage-foreclosure-evictions.html
Interview:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
What is it with reporters and headlines?
You read something like "No foreclosure evictions my watch" and you are pre-conditioned to think there are actually deadbeat renters who are getting off the hook because of this. This is about dead-beat landlords.
Exactly. It also sounds like the banks are sending the landlords eviction notices, and then they aren't passing that info on to thier renters. Pocketing the money until the sheriff knocks on the door and kicks the renter out. It sounds like the banks aren't quite living up to the expectations of the law in this case.
-
Because it's not quite fair if a deadbeat landlord also fails to inform the tenants who pay every month, and the tenants get their stuff thrown out in the street?
That is what NH's law protects. If that happens, the residents get 280 days from the date of notice of change of ownership to leave.
It's not quite fair to the lender for a deadbeat borrower to refuse the bank first the mortgage payments he promised, and then to deny the lender recourse through foreclosure. I fail to see how it's fair to punish the bank for a situation caused by the borrower.
It sucks to be a renter and have the property you live in change ownership. But that's one of the differences between renting and and owning. Renters don't have control over who owns the property, only owners do. Don't like it? Buy instead of rent.
If lenders can't recoup losses through foreclosure for various reason (such as tenants), then lenders won't want to lend. It makes it that much more expensive for average folks like to buy a house of their own.
-
Exactly. It also sounds like the banks are sending the landlords eviction notices, and then they aren't passing that info on to thier renters. Pocketing the money until the sheriff knocks on the door and kicks the renter out. It sounds like the banks aren't quite living up to the expectations of the law in this case.
In fairness.. the folks handling evictions for the banks are probably over worked these days.... :|
-
It sucks to be a renter and have the property you live in change ownership. But that's one of the differences between renting and and owning. Renters don't have control over who owns the property, only owners do. Don't like it? Buy instead of rent.
Is arugula expensive at Whole Foods, did you mean to add that, too?
Don't you think a lot of fiscally responsible people would buy IF THEY COULD FREAKING AFFORD TO?!
-
"It's not quite fair to the lender for a deadbeat borrower to refuse the bank first the mortgage payments he promised, and then to deny the lender recourse through foreclosure. I fail to see how it's fair to punish the bank for a situation caused by the borrower."
???
Conversely, though, it's fair to punish the renter, who may have been perfectly up to date with his/her payments, for a situation caused by the borrower?
What great and critical harm might come to the lending institution by holding off on an eviction in the event that the borrower never informed the renter that the property was in danger of foreclosure?
In a word, the answer is... none.
-
Is arugula expensive at Whole Foods, did you mean to add that, too?
Don't you think a lot of fiscally responsible people would buy IF THEY COULD FREAKING AFFORD TO?!
I do think a lot of responsible people would buy if they could afford to. That's why it concerns me to see situations like this. Ultimately this sort of thing serves only to make it more difficult and expensive for average folks to buy.
The power of foreclosure lessens the risk to the lender. That makes it less costly and less risky for them to lend. It increases the odds that people like you and I would be able to buy. Denying the lenders the power to foreclose (for whatever populist feelgood reason you can think of) decreases the ability of us to borrow and buy.
Owning is a privilege, not a right. It's difficult and expensive. I don't see the wisdom in making it even more difficult and expensive. Do you?
-
"Is arugula expensive at Whole Foods, did you mean to add that, too?"
$4.79 a pound last time I was in there getting rice.
-
"The power of foreclosure lessens the risk to the lender. That makes it less costly and less risky for them to lend. It increases the odds that people like you and I would be able to buy. Denying the lenders the power to foreclose (for whatever populist feelgood reason you can think of) decreases the ability of us to borrow and buy."
You're confusing two very different processes under law.
No one is denying the right of the lender to foreclose on the BORROWER and take possession of the property that was used to secure the loan.
What is in question is the ethical and legal right of the lender to EVICT those who rented the property from the borrower.
-
Here's an idea.
Protect the owners of multi-family rental-only dwellings like apartments with the 280 day rule PENDING no sale at all. If a buyer steps forward, they would likely be more interested in a building full of paying tenants, wouldn't they?
For people who are renting condos and houses, another option.
1. The bank forecloses.
2. Instead of kicking the renter out of a house that might not sell, make it easier for the bank to OFFER THE RENTER terms to make their rent into a fixed-rate mortgage to buy the house or condo.
That way, they stay put, the deadbeat landlord loses it, the renter is not punished and might now be able to own the property, and it doesn't impact the neighborhood. The only person punished is the one who should be punished.
-
"It's not quite fair to the lender for a deadbeat borrower to refuse the bank first the mortgage payments he promised, and then to deny the lender recourse through foreclosure. I fail to see how it's fair to punish the bank for a situation caused by the borrower."
???
Conversely, though, it's fair to punish the renter, who may have been perfectly up to date with his/her payments, for a situation caused by the borrower?
What great and critical harm might come to the lending institution by holding off on an eviction in the event that the borrower never informed the renter that the property was in danger of foreclosure?
In a word, the answer is... none.
People do nasty things to property once they learn that they won't be living in it in the future and won't be responsible for any damage or neglect they cause. Giving a renter 280 days to destroy the bank's property is a bad idea. It also forced the bank to provide landlord services to the tenant, which is something that the bank never agreed to and has no interest in providing. It costs the bank time, effort, and money, and lessen the bank's ability to recover its money.
Situations like this do indeed suck for the renter. It isn't the bank's fault, though. It's the landlord's fault. The bank is as much a victim of the deadbeat landlord as the tenants are.
Hold the deadbeat landlord responsible, not the banks.
-
No one is denying the right of the lender to foreclose on the BORROWER and take possession of the property that was used to secure the loan.
What is in question is the ethical and legal right of the lender to EVICT those who rented the property from the borrower.
I don't have an objection to the tenants being evicted if thats what the new owners want. What I object to is the apparent lack of notice being given to the renters. It seems grossly unfair to just show up one day without notice and evict someone. Normally some kind of official notice has to be served to the tenant ahead of time before an eviction is allowed.
-
People do nasty things to property once they learn that they won't be living in it in the future and won't be responsible for any damage or neglect they cause. Giving a renter 280 days to destroy the bank's property is a bad idea. It also forced the bank to provide landlord services to the tenant, which is something that the bank never agreed to and has no interest in providing. It costs the bank time, effort, and money, and lessen the bank's ability to recover its money.
Situations like this do indeed suck for the renter. It isn't the bank's fault, though. It's the landlord's fault. The bank is as much a victim of the deadbeat landlord as the tenants are.
Hold the deadbeat landlord responsible, not the banks.
What a fricking elitist you are.
My previous rental property was bought to be converted to condos. Everyone had 280 days to leave.
Did anyone trash their property? Anyone at all? NO.
For one thing, they wouldn't get their deposit back if they did that. Have you ever rented, even? DEPOSIT?
And secondly, why are all people who rent, who might just be often-moving businesspeople or retirees, more prone to destroy the property? What the hell? Are all people who rent ghetto trash? Is that what you think? You've never heard of a luxury rental community?
-
Let's see...
Who is more likely to take immediate action to damage a property...
Someone who is told that, through no fault of their own, the building has been foreclosed upon and the bank is giving them 280 days to find a new place to live, or
Someone who has just been informed by the local sheriff and a couple of his deputies that they have 48 hours to GTFO of the property?
I know which one would make me more prone to cause a LOT of "incidental" damage.
And I also know which one DOES cause a lot of "incidental" damage.
It's option 1.
I've seen it many, many times over the years, from both sides of the coin.
The properties that are, universally, damaged (I've seen several that have been damaged nearly beyond repair, imagine a toilet being torn out of the floor and thrown THROUGH the sliding glass doors) the most are the ones in which the renter is given virtually no option other than to pack as quickly as possible and PRAY that they can find a new place to live in a few days or risk becoming homeless.
Having someone essentially remove the sense of security that time gives pretty much guarantees a rage-driven response.
-
"It's not quite fair to the lender for a deadbeat borrower to refuse the bank first the mortgage payments he promised, and then to deny the lender recourse through foreclosure. I fail to see how it's fair to punish the bank for a situation caused by the borrower."
???
Conversely, though, it's fair to punish the renter, who may have been perfectly up to date with his/her payments, for a situation caused by the borrower?
What great and critical harm might come to the lending institution by holding off on an eviction in the event that the borrower never informed the renter that the property was in danger of foreclosure?
In a word, the answer is... none.
And.....as a general rule of thumb the renter will have a SIGNED LEASE that states they have the right to live in the property for x amount of months or years as long as they pay thier payments on time.
If the bank would take a few minutes, go to the house and staple an eviction notice to the damn door, this would be a non issue.
-
"The power of foreclosure lessens the risk to the lender. That makes it less costly and less risky for them to lend. It increases the odds that people like you and I would be able to buy. Denying the lenders the power to foreclose (for whatever populist feelgood reason you can think of) decreases the ability of us to borrow and buy."
You're confusing two very different processes under law.
No one is denying the right of the lender to foreclose on the BORROWER and take possession of the property that was used to secure the loan.
What is in question is the ethical and legal right of the lender to EVICT those who rented the property from the borrower.
It is the landlord's responsibility to provide the agreed-upon services (use of the property, maintenance, upkeep, etc) to the tenant, not the bank's! Those obligations go beyond merely letting the tenant use the property, and they're expensive. I can't agree with any law that imposes those obligations on anyone without their consent.
The tenant's recourse should be to seek damages from the landlord that promised to provide certain services and then didn't. I fail to see how it's fair to hold the bank responsible for the failures of the landlord.
-
It is the landlord's responsibility to provide the agreed-upon services (use of the property, maintenance, upkeep, etc) to the tenant, not the bank's! Those obligations go beyond merely letting the tenant use the property, and they're expensive. I can't agree with any law that imposes those obligations on anyone without their consent.
The tenant's recourse should be to seek damages from the landlord that promised to provide certain services and then didn't. I fail to see how it's fair to hold the bank responsible for the failures of the landlord.
And if the deadbeat landlord has vanished (like one in this area that did, and went back to Pakistan!), who are they going to sue? And where are they going to live?
Do you know how long it takes to find a decent place and arrange moving? Especially in the middle of winter, for example?
-
What a fricking elitist you are.
My previous rental property was bought to be converted to condos. Everyone had 280 days to leave.
Did anyone trash their property? Anyone at all? NO.
For one thing, they wouldn't get their deposit back if they did that. Have you ever rented, even? DEPOSIT?
And secondly, why are all people who rent, who might just be often-moving businesspeople or retirees, more prone to destroy the property? What the hell? Are all people who rent ghetto trash? Is that what you think? You've never heard of a luxury rental community?
Yeah, I'm an elitist. I think that holding the responsible people responsible, rather than imposing obligations on people who aren't responsible.
Yeah, I'm an elitist. I don't buy into the populist BS that people have a right to property that isn't theirs, without the consent of the owners.
I've seen what people in foreclosed property can do to the property. I've seen what renters can do to a property. I realize that some people will in fact do these nasty things. So that makes me an elitist.
I'm an elitist, and I'm darned proud to be.
-
And if the deadbeat landlord has vanished (like one in this area that did, and went back to Pakistan!), who are they going to sue? And where are they going to live?
Do you know how long it takes to find a decent place and arrange moving? Especially in the middle of winter, for example?
So the solution is to punish the bank who had no part in causing this mess?
Fail.
-
Yeah, I'm an elitist. I think that holding the responsible people responsible, rather than imposing obligations on people who aren't responsible.
Yeah, I'm an elitist. I don't buy into the populist BS that people have a right to property that isn't theirs.
I've seen what people in foreclosed property can do to the property. I've seen what renters can do to a property. I realize that some people will in fact do these nasty things. So that makes me an elitist.
I'm an elitist, and I'm darned proud to be.
And you're being a bit of a schmuck on this issue. I'm glad New Hampshire's lawmakers are a lot wiser than you are.
-
I know, I'm a schmuck. I don't go for all of this populist garbage that the country seems to have embraced over the past few months. I don't agree with punishing businesses for no apparent reason. I don't buy into the notion that the government's job is to step in and protect the little guy from all of the risks of modern life.
-
"Those obligations go beyond merely letting the tenant use the property, and they're expensive. I can't agree with any law that imposes those obligations on anyone without their consent."
The bank, by lending to someone who intends to use the property as an income generating property, immediately assumes that responsibility upon foreclosure and, by extension, has agreed to the conditions that come with it.
Banks can, if they so choose, specifically exclude use of the property as a rental property in the loan agreement.
And, by their very nature, banks aren't "anyone." They are a THING. A corporate entity.
Through this entire conversation you've constantly harped on the "rights" of the corporate entity.
You've been asked, and have so far failed/refused to answer, what drawbacks or potential catastrophic and business ruining consequences might occur from a bank having a foreclosed property that is actually generating income against the lien by retaining the renters in the property.
Seems to me that cutting off ALL revenue flow by immediately evicting any tenants is by far the stupider move.
But, given the incredible "planning and foresight" that lending institutions have used over these past few years, I not at all surprised.
-
So the solution is to punish the bank who had no part in causing this mess?
Fail.
The bank could avoid the whole mess by making sure the residents of the home are notified of the impending forclosure and eviction.
-
The bank could avoid the whole mess by making sure the residents of the home are notified of the impending forclosure and eviction.
And the bank could not only inform the tenants, but make a concerted effort to find a buyer quickly. What's better for the bank, a full building sold to a real estate group to keep as an income stream, or an empty building that nobody will move into because they figure the same thing will happen again?
Occupied apartment buildings are revenue streams. Abandoned ones are liabilities. Same with houses.
Why wouldn't the bank want to make an offer to the renters to convert their rent into a fixed rate mortgage? Take it away from the deadbeat landlord, offer it to the people living there.
-
"the populist BS..."
Wow. God, you're right.
Thank you for reminding us that the Founding Corporate Sponsors were concerned only about the rights of business in the United States.
If they were concerned about pidding individuals, would they have given us our glorious Articles of Incorporation, which starts out...
"We the corporations of the United Services of America,
-
The bank could avoid the whole mess by making sure the residents of the home are notified of the impending forclosure and eviction.
The bank is still obligated to serve as a landlord for 280 days. They're still forced to pay upkeep, insurance, taxes, utilities, and provide whatever services the landlord promised to deliver (and found himself unable to deliver).
They're still bound by a contract they never agreed to, a contract which may well have been disadvantageous to the property owner.
-
And the bank could not only inform the tenants, but make a concerted effort to find a buyer quickly. What's better for the bank, a full building sold to a real estate group to keep as an income stream, or an empty building that nobody will move into because they figure the same thing will happen again?
Occupied apartment buildings are revenue streams. Abandoned ones are liabilities. Same with houses.
Why wouldn't the bank want to make an offer to the renters to convert their rent into a fixed rate mortgage? Take it away from the deadbeat landlord, offer it to the people living there.
And how is the bank supposed to find a buyer for a property when they're forced to rent the property out for 280 days? Oh, that's right. They can't because most buyers don't want to buy a property they can't use.
Maybe the former tenants will want to buy the property. If the bank and the former tenants can agree to such an arrangement, then good for them. I don't see the wisdom in forcing anyone to an agreement they wouldn't have agreed to on their own.
Forcing banks to behave like landlords (a job they aren't set up or equipped to handle) increases the costs to everyone of acquiring a home. I'm against that.
-
The bank is still obligated to serve as a landlord for 280 days. They're still forced to pay upkeep, insurance, taxes, utilities, and provide whatever services the landlord promised to deliver (and found himself unable to deliver).
They're still bound by a contract they never agreed to, a contract which may well have been disadvantageous to the property owner.
The bank can also (gasp) find a BUYER for a FULLY OCCUPIED REVENUE STREAM.
"For sale: One 100/apt apartment building with avg. rent of $1200, fully occupied, instant $120,000/month revenue stream."
"For sale: One abandoned apartment building, resident crack addicts, pipes missing from walls."
Gee, now, which would sell more quickly. Let's see...Huh!
-
And the bank could not only inform the tenants, but make a concerted effort to find a buyer quickly. What's better for the bank, a full building sold to a real estate group to keep as an income stream, or an empty building that nobody will move into because they figure the same thing will happen again?
Occupied apartment buildings are revenue streams. Abandoned ones are liabilities. Same with houses.
Why wouldn't the bank want to make an offer to the renters to convert their rent into a fixed rate mortgage? Take it away from the deadbeat landlord, offer it to the people living there.
I've got no problem with them evicting the renters, ultimately it is thier property, but to do it when the Sheriff shows up?!? Even 30 days of notice would be better than that.
They're still bound by a contract they never agreed to, a contract which may well have been disadvantageous to the property owner.
If its an investment property you have to declare it as a rental, IIRC.
-
populist
populist
populist
populist
I guess we know which letter of the alphabet HTG is at in his word of the day toilet paper. Time to use that sheet, the word is getting old.
Chris
-
I guess we know which letter of the alphabet HTG is at in his word of the day toilet paper. Time to use that sheet, the word is getting old.
Chris
Did you have a point in there?
-
If its an investment property you have to declare it as a rental, IIRC.
You have to declare it to your bank at the time you take out the mortgage? What if you take out a mortgage intending to live in the house yourself, and then years later decide to rent?
I don't recall having to make any such declarations when I took out my mortgage.
-
The bank can also (gasp) find a BUYER for a FULLY OCCUPIED REVENUE STREAM.
"For sale: One 100/apt apartment building with avg. rent of $1200, fully occupied, instant $120,000/month revenue stream."
"For sale: One abandoned apartment building, resident crack addicts, pipes missing from walls."
Gee, now, which would sell more quickly. Let's see...Huh!
If it is in fact more advantageous to sell the property with the leases in place, then the bank could choose to do that. That's the beauty of not making it a free choice.
-
Did you have a point in there?
Yes. Enough with the loaded language. It gets old and doesn't add to the discussion.
Chris
-
Does calling me a schmuck and an elitist add to the discussion?
I use the word "populist" because it fits. What's the problem?
-
Does calling me a schmuck and an elitist add to the discussion?
No, but it's a valid point.
Next person to result to loaded language or name calling gets a week's vacation and the thread locked.
I'm not in the mood for any more BS this week.
Chris
-
Actually, reading back through this, I think now is the time to close it.