Illinois sheriff scolds banks for evictions of 'innocent' renters

[Manedwolf]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[K Frame]

"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.

[Jamisjockey]

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.  

[Manedwolf]

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.

[K Frame]

"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,

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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!

[Jamisjockey]

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.

[mtnbkr]

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

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[mtnbkr]

Did you have a point in there?

Yes.  Enough with the loaded language.  It gets old and doesn't add to the discussion.

Chris

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Does calling me a schmuck and an elitist add to the discussion?

I use the word "populist" because it fits.  What's the problem?

[mtnbkr]

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

[K Frame]

Actually, reading back through this, I think now is the time to close it.