Cook County Sheriff sez: No to Evictions

[Velociryx]

This is one of those times when there's a real choice. A choice between impacting someone's real life, and impacting an institution's wallet or somehow inconveniencing them (the institution), & honestly, I'm inclined to side with the person, not the company.

So the bank doesn't want to be a landlord.....meh. I'm fairly certain (tho we could ask to be sure) that the folks living there don't want to be evicted, and wind up living under a bridge someplace. But we've been so conditioned that the needs of "the company" must come before the needs of Bob and Betty and Fred that we automatically start thinking in terms of "those poor bankers!"

Personally, I think it's a nice change. The Sherriff is showing some humanity. Granted, he'll either be jailed or fired for it, and the people he's trying to protect will, in all probability be evicted anyway, but isn't it a nice change to see people come first?

That's why I gave him a

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Besides, they're willing to pay most, if not all the mortgage in the form of rent. As Lancer points out, their presence in the building provides benefits, not the least of which is at least some money coming in. Plus security of the property, and prolly more besides.
-v.

[Theben]

Originally posted by DanS
Yes, but apparently the rent was lower than the mortgage payment. Otherwise, the property wouldn't have foreclosed.

That's a big assumption on where the rent money is going after the landlord gets it.

[Kidlicious]

Most people seem to support him based on the internet poll.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Theben
That's a big assumption on where the rent money is going after the landlord gets it.

If a landlord's expenses (mortgage) on a property are less than the income (rent), why wouldn't he do whatever he can to keep the property?

No, it's pretty clear in most instances of foreclosure that the landlord's mortgage payment is larger than the rent.

[Riesstiu IV]

Wait, so the tenants are being evicted even when they payed for the entire month? Isn't that illegal?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DanS
No, it's pretty clear in most instances of foreclosure that the landlord's mortgage payment is larger than the rent.

Or that they're walking away from a negative equity situation...

[Velociryx]

And these aren't ordinary times.

So even if the tenants can't pay 100% of the montly obligation of the note, they ARE showing an intent to pay something.

Something > Nothing, and in these strange times we could all do with a little helping each other out, IMO.

Or hell, just throw 'em to the wolves, kick 'em out, and let the property languish for years in disrepair and lose two thirds of its value, all the while, the owners collect NOTHING for it.

If it was me, I know which I'd prefer, but that's just me and my $0.02.

-=Vel=-

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DanS


If a landlord's expenses (mortgage) on a property are less than the income (rent), why wouldn't he do whatever he can to keep the property?

Because the landlord owes too much on other things and needs lots of cash?

Why do companies ever sell profitable divisions?

JM

[Kidlicious]

You could have a manager not reporting some rent that was paid, but that's probably not the case.

[Victor Galis]

They could pass a law forbidding new owners from evicting existing lease-holders that continue to pay their rent. I mean they'd eventually be tossed out when the leases expire, but at least it wouldn't be so sudden.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Aeson
Or that they're walking away from a negative equity situation...

It would have to be very negative indeed for it to make sense to walk away from a property that is making positive cash, since the mortgage is paying down part of the principal every month.

[Aeson]

Say you bought a $800k duplex 2-3 years ago. In some areas that's going to be $400k now. And you likely went with a 0 down, interest only ARM. (Thinking prices would always go up, so you're making money even when not paying down your principle.) Now your mortgage is $400k underwater, and your payments are going to balloon in '09 or '10. Even if the tenets are paying, you're bailing.

7 years to repair your credit is nothing for most people compared to being $400k underwater on your mortgage.

[DanS]

Yes, in that rare situation, it might make sense to bail on the mortgage.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why would you evict rent-paying tennants?

-Arrian

All things being equal, you wouldn't want to evict rent-paying tenants. If you don't want to be in the landlord business, you simply hire a property management firm, which will charge you 5-10% of the rents collected.

My best guess is that there is rent control in the buildings involved along with a vacancy exception (i.e. when an apartment is vacant, the landlord can re-rent it at a higher rate.) The property law of most states permits a new property owner to clear out old tenants. So the banks are just kicking people out of their homes to bring in higher-paying new tenants.

[Kidlicious]

Also, a lot of landlords find that they don't like to be landlords. I do many of their tax returns here.