Suit: Force Defiant Sheriff To Evict Woman

Chicago-Area Official Vowed To Stop Sending Deputies On Court-Ordered Foreclosure Evictions

(CBS/ AP)  Diane Limas was already planning a protest as she walked out of the Cook County Sheriff's office.

She and other renters had wanted to meet with Sheriff Tom Dart to complain about deputies tossing people out of their homes because banks had foreclosed on their landlords. Dart was unavailable.

On Thursday, Limas was still marveling about Dart's announcement that he would no longer send deputies on court-ordered mortgage foreclosure evictions because many of those forced from their homes were renters who faithfully paid their rent.

"That he had the courage to do this was huge for us," she said. She said she was impressed that Dart was willing to accept possible legal consequences for his decision not to carry out court-ordered evictions.

Accredited Home Lenders filed a lawsuit Thursday to get Dart to obey an order that calls for the eviction of Shirley McFarland of Dolton from her foreclosed bungalow. In a statement, attorneys for the mortgage lender said although Dart may have concerns about the orders he is charged with enforcing, he cannot refuse to carry them out.

"It's a horrible injustice and we're stopping it," Dart told CBS' The Early Show Thursday.

Dart said that evictions in his region have increased three-fold in the past 18 months. "This stuff is insane," he said.

Dart met Thursday with a judge and offered several suggestions to ensure that tenants are properly notified they are subject to eviction and that banks correctly identify those who should be evicted.

"I've just been trying to come at the entire eviction process from an entirely different way, to take a horrific, traumatic event and make it less so," Dart said after the meeting.

It's an approach that sets him apart from other lawmen in the area.

"A court order is just that, it is an order by a judge," said Sheriff Keith Nygren in nearby McHenry County. "It doesn't say if you want to follow it or if you think you should."

Dart brought a somewhat different perspective to the job when he was elected sheriff three years ago. While most police chiefs and sheriffs can look back at long careers in law enforcement, the 46-year-old Dart has never been a cop.

A former prosecutor in Cook County, Dart was tapped to fill a vacancy in the state senate in 1991 and won an election as a state representative the next year. He served in the General Assembly from 1993 to 2003, and made an unsuccessful run for state treasurer.

Dart then joined the sheriff's department as Sheriff Michael Sheahan's chief of staff. When Sheahan announced he would not run for re-election in late 2005, Dart announced his own candidacy and was elected.

He quickly dispensed with a few of the trappings of the office. He doesn't have a security detail. He doesn't travel with a driver, unless he has several appointments. He declined to emblazon his name on department vehicles and signs - a typical practice among newly elected public officials.

His most pressing crisis as sheriff came during the summer, when federal authorities released a report criticizing his management of the county jail. The report cited unsanitary conditions at the facility, serious problems with the medical treatment of inmates and the physical abuse of inmates by guards.

Dart remains angry about the report.

"My major issue I had and still have is that it completely ignored all of the major and somewhat monumental changes we have done," he said Thursday, citing improvements in the dispensation of medication to inmates and steps to reduce inmate violence.

"I was treated as if I had done nothing since I got there," he said.

[dagrandma]

Maybe Sheriff Dart realizes there isn''t enough room at Salvation Army shelters to handle all the people in the U.S. who are going to be evicted from their homes this winter. But I guess I''m just a SOCIALIST for thinking that way and for admiring Sheriff Dart. I wish I weren''t such a SOCIALIST. God knows I''d rather be more like Richard Fuld who as we all know is a REAL man.

[scgilber77]

So instead of evicting hapless tenants, when the landlord is in foreclosure, why dont the Banks request the court to appoint a spcial receiver to accept the tenant''s rent and then apply any such rents to the balance, until such time as a new buyer is found or the lease expires?

[navyjimfl]

they will eventually be evicted....

[missingamerica]

So instead of evicting hapless tenants, when the landlord is in foreclosure, why dont the Banks request the court to appoint a spcial receiver to accept the tenant''''s rent and then apply any such rents to the balance, until such time as a new buyer is found or the lease expires?

Posted by scgilber77 at 01:27 PM : Oct 10, 2008

That makes so much sense, and it applies to foreclosed homes as well - why let stuff sit around vacant, decaying from neglect, and not earning any money at all?

Why not restructure home mortgages more favorably to the debtor, or at least let the people who you would evict just pay rent, rather than throw them out on the street?

I tell you what I have concluded:

Our tax and accounting laws must make it more profitable to write a loss off now and sell the property later.

In short, Business has managed to so warp our laws that they no longer make economic sense, let alone measure up to common sense.

[xxunknown]

So instead of evicting hapless tenants, when the landlord is in foreclosure, why dont the Banks request the court to appoint a spcial receiver to accept the tenant''''s rent and then apply any such rents to the balance, until such time as a new buyer is found or the lease expires?
Posted by scgilber77
------------------------------
because that would make too much sense, silly.

[eggy1620]

This sheriff has correctly recognized that the potential evictees are REGISTERED VOTERS!

[slim1h2o]

Well, at least thats one elected offical thats looking out for the voters.

Too bad the ones in D.C. and the others in the state capitals wouldn''t do the same.

[cepe10-2009]

And have the renters sabotaging potential sales - the banks now own the house. renter need to be aware they can be evicted at anytime. They should buy a house if they want to be secure.


""So instead of evicting hapless tenants, when the landlord is in foreclosure, why dont the Banks request the court to appoint a spcial receiver to accept the tenant''''s rent and then apply any such rents to the balance, until such time as a new buyer is found or the lease expires?

Posted by scgilber77 at 01:27 PM : Oct 10, 2008
+ report abuse""

[messiahx4eve]

When the folks in DC start losing their phoney baloney jobs and their homes, THEN they will act accordingly. As long as they have the protection of their corporate gods, they will do accordingly. The bailout plan for Wall Street was foolish & irresponsibly done, not for us but for themselves. Already the money being spent is going to corporate mongrels as we type. This coming November is our ONE LAST chance to effect change, don''t wait for the "next person" to do it, YOU be that person instead. Send a strong, clear, concise message to capital hill, demand justice from the prosecution of the bush administration, all of us, IN ONE LOUD VOICE NEED TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.

[cepe10-2009]

There are many deadbeats who think just because their house is worth less than they owe they can just turn the keys into the bank and default on the contracts and note they have signed up to. Even those who can afford to make the payments they agreed to in the beginning. they think they can just go rent. these defaulters are the one who ruined the economy. if they get kicked out of their rental so what?

""We live in a time when society has very little heart or understanding for anyone but themselves. Our government bails out Wall Street bankers but allows individual families to be turned out onto the street.""

[spadeisspade]

"Even those who can afford to make the payments they agreed to in the beginning. they think they can just go rent. these defaulters are the one who ruined the economy. if they get kicked out of their rental so what?"

This statement has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is NOT all mortgage defaulter turned renters being turned out of these houses. These landlords are the a-holes, having multiple properties to make money renting, using people''s rent money for either more property or whatever else and not paying the mortgages on them; those landlords don''t care if their extra properties are foreclosed on because it''s not THEIR home on the line. Rest assured those landlord''s homes are up and current with the mortgage.

What these towns should do is negotiate with larger property managers, usually doing the apt. buildings and so forth to either buy up these homes and continue to rent them and/or set up a fund for security deposits so these families can move (because most are likely not getting their security deposits back, which is what is causing much of the hardship of moving).

[upto1947]

I hope he does not give in. He should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. I would fight the mortgage companey all the way. To H333 with them, the Mortgage companey. They are no more then scum.

[Scooter68]

ANYONE who thinks that this crisis is a result of the current administration only is a complete FOOL ! These problems have been brewing for many years. Look back at the home prices over the past 10-20 years and you will see that the runnaway home prices, bad loans (Disguised as "creative" mortgage practices) began well before the Bush administration.

Look at the response Wall St has dished out to ANY corporation that failed to meet it''s projected earnings for any reason. That is the sort of greed response that has created this crisis.
Of course there is panic by investors around the world. The policy has become that if you don''t keep excelling and climbing that mountain to financial nervana your stocks prices will take a beating. The old days of "blue chip" stocks that didn''t increase a lot but were solid investments are so far gone that todays investors have become spoiled ''brats'' demanding constant, and rapid growth or they dump a stock.

Don''t blame the current administration. Look to the investor GREED as a primary source of todays problems.

[upto1947]

gscotth, he is a son of Bush. That is way he says things like he does.

[sincebyjake]

Hmm.. censored by CBS? Must''ve been that "fabrication" that I "made up". Wouldn''t want people to know the truth, now would we?

[slim1h2o]

Don''''t blame the current administration. Look to the investor GREED as a primary source of todays problems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by gscotth at 05:10 PM : Oct 10, 2008

Right along with the Repugs, and the dimowits,,,,

[dbstevens]

We need more people like him...people in positions of power who have the guts to push for what is fair. Things need to change BIG TIME and people like Dart will help. I admire and respect him for the risks he''s taking...he''s putting the people''s needs before his own and that is very much admired and appreciated.

[libluv2cnsor]

"Cook County Sheriff Tom 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. (CBS)"

***********

isnt that suppose to be THE PROTOCOL to begin with?? like i said we have enough laws, procedures and protocols..all we need is to follow it

[upto1947]

The only fool on here is YOU. gscotth. Just shut up and you could be ok.

[dowjones20k]

I feel badly for these folks ... they just try to get by, However, while the Sheriff''s intent may be noble, he takes an oath to uphold the laws of his county. He is circumventing the laws that he is required to uphold.

He MUST execute any and all court orders that come before him. He may not agree with the order personally, but his duty as sheriff is to uphold the laws as they are on the books and that includes official eviction notices sent ny the court.

If he wants the laws changed, then he needs to have the legislature take the heat and change them.

If this sheriff is so torn, he may want to resign and let another professional handle the job .. he seems to be a little too emotional about it.

All you bleeding hearts need to look at the big picture, if we do not follow laws on the books we will end up with anarchy ... we already have enough socialism ... dont you think???

[chimpyout]

This sheriff is a person of integrity and decency. It seems only right that the predatory lenders have to identify the so-called defaulters and not be able to use law enforcement as their minions, without question.

The other sheriffs are "only obeying orders." Where have we heard that one before?

[my2centss]

Finally an elected public official that is looking out for the public that elected him.

[rhs648]

From the tone of some posters, one would conclude that only Republicans own and rent homes or apartments to people. This is an absurd assumption. Political party affilialiation has nothing to do with renting out homes and apartments. What evidence can these posters present showing that Republicans and not Democrats rent to other people? Certainly the article dod not talk about Democrats and Republicans.

[rhs648]

Finally an elected public official that is looking out for the public that elected him.

Posted by my2centss

This is a complex issue. The bank loans you money to buy a house. You pledge the house as collateral. Now you rent the house to someone else but default on the loan. The bank takes back the house and wants to sell it but your tenant is still in the home. On the one hand, the bank wants to sell the home to get its money back. On the other hand, there is still a tenant in the house. Suppose you lend me the money to buy a house and I pledge the house as collateral to you in the event that I default on the loan. In the meantime, I rent the home to someone else and you can''t evict the renter when I fail to pay you back. It is like two innocent parties, you the lender, and the tenant who is paying his or her rent. Is there really a fair solution?

[gohan31]

The banks have sufficient funds to investigate to see if some one lived in that house. If they found someone living there then give them the option to pay the bank instead of the mortgage holder. Banks need cash not property Try that Sheriff!

[dejagman]

I agree with the sheriff. Why oust the tenants who hae paid their rent. Find the owner of the property and where ever he/she is living and oust them from that location. Should he/she want to make the payment to make the mortgage current, then he/she will have to wait at least 30 days before they can move into the foreclosed location. This way the tenant will have utilized their rental payment and also have time to find another place in which to live.

[rjsparling]

Excellent illustration of a classic moral quandry. rhs648 recognized it correctly. The sheriff recognizes that lawful behavior is not the same as moral behavior.

Recommended reading: Kohlberg''s Theory of Moral Development

The sheriff is operating at the highest level of morality.

[voidmaster-2009]

At last, a law enforcement officer who actually pursues the cause of justice. If only there were more...

[upto1947]

Not complex at all. To H443 with the bank. I hope he sticks to what he is doing. like I said. To H544 with the BANK.

[upto1947]

Recommended reading: Kohlberg''''s Theory of Moral Development. I did not thik it was that good. Put then I am not a person who believes in the crooks of the world.

[swingset4u]

Banks are complete idiots! They should foreclose on the landlord and accept payments from the renters to give the renter the opportunity to pick up the mortgage. Or until they can sell the property and allow the renters to decide to either look for other housing or try and purchase. DUH!!

[psk123-2009]

I do like the solution some of the folks posting on here have come up with. Banks do not need more property, they''ve more than they know what to do with and only end up selling it for far less than the original purchase price. They should give the renters an opportunity to take over the loan. The renters, obviously, have been paying each month in good faith. Why should they be punished for the mistakes or misfortunes of the owner. It is the owner that defaulted. Take it up with him/her by taking their deed to the property. By allowing the renters to take over the mortgage, everybody wins. The banks get their badly needed money. The renter retains a place to live. The owner doesn''t have to deal with it any more. It is an all-round win/win.

[jennmarikp]

At last, a law enforcement officer who actually pursues the cause of justice. If only there were more...

Posted by VoidMaster at 07:22 AM : Oct 11, 2008

My thoughts exactly!!

[rhs648]

ot complex at all. To H443 with the bank. I hope he sticks to what he is doing. like I said. To H544 with the BANK.

Posted by Upto1947

Not so fast. Banks use depositor money to make mortgage loans. They use our money to fund the mortgages in the hopes of making a profit. In return, banks offer us, the depositors, interest on our deposits. If banks offer low interest loans for mortgages, it come from our hides as we receive lower interest on our deposits. If banks offer higher interest loans for mortgages, the banks pay higher interest on our deposits. If a bank incurs additional costs forclosing on a house, agrees to let the ownner sell it for less than he our she owes (selling short), or can''t recoup its money, we the depositors suffer. If a person has over $250,00 (new limit)in a bank account, anything over that $250,000 is not insured. The bank pays a premium for this insurance. Again, we, the depositor, end up paying this premium in the form of lower interest. When you say to H433 to the bank, you are hurting millions of depositors. For most of us, we depend on banks for services such cashing our paychecks, guarding our money, and offering us loans for homes, cars, etc.

[rhs648]

correction

Not complex at all. To H443 with the bank. I hope he sticks to what he is doing. like I said. To H544 with the BANK.

Posted by Upto1947

Not so fast. Banks use depositor money to make mortgage loans. They use our money to fund the mortgages in the hopes of making a profit. In return, banks offer us, the depositors, interest on our deposits. If banks offer low interest loans for mortgages, it come from our hides as we receive lower interest on our deposits. If banks offer higher interest loans for mortgages, the banks pay higher interest on our deposits. If a bank incurs additional costs forclosing on a house, agrees to let the ownner sell it for less than he our she owes (selling short), or can''''t recoup its money, we the depositors suffer. If a person has over $250,000 (new limit)in a bank account, anything over that $250,000 is not insured. The bank pays a premium for this insurance. Again, we, the depositor, end up paying this premium in the form of lower interest. When you say to H433 to the bank, you are hurting millions of depositors. For most of us, we depend on banks for services such cashing our paychecks, guarding our money, and offering us loans for homes, cars, etc.

[gmond]

Foreclosure notices have to be posted and tenants have to be notified of eviction, so either the evictions are illegal or the story isn''t being reported correctly.

[gmond]

IIRC, hell is h311

[kaiyo4u]

Wow, a politician from the Chicago area (and Crook County to boot) that at first light seems honest!
Remember he was a prosecutor among other things before he bacame a sheriff, so I would imagine he has a better grasp on the laws than law enforcement (remember their job is to enforce what they''re told to do).

A lot of you have excellent ideas as to how this issue needs to be resolved and they are good ideas.

As far as lending practices, the bank has as little as ten percent of the monies they extended for loans, maybe less in some instances. This is called fractured lending and it is a typical lending practice of all our banks. That''s why a run on the bank will bankrupt it.
Say the bank has $100,000.00 in holdings, they can loan ten times that amount or a million dollars.
There''s a lot more to this, but I suggest you research it yourself.

Kudos to Sheriff Dart! He deserves an award!

[rhs648]

Remember all that full size full color advertising featuring the smiling friendly face of YOUR banking professionals?

Well, here''''s the real banker. get ready to move into the dumpster out in the alley, cause that''''s where they intend to force you to go (at the point of a gun, if necessary!)when the LANDLORD defaults.

Yeah... my freindly banker.

It''''s time to get out the TAR & FEATHERS. The bankers are of bunch of gambling SKREWWS! Who have no problem sending out the cops to handle YOU.

Posted by a2s2d

Now that banks are loaning less out as they tighten credit, you may really have something to scream about when you can''t borrow for a car or a home and can''t receive additional credit cards. In fact, you may lose your job if it depends on making and selling products or services. Perhaps it is time to look for something safe such as teaching or working for the government.

[rhs648]

Foreclosure notices have to be posted and tenants have to be notified of eviction, so either the evictions are illegal or the story isn''''t being reported correctly.

Posted by gmond

That was my thought, too. Every state has eviction and forclosue laws that must be followed. Some are stricter than others. If the sheriff is following the laws that is fine. If he isn''t, most local officials can be removed for dereliction of their duties. As is typical, the article is much like a soundbite. It seems to lack too many details which can be dangerous and misleading.

[x119x]

"By God !" He''s a real man in my book, the way I read it,he never said he wouldn''t evict, he just said the bankers and other lending institutions beware, improper notification means no Eviction NOW THAT IS THE LETTER OF THE LAW ! I''d vote for him for President probably. I have seen a Public official with "Cahunnas" in a long time it''s refreshing and re-instills hope

[x119x]

Have not seen a Public Official with "Cahunnas" in a long time it''''s refreshing and re-instills hope !

[bks59]

in reality, the tenants are probably getting 30 days extension. 30 days is the typical residential lease, when there is not a written lease. in most states it takes a minimum of 180 days from the first late payment, the mortgage holders responsibility is to the property owner, landlord, who''s responsibility is to the tenant to keep them informed of a condition that may effect their use of the property. but since the landlord is not paying the mortgage they are not going to take responsibility to inform tenants, so i guess the landlords ought to be cited for fraud.

[srz25]

you want to talk about judges? I''LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT FLORIDA JUDGES:

yeah hi, do you believe a judge should go to prison for attempting to rule that attempted murder by forcible suffocation not only isn''''''''t a crime at all in florida, it isn''''''''t a tort at all in florida, in fact it''''''''s a medical procedure, for which priviledge i''''''''m forced to give the state my whole life savings?

doesn''''''''t that sound bad?

this is a real lawsuit, orange co. case # 2003 ca 5314. i am totally unrepresented, haven''''''''t been able to find a lawyer in 7 years. the judge is cynthia mackinnon, and if i could fire her i would have fired her four years ago. after all this time i still have no clue whether she is republican or democrat.

[kevzgrl]

To Sheriff Dart: God bless you for being willing to say something isn''t right, and having the guts to do something about it.
Here in Ohio, we recently had a 90 YEAR OLD woman who was going to be evicted from the home she had been in for several decades, and the Sheriff''s deputies were on the porch hammering on the door to take her out- so she tried to kill herself, but survived the shooting. While she was lying in the hospital in critical condition, the bank said "Never mind - we will forgive the debt and allow you to keep the home the rest of your life" Now, ISN''T THAT SWEET - a bank with a real HEART. "Course the poor little old lady probably doesn''t have enough money to pay for her medical bills from the shooting, or for food or utilities or etc, etc, once she gets out of the hospital, but they won''t evict her, either.

[eggy1620]

Posted by kevzgrl at 08:54 AM

Why is a 90 yr old woman who has been in her home for several decades not the homeowner?