CHICAGO, Oct. 10, 2008
Suit: Force Defiant Sheriff To Evict Woman
Chicago-Area Official Vowed To Stop Sending Deputies On Court-Ordered Foreclosure Evictions
-
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)
-
Play CBS Video Video Busting Down Eviction Doors Deputies in Cook County, Ill,. have busted a lot more doors down lately because of mortgage evictions increasing at a staggering rate, with an average of 4 per day. Cynthia Bowers has more.
-
News Tools Foreclosure Rates A state-by-state look at foreclosure rates, which were up 81 percent nationwide in 2008.
-
Timeline Credit Crunch Feeling the squeeze? Here's a look at actions and statements from key players in Washington.
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.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 44 Comments
- 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? - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
- Have not seen a Public Official with "Cahunnas" in a long time it''''s refreshing and re-instills hope !
- Reply to this comment
- "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
- Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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! - Reply to this comment
- IIRC, hell is h311
- Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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!! - Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
- 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!!
- Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
- At last, a law enforcement officer who actually pursues the cause of justice. If only there were more...
- Reply to this comment
- 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. - Reply to this comment
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
