Into their own hands: Sheriff won't enforce tenant evictions
Filed under: Real Estate
If we all took the law into our own hands based upon our personal beliefs, what would happen? I'd venture to guess that we'd either have chaos, or a bunch of us would end up in jail, or a little bit of both.That's why I get upset when law enforcement refuses to enforce legitimate laws and court orders. The police and sheriffs aren't in place to make personal decisions about the laws. Sure, they exercise their own judgment on a certain level each day, but they don't get to completely disregard laws and court orders whenever they feel like it.
That's not stopping the Cook County Sheriff's Office. They've decided that they're not going to evict tenants of properties which have been foreclosed, even with proper documentation and the laws on the side of the banks. Sheriff Tom Dart says he's just making the mortgage holders (the banks) accountable. He's quoted as saying, "These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don't care who's in the building."
What gives him the right to make the determination that the tenants should or should not be evicted? Nothing, really. The law is not on his side on this one. Yes, I feel sorry for tenants who get evicted from a property because of a foreclosure if they've been good tenants and have paid their rent. But whether we feel sorry for them is not the question. A lawful court order for eviction means the tenant should be evicted, and the sheriff oversees it.
While the sheriff may think he's helping people, he actually might be hurting people indirectly. Anything that gets in the way of a bank taking possession of a property might cause banks to make fewer loans. They depend on foreclosure as a part of the loan process, and law enforcement's failure to help carry out the legal action may have a negative effect on loans.
Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE performs fraud examinations and financial investigations for her company Sequence Inc. Forensic Accounting, and is the author of Essentials of Corporate Fraud.
Recent Posts
- Spoiled brat not happy with his 16th birthday present (7/04/2009)
- Penny-Pinching Picnics: Summer party tips that will save you money (7/04/2009)
- Live, from Walt Disney World, it's the Obamabot! (7/03/2009)
- Ukraine outlaws possession of porn, but can't define what it is (7/03/2009)
- Taken for a ride: 5 clever ways theme parks bleed you for extra (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-10-2008 @ 2:13PM
Vanessa said...
Negative affect on loans??? get real, its about time someone is looking out for others not just the banks. These people paid there rent its not there fault the no good landlords didnt pay there mortgages.The Banks want to evict people let them go the right route and take the tenants to court like real landlords do. My hats off to that officer, for following his morals and not the banks pocketbook!!!!!
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 4:08PM
Tracy Coenen said...
The problem with your theory is that banks HAVE followed the laws to evict these people, but the sheriff is refusing to follow the law.
10-10-2008 @ 2:30PM
Mayra said...
It is time the Law practices Justice. This country was founded because a few big land owners and a lot of taxes were making life miserable for the majority of the People.
Law Enforcement and government in general is paid for by The People. The ones that are being evicted. It is good to see that the People have someone on their side. We the People have always found Order in Chaos. The Law has not helped but the Justice in Peoples Hearts have.
Are we not bailing out the banks with our tax dollars? So who owns the property anyway? We the People.
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 3:06PM
donald4 said...
The police/.sheriff officer is a person that is sworn to uphold the law no matter what they personnaly think of that law.
Should the sheriff not stop a bank robbery if he thinks the robber is poor and needs the money? I don't think so.
The legal law or court order must be enforced or it is now time for that law enforcement officer to resign his/her position.
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 3:38PM
Jonathan Mullen said...
This my be a case for renters to take over the buildings from the owners. If they are paying their bills then they could afford to be financed by the same banks. Putting these people out only creates larger future burdens on the community including the sheriffs. In this case I am with the Sheriff. Let's be real. Most Landlords are having to default because they were greedy and over extended. Your background as a forensic accountant has colored your viewpoint on this one. Try doing the math again. I think you'll end up agreeing with me. Law needs adjustment then I agree with what you're saying. But we are human and do give some credit to the professionals we put to protect us. Here I believe the Sheriff has 20/20 vision.
Thanks
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 4:09PM
Tracy Coenen said...
No, I won't agree with you and it's not about the math. It's about the laws and the fact that the sheriff ought to follow them. If the law is bad, get it changed. Until then, the sheriff has a duty to follow the law.
10-10-2008 @ 4:58PM
neitherday said...
The banks haven't been performing their due diligence, hence they have not been following the laws in obtaining the eviction orders. They have been hoodwinking the judges while not giving those affected by the orders the chance to defend themselves in court. The bankers are the ones that need to be held accountable.
And if the bankers now threaten they won't give loans in chicago, who cares? Last I heard, they weren't making any loans anyway.
Reply
10-10-2008 @ 5:00PM
Tracy Coenen said...
PROVE IT. Prove that judges have been hoodwinked and banks haven't followed the laws.