Usually at least 10 years, but this varies by state, and some states require payment of property taxes by the person seeking title by adverse possession (which a (former) renter probably would not do).
But according to the article in the OP, that’s not the legal situation in Illinois. Apparently foreclosure doesn’t automatically terminate the tenant’s rights. At least, that’s what the sheriff is saying:
Yes, sheriffs are required to enforce court orders, but they’re also required to respect the property rights of those who are not parties to the dispute. If the sheriff is right, the foreclosure order determines the rights as between the lender and the owner of the property, but it doesn’t determine the rights as between the owner of the property and the tenant. As the sheriff is charged with enforcing all the laws, it seems to me that he’s within his rights to insist on receiving proof, not just of the court order of foreclosure, but that the lender has complied with Illinois law requiring 120 days notice to the tenants before he will enforce the writ. He’s not refusing to enforce writs of foreclosure; he’s just requiring the lender to show compliance with the Illinois law relating to tenants’ rights in the case of foreclosure, as acondition of obtaining the power of the state to enforce the writ.
But according to the article in the OP, the sheriff is saying that ideal situation has not been happening; that the lenders are asking him to enforce writs without having complied with the notice requirement for tenants.
Well, again as set out in the article linked in the OP, someone has tried that and the court refused to grant the contempt citation:
If the court refuses to grant the contempt request, that suggests the sheriff has a good legal argument.
Based on the quotes from the sheriff, once the lender shows that the tenants have received 120 days notice, as required by Illinois law, he will enforce the writ. So I doubt that the squatters’ rights issue will arise.
Just so everyone knows, when the OP first linked the article, it was much shorter and did not contain much of the information being discussed now. The article has been updated to shed more light on it.
Good to know. As I was reading the thread I kept thinking “What article did everyone else read?”
And kudos to the sheriff for caring about justice. I wish Phoenix had a sheriff like that.
Well, i started a thread about this, only to find that this one was already in progress. I’ll cut and paste my position from my other OP:
As someone who has been consistently critical of police who violate the law and their responsibilities as defenders of the peace, i’m a little worried about a Sheriff deciding that he’s not going to enforce a particular law. I might have a lot of sympathy for his moral position, and for the results that it brings in this particular case, but i’m still worried that he’s not fulfilling his ethical obligations as a member of law enforcement.
On the other hand, if the banks and other mortgage holders have not been following the law in giving tenants proper notice to vacate, i also agree that the Sheriff’s department should not do their dirty work for them, and that taxpayers should not foot the bill for the sort of work the bak is meant to do.
As far as i can tell, Illinois law requires tenants to be given 30 days’ notice of eviction in cases directly involving the tenants themselves (i.e., when the lardlord evicts the tenants). As i understand it, however, when the tenant is evicted as a result of issues that do not involve the tenant (such as the landlord defaulting on the mortgage, and the bank taking over the property), a recent change to the law requires that the tenant be given 120 days’ notice of eviction. (This is what i’ve gleaned from my reading on this matter; if i’m in error, can someone correct me).
I think what should happen is that, before any eviction notices are served on tenants in these cases, the banks should be forced to show evidence that they have, in fact, given the tenants proper notice to vacate the property. Sending a notice to the defaulting landlord should not be sufficient; they must show that the tenant knows of the situation, and has been given adequate notice to leave. There should also be a set of guidelines as to what constitutes proper notice, including some form of registered or confirmed delivery of the letter to the person living at the property. It’s not clear to me, from the news stories, exactly what has to happen for an eviction notice to end up with the Sheriff’s office.
I also think that, in this case, Sheriff Dart should continue to enforce eviction orders on mortgage holders who are still living in the property that is no longer theirs. While i feel very sorry for them, and also wish that the banks (or our $700 billion bailout) might help them in some way, the fact is that they are responsible for their own default. The tenants, on the other hand, are caught in the middle, between the defaulting landlord and the bank that now owns the property. The very least we should require is that these tenants receive the legally-required notice (120 days, if i read it correctly) before they have their stuff thrown on the street. To that extent, i support Sheriff Dart’s actions in this case.
thanks for clarifying that. I was wondering if it had been something like that.
Sure, the Illiois sheriffs are pushovers, but don’t try that with a Moorlocke.
Sounds like the sherrif is complying with the law.
What I do not get is why the banks want the renters out. Times have changed, these are new times new rules.
Banks are owning more and more property. They want to sell it because empty they are loosing money. If I am going to buy a house as a investment ifit has a good renter in it already it is a better buy. If it is empty I have to go through expense to find a renter and hope I get a good one.
When a bank takes posesion of a house they go through the expense of making it market ready. advertising it. And if it sits empty for months it is bring in no income. And banks already have more houses than they can sell and it is going to getr worse. Also one empty house on the block small problem. Some neighborhoods have a third to half of the houses empty, now a major problem. And it will drive the price that the bank can get for their houses down.
Normally I would be on the other side. Tenants have privlages over owners rights that I think are wrong. But in this case everyone looses with the evections.
I can only guess that banks are not in the business of being landlords and don’t want to assume that kind of responsibility. I guess banks could hire property managers. However, if they think they can sell a certain piece of property, they will evict, although I have heard that in some cases banks prefer the tenants to vacant houses on a case by case basis.
That’s pretty much exactly the argument that bank reps have been making in some of the articles i’ve been reading about this subject. In the current flat housing market, combined with the general economic crisis, it might take quite a while for some of those foreclosed properties to sell. While it might theoretically benefit the bank to draw rental income on those properties, it would require setting up a relatively large and complicated department to manage and oversee the rental properties, and they clearly don’t want to get into that market.
On the issue of allowing tenants to stay in their homes:
The text of the recent bailout bill approved by Congress says:
According to the Consumerist website, the bolded sections means that:
It’s not quite clear to me, from the text of the bill, whether or not this is actually the case. The section quoted above certainly suggests that keeping tenants in their homes is a goal of the bill, but i’m not sure that it makes this a condition of assistance under the bill. Can anyone who is better at reading these documents than i am shed any light on this?
[quote=“mhendo, post:31, topic:467071”]
That’s pretty much exactly the argument that bank reps have been making in some of the articles i’ve been reading about this subject. In the current flat housing market, combined with the general economic crisis, it might take quite a while for some of those foreclosed properties to sell. While it might theoretically benefit the bank to draw rental income on those properties, it would require setting up a relatively large and complicated department to manage and oversee the rental properties, and they clearly don’t want to get into that market.
A bank owning a few houses is one thing, but it is a new world and they need to adapt or they could fail.
But what does that even mean? It’s just a cliche, not a plan.
You might be right that taking over rental properties and managing them would be in the banks’ best financial interests, but i’m willing to bet that the bank has thought of that, and has considered the potential for increased income against the possibility of increased costs.
Banks are profit-seeking entities, and if the banks thought that managing rental properties was going to be the best way to get through the current economic crisis, you can be sure that they would jump in with both feet.
Do you have a breakdown of expenses versus additional income, and a comparison with other potential areas of bank investment, that provides a convincing argument for banks becoming landlords?
Bankers seldom think out of the box.
Thankyou for your considered and well-argued response.
Maybe it would be in the banks’ best interest to give First Offer to the renters. That’s a requisite in Spanish Rental Law when a landlord decides to sell the property: they have to offer it to the renter first, after getting it assessed (an assessment which they have to do anyway, in order to decide how much to ask for it). If the first offer is accepted, it saves all parts a lot of work and aggravation.
Sid Hatfield lives!
How much are you willing to bet?
Banks don’t “think.” If anything, they behave bureaucratically, and become hidebound by their standard procedures.
The sort of actions taken by the sheriff in the OP might be necessary to make banks even consider the issue.
Quite a lot, given that the bank spokespeople in some of the stories i’ve been reading explicitly stated that the bank did not want to get into the business of being a landlord.
Now, it might be that this is a bad decision from a financial point of view (i don’t know enough to say, either way), but you can’t seriously be suggesting that, in the recent housing crisis, there have not been meetings at these banks in which the topic of conversation is, “How are we going to deal with all this foreclosed property we’ve now got on our hands?”
I’m well aware that banks don’t think. I was using the term “banks” to represent the people who run them, and those people most definitely do think about things like profit. They may, as you suggest, be somewhat set in their bureaucratic ways and standard procedures, but they most definitely think about these issues.
But that was never even the purpose of the Sheriff’s actions. His aim was not to reform bankers’ ideas about their investment choices. His aim was to stop evictions where it was not clear who the residents of the property were, and where he felt that the banks had not provided proper notice to the tenants of their eviction.
On the WBBM 780 last friday, the sherriff mentioned that again and again the first notice that there was a problem for many involved was that the sheriff or deputies showed up and threw these people’s belongings into the street. He said that he felt it might even be unconstitutional for him to be throwing the belongings of these people who are accused of no wrong and are living up to their side of the contracts into the street with no notice and no possibility of appeal.
Another article which I read this morning online, he indicated that he has said he is willing to work with the banks to develop a process so that proper notification is ensured and make what is currently a traumatic event into a smooth process that will be better for all involved.
I applaud him. His tone was mild and concerned. He indicated that he was willing to be flexible. He did not sound like he was grandstanding.