tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-234859413922234398.post6820879297080108797..comments2008-10-12T08:16:24.432-05:00Comments on Perspectives on Issues: Foreclosure and EvictionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-234859413922234398.post-54434161384639485662008-10-12T08:16:00.000-05:002008-10-12T08:16:00.000-05:00Good point. I was able to find more detail than w...Good point. I was able to find more detail than was provided in the CNN interview.<BR/><BR/>Listed here are two sources and then excerpts from the second source:<BR/><BR/>http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-sheriff-evictions,0,4029330.story<BR/><BR/>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434603,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/crime<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Illinois law requires that renters be notified that their residence is in foreclosure and they will be evicted in 120 days, but Dart indicated that the law has been routinely ignored.<BR/><BR/>"My job as sheriff is to follow court orders, absolutely," he said. "But I'm also in charge of making sure justice is being done here and it is clear that justice is not being done here."<BR/><BR/>Dart said he believes banks are not doing basic research to determine that the people being evicted are, in fact, the homeowners.<BR/><BR/>He said that in a third of the 400 to 500 foreclosure evictions his deputies had been carrying out every month, the residents are not those whose names are on the eviction papers.<BR/><BR/>Nor, he said, are banks notifying tenants that the homes they're renting are in foreclosure. He added that when banks do learn the correct names of those living on foreclosed-upon property, their names often are simply added to eviction papers.<BR/><BR/>"They just go out and get an order the next day and throw these people's names on there," Dart said. "Whether they (tenants) have been notified, God only knows."C W Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503999199233787276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-234859413922234398.post-84312989030903326002008-10-11T20:14:00.000-05:002008-10-11T20:14:00.000-05:00I like the idea and think it has merit. However, ...I like the idea and think it has merit. However, there is one thing in the paragraph before the proposition that bothers me, and perhaps someone can shed some light on it.<BR/>It notes that the sheriff refused to take action based on notification from the banks. I think I would refuse in these circumstances as well. Actions by the sheriff represent the application of a state's most coercive power, that is the power to seize property or to take someone into custody. These kinds of actions should only be taken on the order of the court after the appropriate hearings as established by law. <BR/>While we don't know the exact circumstances, given the information, I believe the sheriff acted appropriately - in other words, he did his job as it is prescribed by law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com