Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Why the heck don't they let the renters deposit their rent with the court, like they do when the landlord won't fix the hot water or something like that ?
The legal ramifications can be handled by a competent lawyer, and it can be made into a practically lossless solution. If the tenents have been paying their rent, why not let them keep paying ? The court should be within the it's jurisdiction to nullify, because one party to the contract no longer exists in judica (sp). A new contract is formed and the people can stay, but with one caveat. They must keep the place up.
This can be a disadvantage, if for example the hot water tank tanks, they have to go to a DIY store, get one and put it in, or take cold showers. They might be out about $250 if they do it themselves but it's better than being homeless. Actually it would probably be fair to give them a lien on the property at least for the materials. They get this back when it is finally sold. There really is no reason for them to be put out until it is sold.
I would like to point out something else, bearing my unique point of view on things ; there is more malfeasance here than most people are seeing. First of all, when the house is rented this was not a dream house sold to someone who is mathematically challenged. Noone usually rents a place for less than the payment. Sometimes people decide to just replace the income needed for the payment with rent coming in, that allows them to move if they desire. I know someone who did exactly that, and so far so good.
The renters checked out clean and the way it was setup, after the remodeling was done on their new house, they moved and the lease for the renters of the old house started two days later. It worked out like a dream. Their equity is now working for them and there is nothing wrong with that.
But in the situations depicted by the OP, the owners were spending the rent and not making the payments. There is no other logical reason for this. This is clearly malfeasance on the part of the landlord, a point that I am a bit surprised to see nobody else has brought up. Too bad DA isn't around anymore, he probably would've seen it right away as he had no mercy for the financially irresponsible. These ex-owners knew they were screwing people over, at the very least they could have let the renters know.
Eventually the ex-owners who spent the rent would be identified and that info put into their credit file, that they violated by screwing the system in this way. On the other hand the renters, who paid on time and were about to get a big weenie up the dupa are similarly identified, and maybe would get preferential treatment when they want to buy a house.
Although quite liberal for me, I think I can almost justify this under the Constitution, because it aims to protect the family home. Most of the money loaned out is foreign in origin, which should supply ample jurisdiction. Unfortunately this provides for the bailout as well, because if US money isn't used, foreign money will literally be buying our land dirt cheap. Look what happened to the Native Americans. You know I am against the bailout, but unless foreign governments are prevented from doing it, the talk of them buying America in the past is pale compared to the reality to come. Without a shot fired.
I wonder how many other Sherrifs across this land might just follow suit. Reasons might be political as they will gain some local support, but the support of renters is not as solid as the support of owners. Renters could go anywhere. I can almost smell morality.
T
|
Chicago's Cook County won't evict in foreclosures - 
Profile
RE: Chicago's Cook County won't evict in foreclosures - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread