Two families at my school have lost their homes because their landlord did not pay the mortgage

[proud2BlibKansan]

The first one was a few weeks ago. The family came home one afternoon to find all of their belongings in the yard. They had no idea the house was being foreclosed. Turns out two different banks owned the mortgage and the landlord hadn't paid either bank for 6 months. One of the banks offered to let them move back in but the dad said no, you have embarrassed us in front of our neighbors, we don't want to live here anymore. So the bank found them another house to rent and are giving them 6 months free rent. The problem they have now is that house is in another school attendance area and we can't get a bus for the kids to come to school. The parents don't want to make their kids change schools after all they have been through.

The other family found out today. The mom told me a letter that looked important came to their house addressed to the landlord. So she called him and left a message. After a couple days when he hadn't called her back, she opened the letter and it was a foreclosure notice. They have to be out in 2 weeks. And they also had paid their rent but the landlord stopped making the mortgage payments. We gave her the contact info for Legal Aid and she said she called them but there is nothing they can do. Once they are moved out, they can sue but not until then. They also can't find a house in our attendance area and are upset to be having to change schools in the middle of the year.

This is just so wrong. I can't even imagine how angry I would be if this happened to me. I am also sick to death of hearing right wingers talk about people buying more house than they can afford and why should we taxpayers help them if they aren't more careful with their budgets. BOTH of these families paid their rent on time every month and STILL lost their homes.

These are very poor families and I suspect their houses are Section 8 but I am not sure.

So the next time you hear about the foreclosure crisis, please think of families like these who are caught up in this and haven't done a damn thing to deserve losing their homes.

:mad:

[sandnsea]

1. Assumable Mortgages

We need them back. Let these families that have been paying the rent assume the mortgages if they want to. Banks act like they don't even know what those words mean anymore.

[pnwmom]

36. Unfortunately, most of these mortgages have exploding payment schedules

so no one could afford them. These ARMS were pushed very hard, and deceptively, with people being assured that when the higher payment was due, they'd have no problem refinancing at a lower interest rate. So many millions of people succumbed to the temptation.

I blame the bankers more than the homeowners, the investors, or the renters. For several years it has been hard to get an ordinary fixed rate mortgage -- at the very least you had to be able to stand up to a lot of pressure. The mortgage brokers were receiving bonuses each time they sold someone on these mortgages, and so they had every reason to keep pushing them.

[sandnsea]

39. Banks can rewrite them

They need to stop screwing around and fix this. And no, that was not how they sold them. They told young people that the smart thing to do is to go interest only, ARM, on the current house since they were going to move up to a bigger house when they had kids. Why pay all that extra money on a house you're going to sell in a few years anyway.

[pnwmom]

42. I'm not sure what you mean by "and no, that was not how they sold them."

Because the example you gave is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The mortgage brokers received more money for convincing people to buy these initially low or no interest ARMS, so that's what they attempted to do.

[LisaM]

54. I blame both. I know - and you probably know - people who decided to buy multiple houses

Heck, there were articles in the PI encouraging people to do this! Just for usorial purposes.

[pnwmom]

65. I have in-laws who owned rentals for investment purposes. It's no worse

than any other investment, as long as you don't get in over your head.

I also have a sister ( who happens to work for a bank), who applied for a mortgage a few years ago. She knew what she wanted -- a fixed rate loan, even though it cost more initially -- but she said a huge amount of pressure was brought to bear. Fortunately, with her knowledge of the risks, she didn't cave in.

[LisaM]

70. Investment - yes. Get rich quick - no!

There's a vast difference.

And I am consistently peeved at people who have both bought and sold their houses for more than they were really worth. Prices in Seattle have gotten out of hand. I work in a department at a downtown firm where the staff cannot afford to live in the city. It's insane.

[Xithras]

2. California may get a law to ban this soon.

One of the state senators was going to propose it when they're back in session, and it's not expected to receive much (if any) resistance. The proposed law will simply impose civil liability on any landlord that does not notify renters of a possible or pending foreclosure at least a few months in advance.

On edit: I should mention that I picked this up from a TV news piece on KXTV out of Sacramento. They were doing a story on a family that was evicted this same way, and mentioned that state lawmakers were already working on a solution.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. That's a great idea.

I think I will write my state reps.

[kestrel91316]

34. GOOD. Right now only people like me in cities with rent control laws

to protect us tenants are safe against foreclosure evictions. I will NEVER live anywhere in this city again without rent control. When I was in Agoura, a small city with no tenant protections just outside the Valley, I got SCREWED by a landlord who flat out refused to repair a leaky roof and I had no recourse other than to pay an attorney thousands, which I did not have.

Foreclosure tenant evictions are SHAMEFUL and should be against the law in all 50 states.

[Crazy Dave]

3. They're so eager to help the banks though

They see high political contributors in trouble and in less than two months they've been able to find and allocate hundreds of billions for them. But do you think for one minute that they would actually consider giving a dime to a tax paying voter in trouble? Never. The most they ever do is offer counseling to them and that's what gets used as punchlines to the jokes the fat cats they tell each other pool side at the $500k tax payer funded AIG parties.

Oh yeah...the bail out money is allowed and is going to be used for their pro sports stadium and team sponsorships

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. And these are just poor people.

We all know how much the right wing loves to reach out and help the poor. :sarcasm:

[Crazy Dave]

11. I wish I could donate a dollar every time I here...

"God only helps those who help themselves" :puke:

[aquart]

25. These are VOTES in a specific district.

Legislative seats and federal and state funds are meted out according to population. School monies depend on students attending.

These officials have a vested interest in keeping people in their district so call them.

[progdonkey]

4. it should be that the landlord loses the house...

but the tenants remain tenants, paying the rent to the bank.

I know that banks aren't in the business of real estate management, but maybe a federal agency can take over the responsibilities, or they can contract with an outside company. (And if the right-wingers hate the thought of a federal agency taking on so much responsibility, maybe they should ask themselves if just a little bit of regulation--no!!!!!--beforehand would've stemmed the tide of a lot of this.) It's the same thing as with a doctor: if you go when that mole just looks a little funny, they can remove it with a simple surgical procedure and all done! But if you wait until it becomes urgent because you hate/fear doctors, you'll be lucky if the massive chemotherapy itself doesn't kill you.

I admittedly, though, have very little knowledge of the subject, but I wholeheartedly agree that it's completely wrong that people who've been making regular payments and fulfilling their responsibilities are the ones who are put out on the street, when the landlord who did fail in his responsibilities likely still has his own home to go to, and the foreclosed home was "just a bad investment." Not to mention that the bank that's foreclosing on the home is likely the same bank that gave him the original mortgage for the guy to buy the home, so they failed in their responsibilities to loan to low risk borrowers too.

[Xithras]

10. In many states, that IS exactly what happens.

I can only speak to California, but I know these laws are also in effect in other states. A foreclosure only terminates the rights of the property owner to possess the property, but it does not eliminate the rights of renters who have legal protections against arbitrary zero-notice moveout orders. When a bank repossesses a home that is being rented out, the bank is supposed to serve the tenant with a move-out order AFTER it takes possession. The bank is required to abide by all of the same laws as any other landlord.

What happens, of course, is that the banks don't do their homework. Homeowners have no protections, and banks can throw their stuff out of the home when they take possession of the property. The banks usually don't check to see if the property was a rental, and they are treated like the property owner. Often, the banks simply look at the original home loan documents. If the loan stated that the home was being purchased as a residence, they assume the residents are the homeowners and boot them out. If the loan states that it's an investment property, they'll take the longer route. The problem is that, during the boom, MOST investors fraudulently checked that "Primary Residence" box because it got them a better rate and they knew nobody would be checking. The banks know it's in their interest to avoid probing too deeply, so they just do a forcible eviction based on that checkbox ad claim they "didn't know" when they're called on it later. Legally, the responsibility is theirs anyway. Practically, the people who suddenly find their stuff on the lawn have little time to deal with legal technicalities.

If the people in the OP, who were thrown out with no notice, happen to live in California, they potentially have a valid lawsuit against the bank. Legally, the bank was required to ascertain whether the resident was the owner or a renter before performing a forced moveout. By failing to do that, a renter could collect damages.

[Boojatta]

26. Before renting, should people check with the mortgagee?

The problem is that, during the boom, MOST investors fraudulently checked that "Primary Residence" box because it got them a better rate and they knew nobody would be checking. The banks know it's in their interest to avoid probing too deeply, so they just do a forcible eviction based on that checkbox ad claim they "didn't know" when they're called on it later.

[Xithras]

37. I really doubt they would be honest.

Checking that box when you have no intention of living in the property constitutes mortgage fraud, and few landlords would admit something like that to a prospective tenant.

[Boojatta]

43. I don't think we're using the same definition of the word "mortgagee."

However, I suppose that the mortgagee might simply refuse to divulge any information about the landlord to a tenant. Developing a solution might require some ingenuity.

[Xithras]

47. Ah, misread that. The bank isn't going to give you any info.

Banking information is federally protected under privacy laws.

[Boojatta]

53. However, if the existence of the mortgage is public domain info,

then a new tenant can inform the bank about the existence of the tenancy.

[Xithras]

58. That's always an option, but the OP was about people being caught unawares.

If you discover that the home you're renting is being foreclosed on, contacting the lender should be your #1 priority. Send them a certified letter informing them that the property is a rental. If they still try to boot you without proper deference to state renters rights laws, you can not only sue them, you can accuse them of perjury.

[EFerrari]

7. It shocks me that renters don't have rights in these cases.

That just doesn't make sense to me. No matter who the title goes to, shouldn't the renters have rights under local laws? We do here. :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Apparently they don't

Really pisses me off.

[elleng]

18. Yes, renters should have rights,

and do, in many places.

Someones in affected areas should be looking into this, not taking just anyone's advice, and not taking 'no' for an answer.

[EFerrari]

71. Yes! Folks need to call up their city or county or parish and find out

if there is a board that supports renters' rights. A LOT of places have them.

If this place goes into foreclosure, I will not move and in fact unless the new owner wants to move in, they cannot force me to move.

[Midlodemocrat]

8. Ask the principals at both the previous and new schools

for an extenuating circumstances waiver. We have them here. (sometimes too often)

It can't hurt. The principals have more power than you know in these circumstances

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. We are working on that

The paperwork has been turned in. But our district moves very slowly.

[LWolf]

9. We have a large group of families in this situation.

Some were evicted because they lost their jobs and couldn't keep up with the rent. Some because of foreclosures. I've lost several families this year to other schools; they moved in with other family members and chose to go to the closer school.

We have a provision that provides busing, and allows students in this situation to remain with their home school. We have some using that option. We have some whose families sleep somewhere different every night, taking turns staying with various friends and family members, one night at a time. We have some in the closest homeless shelter, which is about 30 miles away.

For many of my students, I'm more concerned with whether or not they got a good night's sleep, were able to bathe, have clean clothes, and decent meals than I am with their AYP. Although I'm still accountable for that AYP, of course.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. 3 of these kids are on my caseload

Don't get me started on AYP. LOL

[LWolf]

17. My district is under the gun.

They know about these issues, but the only thing we are hearing is data, data, data; get those test scores.

[elleng]

19. Hearing that from whom?

Where?

Contact an 'active,' respected representative, local, state, federal, and get them involved.

[LWolf]

21. Representatives aren't the ones under the gun.

School districts, and therefore classroom teachers, are.

It's the representatives that wrote and/or voted for NCLB and high-stakes testing that is driving the mess. They are the ones who can end it, but they haven't shown any interest in doing so.

We've been writing to them for 7 years. I, personally, have been writing to them for longer than that; in the 90s, I taught in CA, a state that instituted it's own high stakes testing program well before it ever went federal with NCLB.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. We are being threatened with state takover

My attitude is BRING IT ON. It can't get any worse.

[LWolf]

24. Don't say that. It can.

Look at some places that it's happened. It wasn't pretty.

I wish I could say that things will ease up after January, but Obama hasn't shown any interest in doing away with high-stakes testing. Changing the tests, yes. Not changing how they are used as weapons of public ed destruction, though. :(

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. The state took over St Louis

and it hasn't been negative at all.

So bring it on.

[LWolf]

68. Tell me more.

Oakland was an unmitigated disaster.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Nothing has changed.

They just have a bunch of state people looking over their shoulders. And most of their schools still didn't make AYP.

[shadowknows69]

13. There's a better than average chance this might end up happening to my wife and I

Our landlord bought the piece of shit we live in from 3000 miles away on nothing but a photograph and thought she was going to flip it for a quick profit. No one wants to buy the dump so I can see her just abandoning it eventually.

[elleng]

16. EVERYONE SHOULD CONTACT

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SENATORS, IMMEDIATELY.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I just finished emailing several state reps about this

[elleng]

27. Good work.

Immediately, someone in the area, who is familiar with local and state law, should be able to advise those immediately in jeopardy.

[aquart]

23. Never mind legal aid.

Call her congressman, her state reps, her local reps, and whoever is doing ombudsman reporting on her local tv.

And remind them that people lost from the district are votes lost from the district. Students lost from the district are state and federal funds lost from the district. Ask them how many they figure they can afford to lose before apportionment eliminates their seat.

[elleng]

29. If worth their salt, which they often are,

legal aid can understand and explain local rules etc as to evictions from foreclosed properties.

So could local banks, too.

Local tv good, too. These are 'human interest' stories, very popular.

[kiva]

28. As a renter, makes my blood chill.

My niece, in Colorado, just moved into a rental last April. My brother was skeptical since the couple they were renting from didn't really seem to have a reason they were renting out what had been their home, and never got the keys for the townhouse common area and pool (apparently the owners were behind on their dues). Last month the owners told my niece that the townhouse was in foreclosure and that they didn't need to pay November's rent. My brother says this won't quite equal out the deposits my niece paid, but at least she's better off than many others whose landlords don't bother to tell them about the situation.

[Lex]

30. In NC, the lease is still valid and the bank takes the house subject

to the lease in place. Oftentimes, the bank will "buy out" the rest of the lease from the tenants if they agree to it.

[elleng]

31. GOOD NEWS.

Thanks, Lex.

This is the sort of info folks here should be aware of.

This is NOT RELATED TO NCLB. This is local and state HOUSING LAW, about which folks here can learn.

[Froward69]

32. This is the kind of stuff I remind my tenants

about... that and the heat and lights... I say "hey, I did my part! The lights are on and the heat is on and the barbarians (banks) are still at the gate. So pay thy Rent!" the Joke between friends is "Hey Hookers and drugs aren't cheap!"

So many in my field so over extended they pay the mortgage on their own houses and write off the rest. simply because the houses they got arm's on and thought they would sell... didn't. Sad really, back during Clinton I did the same. (and made a bundle) when Bush got selected i folded and started running my business sooooooo conservatively... I knew this day would come. I am now in a decent position. yet i see whole buildings of 100-500+ units so stretched out the landlord pays the staff then defaults on the mortgage. then the bank comes around fires the staff and freaks out all the tenants.

I get a thrill when a tenant moves out of my building into their own house. I have no problem being a (financial) reference. I even help them to steer clear of arm's and predatory lenders. Like if you do not have the documents 24 hours to review or the documents change at the last minute... walk.

[MNBrewer]

33. Happened to my neighbor two doors down this summer.

Renters were paying the landlord, but the landlord wasn't paying the mortgage. Renters found out by opening mail addressed to the landlord at their address. They moved out because they had advance notice. Hope someone good buys the place next time, before it gets looted or trashed.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. That happened to me back in 1990.

It really sucks when you're paying your rent on time every month, and then you come home from work one day to see the 60-day notice posted on your door. I ended up buying this duplex (also a foreclosure, a HUD house) where I still live, which turned out to be a good thing since my tenants have always paid most of my mortgage, but at the time it was hard to see the bright side. Ironically, even a year later, that old townhouse was still empty, after they were in such a hurry to kick me out.

I'm sure this is a much more serious problem these days, because renters will probably not have the same access to credit that I did. I was able to get in here with no money down, just closing costs.

[LostinVA]

38. NJ has protection for tenants against this -- they can't just be tossed out

I need to doublecheck, but I believethey have six months before they can be evicted, and of course get all their deposit back. NJ has terrific tenant laws.

I think it should be illegal for people to get tossed if they have been paying their rent.

[dysfunctional press]

40. the sheriff in cook county(??) has stopped doing foreclosures in these situations...

for the reason that these families are innocent victims.

[PeaceNikki]

41. Cook County Sheriff has refused to evict people in these situations

There was a thread here about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3534509

[YellowRubberDuckie]

44. There is something not right about that.

Let me explain common procedures to you.
After a foreclosure, there are certain actions that have to be taken to evict the tenant. The Realtor hired by the bank's asset management company contacts the tenants. They make a deal with them. Sometimes they let them stay until the property is sold, sometimes they give them money to vacate and leave the house in good condition. That is normal procedure for banks. There is an Eviction process in every city, state, etc. The sheriff puts a notice on the door. Foreclosure does not put people out on the street without knowing it's going happen. That is in every state in the union. Tenants have rights. The story you just told does not contain the entire truth from the family in the first story.
I deal with this everyday. I have made policy for our company. And I talk to my asset managers at our asset management companies. This isn't something that happens without the tenant knowing about it well in advance ANYWHERE.
Duckie

[Xithras]

45. You're missing one minor detail.

It's perfectly legal for a bank to throw a homeowners stuff onto the street. It's not legal for a bank to throw a renters stuff onto the street.

If the original property owner had the house mortgaged as a primary residence (as most do), the banks don't bother to do due diligence. They send a sheriff and cleaning crew out to the property to evict the "owner" (typically mid-morning when most people aren't home), move everything out onto the lawn, and change the locks before the resident gets home. The resident arrives home to find a police seal on the door and their property being ogled by the neighbors.

Has the bank broken the law? Sure, but they can cover their butts by saying "Oh, sorry, we thought it was the homeowner living at that residence." The problem is that the eviction is now COMPLETE, and that it's illegal to re-enter a sheriff-sealed home without the sheriff's approval. You MIGHT be able to call the sheriffs department, explain to them that you're a renter, and get them to pull the seal, but it's probably not going to happen. By the time you find your stuff on the lawn, the paperwork has already been filed.

One bright spot here though. In many states you can sue the bank for their failure to do due diligence. With a decent lawyer, you might recover all of your moving and storage expenses AND some damages.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

49. Actually, it's not legal for the bank to do that either.

I know the law because I have to operate inside of it every day. They must evict. They have to. Sheriff's won't do it without a court order.
Duckie

[Xithras]

55. I think that part varies a lot from state to state

As far as I'm aware, California law considers post-forclosure occupancy to be illegal posession or squatting. That removes most of the limitations and notification requirements. The most you can hope for is a 3 day notice

[YellowRubberDuckie]

59. Um, no.

It can take up to sixty days in California. It's considered like anywhere. Most of our portfolio is in California, and we have never been able to give 3 days notice and then boot someone out, because there have been people we would have done it to because of the amount of damage they were doing the property, thumbing their nose at us.
And in LA County, forget about it. You can't start evictions until sixty days after foreclosure. And it's even longer if the occupant sends you a check.
Duckie

[Xithras]

63. Wha? That can't be right.

I've personally talked to people who had a 72 hour notice stuck on their door (one was my sister, who lost her home last spring). None were renters, so the situation isn't identical, but I don't see how it would be any different if the bank played dumb about the status of the person in the property. There have been cases within just a few miles of me where people came home to find their stuff on the lawn and a seal on the door with no notice at all.

Don't tell me it's not possible, because it's happening right now.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

73. Anything is possible.

It's just the fact that it's not exactly legal. I just have trouble wrapping my brain around these large companies actually doing something that fucking stupid. In normal evictions cases, you can't get an evictions order without giving the occupant a chance to challenge the eviction. If there are companies who aren't following the law, then those tenants need to be bringing this into the open. Go to the media. And they will win in court. If I heard about something like that happening to anyone that we have evicted, we would all hit the roof. We service loans for some major companies and I'm telling you, we bend over backwards to help tenants. Today I told my asset management companies not to evict anyone the last two weeks of the year. And there are three families living in a home in California who I am letting stay until January 8th rent free so they can save some money to find someplace else to go. Everyone has kids. Anyone who treats these people any differently really don't need to be working in this industry. I guarantee everyday we make our investors look good by implementing policies like this.
Duckie

[PeaceNikki]

46. Read this and the links within:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3534509

Like this one: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/govt/story.aspx?id=98129#continue

Dart said his deputies were doing the heavy lifting for banks. Banks need to find out who actually lives at a foreclosed property, he said. When the department informed banks that people other than the mortgage holder were at a foreclosed property, days later, Dart said, his office would get an eviction order with those new names added.

“Do due diligence, bank: Is it in fact a single-family home and that’s the person that’s named? Then we go right ahead with it.” Dart said. “All too often this person has rented it out to somebody. The court is completely unaware of it. The person in that house has paid their rent for the past two years.”

Some advocates for renters said that at least part of the impetus for Dart’s move came after the Albany Park Neighborhood Council came to Dart’s office to lobby for renters who didn’t know their landlords were in foreclosure.

Diane Limas, of the council, told reporters at the press conference that her organization worked with several tenants whose landlord fled the country with $2 million in mortgage loans.

Though the tenants had paid rent dutifully, Limas said, they discovered they were being evicted.

“Imagine these tenants opening the door and seeing four sheriff’s people there telling them they need to get out,” she said. “There were two small children in that apartment, elderly grandparent. They didn’t understand the language too well; a lot of the people that live in this building were immigrants.”

Dart did not specify a time limit for the moratorium. Once banks provide an affidavit, occupants will have 120 days before the eviction is carried out. The hope is that people will have the time to find somewhere else to live.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

50. Our attorneys told us this information.

Also, the Sheriff in Cook County is refusing to do any evictions. And he's probably not being entirely truthful. I've done evictions in Illinois. All occupants have rights. We even have to evict squatters. So, pardon me if I don't entirely buy that article.
Duckie

[PeaceNikki]

52. No, he has NOT refused to do ANY and ALL evictions.

He's refused to do them until proof is provided that the occupants were given legal notice. He's still evicting plenty.


And you don't "entirely buy" an article published by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism?

I hope you deny this phenomenon and don't see this because your employer is following the law and giving these tenants the proper notice, but not all do.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

56. It is possible not all do...

...and they are breaking the law. They can be sued and the people suing will win.
If this is happening it is not widespread. I talk to the asset management companies we work with who work for the largest companies in the country, and I'm telling you this is not something that is happening in all areas. It's isolated and it is not being done through an attorney. They are taking on too much liability and the first time someone sues, it's over those people. It is more than likely small mortgage companies who apparently have no clue as to what kind of trouble they are going to get into. We are heavily regulated, and even thinking about doing something like that is HUGE.
Duckie

[PeaceNikki]

60. Don't you understand it's happening to people who live paycheck to paycheck

and are put on the street losing their security deposits and faced with the task of coming up with 1st month and ANOTHER security deposit? They sure can't afford to peruse it legally and the legal aid groups can't keep up.

Snips from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism article:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/govt/story.aspx?id=98129#continue

Lawsuits are too expensive for many evicted tenants, Brewer said. The average yearly income of Interfaith's
clientele is around $40,000 for a family of four, Brewer said, compared to about $70,000 for Cook County. These families often live paycheck to paycheck and many cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
...

"No matter what the terms of a lease are, once the foreclosure is completed that lease is sort of torn up in the eyes of the law, and they have no lease," said Arthur Cirignani, president of Chicago Realty Partners, a real estate firm that deals mostly with foreclosed properties.

....

"Many tenants have been forewarned. But sometimes banks obtain eviction orders without finding out if people are living in the building."

....

But the landlord was not legally required to inform White of the foreclosure, and according to advocacy groups, many hide foreclosures from tenants and keep collecting rent after they have stopped paying their mortgages.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

62. Here's where the article falls apart.

"Many tenants have been forewarned. But sometimes banks obtain eviction orders without finding out if people are living in the building."

In a court of law, you have to have proof there are people or their things inside the property. No judge is going to even have a hearing without proof there is someone there. No judge or sheriff is going to sign an order if you don't have someone or their things there.

I know it's happening to families that are living paycheck to paycheck. I deal with them everyday. However, when you sue someone, there are attorneys who work for nothing, and if you don't get anything they don't get anything.
We are not always the bad people. I could tell you stories about some of these people that would curl your hair. They are not innocent either by any means. And the ones that are, I take care of them to the best of my ability.
Duckie

[PeaceNikki]

64. Again, I hope your employer is not involved in these types of evictions.

But they do happen. If you're not one of the "bad people", good for you and your company. I am also sure that you deal with a fair share of not so good people, but plenty of good people are paying the price for the mistakes and poor judgment of others.

It does happen.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

74. It happens and it's freaking illegal.

(We actually sat down at work today and talked about all of this.) And I promise you, we are actually letting a lot of tenants stay rent free until we sell the properties in exchange for them keeping the place clean and letting our agents show the properties as necessary. And it's working out. Successfully. And we're still giving them what we call Cash for Keys, or money to vacate and clean the house. It saves us a ton of money and helps people out.
Duckie

[Pithlet]

48. Edit never mind.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

51. I know that he has refused...

...but apparently he's not being entirely truthful.
And I do this for a living. It is my job to know the laws in each state and know how to evict in those areas. I think it's rather arrogant of you to assume that I know what I am talking about. Evictions in most areas are not quick. And there has to be service. If someone has filed eviction on you, there will be a note on the door, and on this paper, there will be a date for a hearing. At that hearing, you can contest or you don't show up and then you get an eviction date, again taped to the door. Renters rights and occupants rights are not lacking. Actually, most landlords are screwed in most areas. We even have to evict squatters. Hell, it's even worse in some areas when there are possessions in a house worth over $300.
I'm still chuckling that you think that I, someone who does this every day, knows less than you do about this.
Duckie

[Pithlet]

61. I'd edited my post out.

But now I see you've responded to it, so you've seen it. Anyway, I don't want to discuss this with you, ducky. I've seen actual reports of tennants being thrown out with no notice. It does happen because the banks did not follow the law and the courts were complacent. I worked for a bank, myself, so I know a little bit about it as well. That is all.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. It happened exactly as I stated

The first family's house was right across the street from our school. They came home and found their belongings in the front yard.

[Dark]

57. Tell them to contact the local media.

Not msnbc. They won't care. The local news stations or newspapers.

That'll embarrass the shit out of the banks, and any good reporter would love a story like this.

[4_TN_TITANS]

69. Daughter had a friend from school over last weekend

Good kid, but his parents are going through a divorce and he is getting the vibe that his mother and siblings might be facing foreclosure.

When I was 11 yrs. old, I had no idea what foreclosure was.