Signs of the Times
The nationwide mortgage crisis is resulting in some interesting decisions that may impact associations. The Cook County, Illinois (Chicago area) Sheriff made an announcement yesterday that his office will no longer serve eviction notices as a result of a foreclosure. He claims he is serving "justice" but he may be in contempt of court and face jail time. I wonder what impact this might have in Colorado if our sheriffs decided to take a similar approach. A renter is paying rent to the owner but the owner doesn't pay the mortgage. The mortgage company forecloses and becomes the legal owner of the property but can't evict the tenant. Instead, the renter pays the rent to the mortgage company and the mortgage company pays assessments and maintains the property -- we can only hope! But maybe the mortgage company wouldn't foreclose at all and the owner would continue to not pay assessment nor maintain the property and the association would be no better off. It will be interesting to see how Cook County reacts to this and any disciples it creates nationwide. Click here for the full story.
Oh my gosh! That is exactly what my ex is doing. Faulting on the 1st and 2nd while keeping the rent; AND buying a new home for his newest hottie! The mortgage companies are now coming after me. I am taking the ex to court. What else can I do?
Let's not overlook the fact that the Sheriff has not said that he will never again execute evictions upon foreclosures. He is only insisting that due diligence is done and that tenants be given the statutorily mandated advance notice prior to an eviction. In so doing, he is taking on a responsibility that has evidently been abandoned by courts that he seems to be suggesting have been rubber-stamping eviction notices, without fulfilling their responsibility to ensure that all requirements are met prior to approval.
Whether this constitutes contempt of court, I'll leave to be debated by members of the bar and bench. However, if it is contempt of court, it strikes me that this might be argued to be a morally justifiable act of civil disobedience. (And I am struck by the irony of a Sheriff being civilly disobedient.)
When a governmental official "refuses" to fulfill a legal order from his superiors or as part of his specific duties, that is called anarchy. The sheriff should be fired. But in Chicago, they play by their own rules. Sick.