Renters shouldn't be forced from their homes at a moment's notice

[Le Jacquelope]

just because their landlord got foreclosed on.

And thank God we have law men fighting for us on that one.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles...no+longer+a+murmur.+The+shiftin/index/a/19433

http://image.minyanville.com/images/logo.gif

Americans Fight Back

Andrew Jeffery
Oct 10, 2008 10:30 am



Shhh. Can you hear it?

Remove your ear from the ground. It's no longer a murmur. The shifting social mood has bubbled to the surface: Americans are starting to fight back.

Our 401(k)s are evaporating before our eyes. Elected officials trumpet power grabs that moonlight as rescue packages. Talking heads mention in passing that General Motors (GM) may not be around next year.

And while some are content to sit, mouth agape, staring at a screen, watching flickering symbols drop in value and bank accounts dwindle, others have had enough and are doing something about it.

Jurisdiction be damned, enough is enough.

On Wednesday in Chicago, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said his police force will no longer carry out orders to evict renters if banks foreclose on their landlords. As long as tenants are current on their rent, they can stay. For now. Dart is demanding lenders provide reasonable notice so renters have ample time to find a new place to live.

Financial institutions typically outsource the foreclosure process, which, as one might expect, can get messy. Collections, lawsuits, evictions - these aren't things banks like to deal with (it’s far easier to manage a vendor than deal with the problem themselves). Eviction is the ugliest part, as real people -- warranted or not -- must at times be physically removed from their homes.

In the case of renters, this includes families whose only transgression was to choose renting over buying. Sheriff Dart said he could no longer stand the sight of families returning home and finding their belongings on the street, through no fault of their own.

"These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don't care who's in the building," the sheriff said in a news release. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to let them evict innocent tenants. It stops today."

Actionable ideas, instant analysis. Real-time from bell to bell.
Minyanville's Buzz & Banter - 14 day FREE trial
Slowly, banks are coming around to the fact that they can no longer ignore troubled homeowners, many of whom were the victims of fraud or deceit on the part of mortgage brokers, realtors and even the lenders themselves. There are, in fact, codes of conduct that matter.

In the past week, Bank of America (BAC) agreed to pay over $8 billion to settle claims filed by states and counties against Countrywide, which it purchased earlier this year. Merrill Lynch (MER), Morgan Stanley (MS) and other banks have had to cough up millions to satisfy claims they were less than forthright in sales of Auction Rate Securities.

To be sure, some homeowners were complicit in the fraud themselves, but in the case of responsible tenants, this simply isn't the case.

As expected, the Illinois Banking Association isn’t pleased with Sheriff Dart’s obstinance, and has accused him of vigilantism. It’s likely he’ll end up in court to defend his actions. It’s just as likely an angry mob will be waiting outside in the event he’s not vindicated.

Recent intrusion of government into the free markets, as well as recognition of some more clandestine tinkering in the past, has sparked a passionate ideological debate about the rule of law - and our obligations under it.

It should come as no surprise, then, that as the public begins to come to terms with the farcical economic growth that’s characterized this decade -- and the implications of the reversion to the way things once were -- this is the first of many such instances of very warranted vigilantism.


No positions in stocks mentioned.

Andrew Jeffery is an Editor at Minyanville Publishing & Multimedia, LLC.

Minyanville staff and contributors may trade or hold securities that are discussed in an article. Staff and contributors will indicate whether they have a position in any security discussed, but will not indicate size or direction. The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of the staff and contributors and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated. Minyanville staff and contributors will not respond to requests for investment advice.

Copyright 2008 Minyanville Publishing and Multimedia, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Liar]

Dunno about laws, but I have a clause in my rental contract that says that I have a two-month notice if I'm ever evicted for unforseen reasons. That is, if I have paid my rent and followed the rules in the contract, but I get evicted anyway.

If the landlord goes bankrupt. Forecloseures, for instance. Or just failing the business.
If the landlord goes to prison.
If he sells the lot to new owners who wants to tear it down and build a mall there.
If the house burns to the ground.
...and so on.

I am guaranteed a place to live for 60 days so I can find new digs. If that happens, my rent for those two months goes to deductible for an insurance the landlord signed against that kind of disaster.

I have this because I look after my own house, so to speak, and think before I sign a contract. It doesn't even cost my landlord all that much anything, since the cost for the insurance is covered by a slightly higher rent.

Do we need a law for those people who are in a beggars-can't-be-choosers situation when it comes to housing? Possibly.

Do we need it for people who could ask for a housing safety clause from their landlord, but don't because they're stupid or cheap? Naah.

 

[jackell99]

Dunno about laws, but I have a clause in my rental contract that says that I have a two-month notice if I'm ever evicted for unforseen reasons. That is, if I have paid my rent and followed the rules in the contract, but I get evicted anyway.

If the landlord goes bankrupt. Forecloseures, for instance. Or just failing the business.
If the landlord goes to prison.
If he sells the lot to new owners who wants to tear it down and build a mall there.
If the house burns to the ground.
...and so on.

I am guaranteed a place to live for 60 days so I can find new digs. If that happens, my rent for those two months goes to deductible for an insurance the landlord signed against that kind of disaster.

I have this because I look after my own house, so to speak, and think before I sign a contract. It doesn't even cost my landlord all that much anything, since the cost for the insurance is covered by a slightly higher rent.

Do we need a law for those people who are in a beggars-can't-be-choosers situation when it comes to housing? Possibly.

Do we need it for people who could ask for a housing safety clause from their landlord, but don't because they're stupid or cheap? Naah.

The problem is your contract is with your landlord and if the house is financed through a bank, they are under no obligation to honor your contract with him. Couple that with the fact that if he hasn't paid the mortgage he probably hasn't paid the premium on your handy-dandy little housing insurance policy either, and your ass is in the street just like those who are too stupid or cheap to pay the extra rent.
Feel better now?

 

[oggbashan]

I prefer the situation in the UK.

Someone renting, unless something different such as a holiday home, cannot be evicted without proper notice and a court order. Even then the court will extend the notice period if there are special circumstances.

If a family is evicted, the local council has to provide emergency accommodation so the council is likely to be very willing to help the tenant and landlord to reach a reasonable solution such as another home.

My local rental agency frequently rehouses tenants from one landlord's property to another. Unfortunately the usual reason this year is that the landlord cannot refinance the mortgage and has to make a forced sale.

Og

 

[Liar]

The problem is your contract is with your landlord and if the house is financed through a bank, they are under no obligation to honor your contract with him. Couple that with the fact that if he hasn't paid the mortgage he probably hasn't paid the premium on your handy-dandy little housing insurance policy either, and your ass is in the street just like those who are too stupid or cheap to pay the extra rent.
Feel better now?

Yep, since what you're describing is exactly what I have, via my landlord, insured myself against. The contract is not with the house. A house is a pile of bricks, it can't sign legally binding documents. It's with the landlord (in essence, a one-man company that owns a house), and via him with the insurance company. And if the bank takes the landlord's company's house, the insurance steps in and ensures me a place to live for 60 days. In the same house if they can strike a deal with the bank (who as you say have no obligation to do shit, I have no contract with them), short term with another local landlord that's still around, or even in a hotel.

I'm not stupid. I know what this contract does.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yep, since what you're describing is exactly what I have, via my landlord, insured myself against. The contract is not with the house. A house is a pile of bricks, it can't sign legally binding documents. It's with the landlord (in essence, a one-man company that owns a house), and via him with the insurance company. And if the bank takes the landlord's company's house, the insurance steps in and ensures me a place to live for 60 days. In the same house if they can strike a deal with the bank (who as you say have no obligation to do shit, I have no contract with them), short term with another local landlord that's still around, or even in a hotel.

I'm not stupid. I know what this contract does.

Uhm, how much does that insurance cost, btw? That's just an extra damned ding out of hard working people's paycheck to pay for protection that should be automatically provided by law.

Me, I like the way England handles it, thank you very much. Thanks, Og. It's nice to know there are countries where the wild wild west is not the law of the land.

 

[Liar]

Uhm, how much does that insurance cost, btw? That's just an extra damned ding out of hard working people's paycheck to pay for protection that should be automatically provided by law.

For me, it's about a 4% increase of what my monthly rent would have been without it. A hefty sum per year, but it's there, and as long as I know what I get for it, I can make room in my budget for it. I'll bet the insurancwe company is looking a bit nervously at the housing market right now, since they have lots of insurances like this signed. But I've looked over the deal with a lawyer, and there are no general tough-times loopholes. Unless the insurance company goes completely belly-up, I'm safe.

And you don't think that if it was provided by law, that the cost of it would end up landing on the consumer's, the working people's, paycheck anyway?

If it's a by law mandated extra cost for the landlord, or a voluntary extra cost, doesn't matter. He will adjust the rent to cover the adjusted budget. That includes buffer funds for this kind of thing. If it's an extra cost financed by the state, it's on the tax payer's dime. And the bulk of tax payers are still the very same hard working people. No?

Or are there free lunches now?

Of course, if this housing security is finances by taxes, there's always the option to raise the tax for someone else and do a little good ol' wealth redistribution. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

For me, it's about a 4% increase of what my monthly rent would have been without it. A hefty sum per year, but it's there, and as long as I know what I get for it, I can make room in my budget for it. I'll bet the insurancwe company is looking a bit nervously at the housing market right now, since they have lots of insurances like this signed. But I've looked over the deal with a lawyer, and there are no general tough-times loopholes. Unless the insurance company goes completely belly-up, I'm safe.

And you don't think that if it was provided by law, that the cost of it would end up langing on the consumer's, the working people's, paycheck anyway?

If it's a by law mandated extra cost for the landlord, or a voluntary extra cost, doesn't matter. He will adjust the rent to cover the adjusted budget. That includes buffer funds for this kind of thing. If it's an extra cost financed by the state, it's on the tax payer's dime. And the bulk of tax payers are still the very same hard working people. No?

Or are there free lunches now?

of course, if this living security is finances by taxes, there's alweays the option to raise the tax for someone else and do a little good ol' wealth redistribution. Is that what you're suggesting?

I am suggesting we handle these issues the way England does. They seem to like it. And I think those Americans that live in Sheriff Tom Dart's neck of the woods would like it, too.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

And I'll add a few other things to this, too, seeing as I AM an insurance broker.

One, filing a claim when you're kicked out and you need a new place is inherently a bitch. Phone calls, phone menu hell, having someone take down your information correctly, waiting for the insurance company to come through for you. Have you, Liar, actually had to take advantage of this insurance you say you have?

Two, insurance tends to raise your rates if you have a claim.

Three, they have the option not to insure you because of excess claims. Since they can't subrogate against the landlord in this case, an renter's eviction-by-landlord's-bank claim more than likely to be counted against you.

And that's just the start of why relying on insurance to keep you out of hot water when your landlord is foreclosed upon, is not the wisest of ideas.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People need to understand that law ALWAYS protects the party with the deepest pockets.

Say, for example, you pay a contractor to build a pool for you but the contractor doesnt pay his employees or suppliers; youre liable for the contractor's debts even if you have a cancelled check or receipt for payment.

 

[Liar]

I am suggesting we handle these issues the way England does. They seem to like it. And I think those Americans that live in Sheriff Tom Dart's neck of the woods would like it, too.

And how ARE England handling it, financially? Who pays for it? Tax payers, it seems.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is good or bad. It might be the right thing to do. Just spelling it out instead of beating around the bush.

And I'll add a few other things to this, too, seeing as I AM an insurance broker.

One, filing a claim when you're kicked out and you need a new place is inherently a bitch. Phone calls, phone menu hell, having someone take down your information correctly, waiting for the insurance company to come through for you. Have you, Liar, actually had to take advantage of this insurance you say you have?

Two, insurance tends to raise your rates if you have a claim.

Three, they have the option not to insure you because of excess claims. Since they can't subrogate against the landlord in this case, an renter's eviction-by-landlord's-bank claim more than likely to be counted against you.

And that's just the start of why relying on insurance to keep you out of hot water when your landlord is foreclosed upon, is not the wisest of ideas.

One: I have not had the misfortune to be forced to do it personally. But I know people who have the same deal as me, who had. It worked well. One phone call to the insurance company, one meeting the next day with a clerk there, eviction note in hand, a phone cvall or tweo to veify with the landlord and the IRS (it was the LL's tax backlog that was the problem) and the deal was done. An initial emergency sum was handed out, and then adjusted retroactively to the actual cost of living for those months. They hired a second-hand apartment at market rate.

Two: maybe in the wild west. Here in the civilized world, my insurance rates are based on factual and relevant merits. If I file a claim that is obviously correct, and due to no fault of mine (like if my landlord fucks up), my rates stays the same. Or else I tell the insurance broker to go fuck a lawnmover, and turn to their nearest competitor, who is preferrably honest and professional instead.

Three: Not sure what you mean by that. Yes, they have the option to not insure me if I have a history of excess claims. I don't, and niehter does most mormal decent people.

Look, I can't give you every specific on how it works right off the bat. Just that I've seen it work, that I trust the legal advice I've been given on it's solidity, and that every insurance-broker is not a claims-dodging crook. At least not in my neck of the woods.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Some cities in California (I think Santa Barbara is one) have now set aside special parking lots for people who are forced to live in their cars. I was reading about one woman who lived in her Honda SUV with two golden retrievers for a year after she lost her job as a medical records transcriber and could no longer afford her rent.

This is a step up from living in a cardboard box, I guess.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

I drew a cartoon on the subject.

The scene is an old drive-in movie where the government lets people spend the night sleeping in their cars. On the wide screen is a Department of Health film about syphillus.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Now, you have me curious. Here in Pennsylvania, if a landlord sells the property, the new owners must adhere to the leases of the tenants. So, why doesn't a bank have to? or does it? I need to ask my ex-boss that one. He's a real estate broker. (I used to be a Realtor.)

What I've told friends of mine is that if their landlord is even considering selling and he mentions it to them, they need to get a new year-long lease if they want to stay. Many renters only have a year-long lease for the first year. After that, it changes to a month-to-month lease. That's great if you might like to move, but it's horrible if your landlord sells the place and the new owners want you out.

 

[trysail]

Now, you have me curious. Here in Pennsylvania, if a landlord sells the property, the new owners must adhere to the leases of the tenants. So, why doesn't a bank have to? or does it? I need to ask my ex-boss that one. He's a real estate broker. (I used to be a Realtor.)

What I've told friends of mine is that if their landlord is even considering selling and he mentions it to them, they need to get a new year-long lease if they want to stay. Many renters only have a year-long lease for the first year. After that, it changes to a month-to-month lease. That's great if you might like to move, but it's horrible if your landlord sells the place and the new owners want you out.

LadynStFreknBed,

No wonder you're curious. Somebody has got their facts completely and utterly wrong. As a matter of law, a rental contract between landlord and tenant survives any transfer of real property— thus, a property that is sold or otherwise transferred is sold or transferred subject to any existing contracts (i.e., a rental contract remains in force and supercedes a change in ownership).

A standard rental contract addresses the rights and obligations of both landlord and tenant. Typically, ninety (90) days' prior notice previous to the expiration of the contract is required of both landlord and tenant respecting their intention to negotiate a new lease or not. Standard rental agreements provide for the automatic renewal of a residential rental agreement on a month-to-month basis in the event of failure by either landlord or tenant to give notice required by the rental agreement.

 

[oggbashan]

And how ARE England handling it, financially? Who pays for it? Tax payers, it seems.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is good or bad. It might be the right thing to do. Just spelling it out instead of beating around the bush.

The cost of protection for tenancies, which have been around for a long time in the UK, is ultimately paid for by the landlord who has to get, and pay for, a court order to evict. That cost affects the market value of a rental since a landlord has to calculate how much of the proceeds will be needed for legal costs. That cost can't rise too high because there are rent tribunals that can be used to determine what is "a fair rent" for a particular property. The costs of asking for "a fair rent" to be set are likely to have to be met by the tenant. They are only likely to do that if an excessive increase is suggested or if the rental cost becomes significantly higher than the local market rates.

The cost of providing emergency accommodation for someone evicted from their home is ultimately borne by the local council's housing account so is paid out of the rent payments of their existing tenants.

The local council can also be required to provide emergency accommodation for home-owners who have met misfortune such as fire, flood, lightning strike etc. that is not covered by the householder's insurance. Some locations and houses will be impossible to insure against flooding because the probability of flooding is very high.

In the event of a major disaster such as the 1953 floods the Government is likely to compensate local councils for the unforeseen costs of providing emergency accommodation for thousands of people. That means that the tax-payer pays. UK taxpayers are not averse to paying moderate increases to help others affected by natural disasters. They will also voluntarily pay significant amounts towards charitable help for the communities affected.

The current state of rented accommodation in the UK seems to be a reasonable balance between the interests of the landlord and the tenant. It hasn't always been a fair balance. Historic controlled rents meant that tenants could be paying sums that might have been barely adequate in 1939 and could still be paying exactly the same in 1969. The landlord was subsidising the tenant to such an extent that the property could be unsaleable with a controlled tenant. For example one of my friends inherited her grandmother's small house. The tenant, moved in during 1939, rented most of the house for seven shillings a week (35 pence). My friend, and her grandmother before her, were paying more in property tax each week for the tenanted part of the house than they were receiving.

In the 1960s unscrupuluous landlords, particularly in London, were using violence and intimidation to get controlled tenants to leave. Eventually the laws were changed to make it easier for landlords to regain possession and to charge a reasonable rent, but those who already had protected tenancies on frozen payment amounts continued to pay far below the real cost.

There is now usually a reasonable balance in the UK between security for the tenant and a fair return for the landlord.

However there are still injustices. For example a tenant can move in, pay the first month or two's rent and then not pay a penny more. It might take the landlord six months to get a court order to evict paid for out of his/her own pocket because no rent is being received. If the tenant wrecks the property before leaving, all the landlord might get back is the deposit held by the agent - a sum inadequate to refurbish a trashed premises.

The contract can be biased against the tenant by making it apparently a "holiday let" which doesn't give any protection; or by applying to demolish the property - if that application is successful the tenancy ends immediately.

As with any property transaction, good legal advice is essential.

Og

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

One thing about foreclosures that bothered me when I was a Realtor was when the homeowner would trash the property before leaving. I can totally understand their anger, but it really made me wonder what they understood about the foreclosure process. It was such a common occurrence, I doubt many homeowners understand that whatever the bank does no recoup from the sale of the house, it can attempt to recover from the previous homeowner. So, it's really in the best interest of the homeowner to fight the urge to destroy the property so the bank will be more likely to satisfy the debt with the sale and not come after them to recover losses.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TRYSAIL

Naaah. The problem with your thesis is: Many landlords operate with a hotel/motel license and youre legally on the street when check-out time arrives.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

TRYSAIL

Naaah. The problem with your thesis is: Many landlords operate with a hotel/motel license and youre legally on the street when check-out time arrives.

Well, I don't know where you're from, but I've never known a landlord to have a hotel/ motel license. I live in a small city where most landlords own two or three rental properties. A landlord has to give a written eviction notice, then go to the district justice to enforce the eviction if necessary.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes...imes&edition=&startpage=1&desc=FRIENDS+INDEED

In Florida most operate with a hotel-motel license, which gives you no legal protection from eviction.

Another facet of the problem is: A lease doesnt protect you from landlord neglect of building & sanitation codes or failure to pay for water, sewer, electricity. If the landlord doesnt pay his bills, youre on the street.

 

[jeninflorida]

I was stunned watching the article on CNN, all I could say was "WOW" about time someone did the right thing, just wonder how much trouble he will get into.

just because their landlord got foreclosed on.

And thank God we have law men fighting for us on that one.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles...no+longer+a+murmur.+The+shiftin/index/a/19433

http://image.minyanville.com/images/logo.gif

Americans Fight Back

Andrew Jeffery
Oct 10, 2008 10:30 am



Shhh. Can you hear it?

Remove your ear from the ground. It's no longer a murmur. The shifting social mood has bubbled to the surface: Americans are starting to fight back.

Our 401(k)s are evaporating before our eyes. Elected officials trumpet power grabs that moonlight as rescue packages. Talking heads mention in passing that General Motors (GM) may not be around next year.

And while some are content to sit, mouth agape, staring at a screen, watching flickering symbols drop in value and bank accounts dwindle, others have had enough and are doing something about it.

Jurisdiction be damned, enough is enough.

On Wednesday in Chicago, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said his police force will no longer carry out orders to evict renters if banks foreclose on their landlords. As long as tenants are current on their rent, they can stay. For now. Dart is demanding lenders provide reasonable notice so renters have ample time to find a new place to live.

Financial institutions typically outsource the foreclosure process, which, as one might expect, can get messy. Collections, lawsuits, evictions - these aren't things banks like to deal with (it’s far easier to manage a vendor than deal with the problem themselves). Eviction is the ugliest part, as real people -- warranted or not -- must at times be physically removed from their homes.

In the case of renters, this includes families whose only transgression was to choose renting over buying. Sheriff Dart said he could no longer stand the sight of families returning home and finding their belongings on the street, through no fault of their own.

"These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don't care who's in the building," the sheriff said in a news release. "They simply want their money and don't care who gets hurt along the way. We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to let them evict innocent tenants. It stops today."

Actionable ideas, instant analysis. Real-time from bell to bell.
Minyanville's Buzz & Banter - 14 day FREE trial
Slowly, banks are coming around to the fact that they can no longer ignore troubled homeowners, many of whom were the victims of fraud or deceit on the part of mortgage brokers, realtors and even the lenders themselves. There are, in fact, codes of conduct that matter.

In the past week, Bank of America (BAC) agreed to pay over $8 billion to settle claims filed by states and counties against Countrywide, which it purchased earlier this year. Merrill Lynch (MER), Morgan Stanley (MS) and other banks have had to cough up millions to satisfy claims they were less than forthright in sales of Auction Rate Securities.

To be sure, some homeowners were complicit in the fraud themselves, but in the case of responsible tenants, this simply isn't the case.

As expected, the Illinois Banking Association isn’t pleased with Sheriff Dart’s obstinance, and has accused him of vigilantism. It’s likely he’ll end up in court to defend his actions. It’s just as likely an angry mob will be waiting outside in the event he’s not vindicated.

Recent intrusion of government into the free markets, as well as recognition of some more clandestine tinkering in the past, has sparked a passionate ideological debate about the rule of law - and our obligations under it.

It should come as no surprise, then, that as the public begins to come to terms with the farcical economic growth that’s characterized this decade -- and the implications of the reversion to the way things once were -- this is the first of many such instances of very warranted vigilantism.


No positions in stocks mentioned.

Andrew Jeffery is an Editor at Minyanville Publishing & Multimedia, LLC.

Minyanville staff and contributors may trade or hold securities that are discussed in an article. Staff and contributors will indicate whether they have a position in any security discussed, but will not indicate size or direction. The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of the staff and contributors and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated. Minyanville staff and contributors will not respond to requests for investment advice.

Copyright 2008 Minyanville Publishing and Multimedia, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A court will force him to evict people, and provide him with a plausible excuse to be the bad guy. It's all style and no substance.

I mean, he can refuse and resign, but he wont do it.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes...imes&edition=&startpage=1&desc=FRIENDS+INDEED

In Florida most operate with a hotel-motel license, which gives you no legal protection from eviction.

Another facet of the problem is: A lease doesnt protect you from landlord neglect of building & sanitation codes or failure to pay for water, sewer, electricity. If the landlord doesnt pay his bills, youre on the street.

Actually those potential issues are often addressed in leases.

In PA, if the property become inhabitable by landlord neglect, the tenants have 2 options:
1.) They can continue to inhabit the property and refuse to pay rent until the problems are resolved.
2.) They can choose to stay at a hotel for which the landlord must pay for until the problem is resolved.

Of course, the option to stay would be void if the place is condemned. There's a case in Lancaster, PA of a tenant who stayed in the property rent-free for many years because the landlord refused to make necessary repairs.

My city has really come down on landlords. Each rental property must be inspected every year. If the landlord fails to keep the property in good condition, a sign is placed in front of the property accusing the lanlord of being a slumlord. The 2'x 2' metal sign includes the landlord's name and address. The sign also states the fines and possible prison term that the landlord faces if the issue is not remedied. And, yes, they have imprisoned at least one landlord for such infractions.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I was stunned watching the article on CNN, all I could say was "WOW" about time someone did the right thing, just wonder how much trouble he will get into.

I wonder how much trouble the authorities will get into for going after the Sheriff.

<Italian accent.> He's got people, see.

If I were a citizen of that town I would definitely be a part of that angry mob. In fact I'd bankroll his defense.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

And now the Government is attempting to take action...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18wed3.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

March 18, 2009
Editorial
Protection for Renters

A landlord who defaults on a mortgage knows months in advance that the bank will eventually foreclose. Renters most likely get the news at the last possible minute, usually when an eviction notice drops through the mail slot. And in most states, a bank that forecloses can legally empty the building and padlock the front door.

This system punishes blameless tenants and puts them at risk of homelessness. It also undercuts property values as foreclosed buildings — and in some cases entire neighborhoods — become magnets for squatters, addicts and criminals.

With foreclosures across the country reaching record levels, Congress should do more to keep buildings continuously occupied and to give renters protection. Renters make up about 40 percent of all families affected by the foreclosure crisis.

Renters in buildings that are foreclosed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants that were taken over by the government last year, are already protected from unfair eviction. In addition, the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which was included in the stimulus package, requires states, localities and nonprofits that use federal dollars to buy foreclosed buildings to allow tenants to live out valid leases. The new owners must also accept Section 8 housing vouchers from existing Section 8 tenants and provide 90 days notice before eviction.

This is all to the good. But the vast majority of delinquent mortgages are not owned by Fannie and Freddie. They are owned by banks that have no obligation to treat renters fairly.

Representative Keith Ellison, a Democrat of Minnesota, has introduced a bill that would extend sensible protections to all renters. In addition to requiring a 90-day notice before eviction, the bill would permit renters to remain in their residences through the terms of their leases, except when the new owner plans to occupy the property as a primary residence.

This legislation would be good for renting families, which have been unfairly penalized by this crisis. It would also help to stabilize heavily foreclosed neighborhoods by keeping buildings occupied and alive in areas that might otherwise become ghost towns.