webLOGfor.US

Some laws can be good.  Some can be bad.  When you are someone who is on the up-an-up and tries to follow all the laws and do the right thing, over-regulation can be a burden. I see a huge amount of regulation coming into investment properties.  This regulation will be to protect tenants who are up to date on their rent payments but living in a home going to foreclosure.  

My post on Friday talked about Sheriff Tom Dart in Illinois that is refusing to evict tenants from properties where the landlord was foreclosed. What he wants is to push the banks to give notice to the person living in the property that foreclosure is coming.  I agree with this as it can protect the tenant but I can see bigger issues it may cause.  First, there is the potential of a sale.  If a good tenant is in a property, one that pays their rent on time and maintains it well, the house will sell faster to an investor with a good tenant than empty.  You know that once a tenant receives word that a foreclosure is in the works, they are gone.   Second, and I am cynical here, there are always people who try to ride the system for all they can.  This gives tenant's one more weapon in their arsenal to not pay rent.

Tom Dart's stand seems to be contagious as a Genesee County Missouri Sheriff, Robert Pickell, is following suit.  He's started a moratorium for renters who are facing foreclosure.  Here is a link to the article. Anyone see a trend starting?

 Here are some links to articles on tenants who are being forced out.

This tenant in Philadelphia was taken for a ride by an investor who assumed the owner's mortgage.

This Wesley Chapel tenant moved into a property that was heading into foreclosure.

This Laguna Hills guy paid $30,000 in rent and the place in in foreclosure.

This article gives some good pointers on how to protect yourself from landlord's who may be facing foreclosure.

Today I read this article about Sheriff Tom Dart in Illinois that is refusing to evict tenants from properties where the landlord was foreclosed.  I agree with some of his ideas.  Specifically the banks should know who is living in the property and there should be notification that the property is going into foreclosure.  No tenant should find out by the sheriff going to their door to move them out.  

What I do have a problem with is a sheriff not doing his job.  His statement that "Until the banking industry steps up and does the right thing, I won't continue to risk violating the law and open taxpayers to further liability" is wrong.  He admits he tried to lobby the legislature to pass a law which never happened.  If he tried to get a new law passed why would he now say that he is worried about violating the law?  It sounds to me like he is on a personal crusade and needs to uphold the laws on the books.  Just because he was unable to get his own law passed does not mean he can ignore his duty.  

On the flip side, there is this law which affects only three small areas within Philadelphia.  Here city council passed a law that on certain blocks within a vicinity of one college students must live in owner occupied housing.  Now you need to know that there are at least 6 major colleges or universities in Philadelphia.  This law only applies to the houses near one of them.  I can't see how a law can be passed only for certain parts of a city and not others.  Someone needs to challenge the legality of this law and fight back.

web log for us – those that see some huge regulations coming for landlords in the future