I met yesterday with two of my favorite clients. They recently closed on and moved into a new home. They were fortunate that they were not required to sell their current condo in order to qualify to purchase their new house.
The problem? After many months on the market, their home has not sold. They came to me looking for advice about the possibility of renting out their condo. They were smart to ask.
Showing posts with label landlord. Show all posts
Showing posts with label landlord. Show all posts
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Landlords Subject to New Tax Requirements for 2011
The brand new Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 enacted by President Obama in September, 2010 includes a new provision that affects landlords.
Beginning in 2011, all landlords must provide 1099-MISC forms to all service providers for payments in excess of $600 during the year. Previously, only landlords who rented property as a "trade or business" were required to make a filing. Now, the law extends to any and all landlords, even those who rent out a bedroom or make a short term rental. The law amends the definition of being engaged in the "trade or business" of renting property to include "a person receiving rental income from real estate".
As such, all landlords must issue a 1099-MISC to any service provider who the landlord pays more than $600 in any given year. This means that if you rent your property and pay an attorney to help with an eviction and pay an invoice for $1400, you must issue the attorney a 1099-MISC. Same goes for landlords who, say, pay a cleaning service $75 per month ($900) to clean their rental property.
The law does provide three exceptions. First, it excludes active members of uniformed services or intelligence employees who are renting their primary residence while on assignment. Next, the law excludes any individual who receives rental income of not more than the minimal amount as determined by the IRS regulations. No such regulations yet exist. Finally, it provides a hardship exception for landlords, as determined by the IRS regulations. Again, the IRS has not issued any regulations as to what sort of hardship might be sufficient to excuse performance.
Interestingly, the law also provides for increased penalties for failure to file informational returns.
The 1099-MISC forms must be filed in early 2012, however, landlords must begin the process of maintaining their records beginning as of January 1, 2010. The prudent landlord will collect the name, address, and federal employer identification number (FEIN) from people they pay for goods and services. This means landlords must also become facile with IRS form W-9.
Prudent landlords will be keeping their books current beginning with the new year. Better yet, prudent landlords will want to get a "landlord tune-up" for 2011 from the attorneys at Reda | Ciprian | Magnone, LLC.
Beginning in 2011, all landlords must provide 1099-MISC forms to all service providers for payments in excess of $600 during the year. Previously, only landlords who rented property as a "trade or business" were required to make a filing. Now, the law extends to any and all landlords, even those who rent out a bedroom or make a short term rental. The law amends the definition of being engaged in the "trade or business" of renting property to include "a person receiving rental income from real estate".
As such, all landlords must issue a 1099-MISC to any service provider who the landlord pays more than $600 in any given year. This means that if you rent your property and pay an attorney to help with an eviction and pay an invoice for $1400, you must issue the attorney a 1099-MISC. Same goes for landlords who, say, pay a cleaning service $75 per month ($900) to clean their rental property.
The law does provide three exceptions. First, it excludes active members of uniformed services or intelligence employees who are renting their primary residence while on assignment. Next, the law excludes any individual who receives rental income of not more than the minimal amount as determined by the IRS regulations. No such regulations yet exist. Finally, it provides a hardship exception for landlords, as determined by the IRS regulations. Again, the IRS has not issued any regulations as to what sort of hardship might be sufficient to excuse performance.
Interestingly, the law also provides for increased penalties for failure to file informational returns.
The 1099-MISC forms must be filed in early 2012, however, landlords must begin the process of maintaining their records beginning as of January 1, 2010. The prudent landlord will collect the name, address, and federal employer identification number (FEIN) from people they pay for goods and services. This means landlords must also become facile with IRS form W-9.
Prudent landlords will be keeping their books current beginning with the new year. Better yet, prudent landlords will want to get a "landlord tune-up" for 2011 from the attorneys at Reda | Ciprian | Magnone, LLC.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Court clarifies rule on eviction notices
The Illinois Appellate Court of Illinois in a new case, Figuero v. Deacon, has clarified the law with respect to the service of a notice of termination of tenancy when a tenant is in actual possession of a premises.
735 ILCS 5/9-211 provides the rules related to service of demand or notice for an eviction as follows: "Any demand may be made or notice served by delivering a written or printed, or partly written and printed, copy thereof to the tenant, or by leaving the same with some person of the age of 13 years or upwards, residing on or in possession of the premises; or by sending a copy of the notice to the tenant by certified or registered mail, with a returned receipt from the addressee; and in case no one is in the actual possession of the premises, then by posting the same on the premises.”
The court determined that the list of methods for service of process are exhaustive and, as the forcible entry and detainer action (eviction) is a special statutory proceeding that is in derogation of the common law, the statute must be strictly enforced. Factually, the landlord did not deliver a copy of the termination notice to the tenant but instead posted the notice on the door and slid another copy under the door. To proceed with the case would violate the tenant's due process rights. As a properly served notice of termination is jurisdictional, the case could not proceed.
Landlords would be well advised to serve notice either through personal service or certified mail (with certified mail having the additional difficulty of requiring proof of delivery) when processing an eviction of their tenants.
735 ILCS 5/9-211 provides the rules related to service of demand or notice for an eviction as follows: "Any demand may be made or notice served by delivering a written or printed, or partly written and printed, copy thereof to the tenant, or by leaving the same with some person of the age of 13 years or upwards, residing on or in possession of the premises; or by sending a copy of the notice to the tenant by certified or registered mail, with a returned receipt from the addressee; and in case no one is in the actual possession of the premises, then by posting the same on the premises.”
The court determined that the list of methods for service of process are exhaustive and, as the forcible entry and detainer action (eviction) is a special statutory proceeding that is in derogation of the common law, the statute must be strictly enforced. Factually, the landlord did not deliver a copy of the termination notice to the tenant but instead posted the notice on the door and slid another copy under the door. To proceed with the case would violate the tenant's due process rights. As a properly served notice of termination is jurisdictional, the case could not proceed.
Landlords would be well advised to serve notice either through personal service or certified mail (with certified mail having the additional difficulty of requiring proof of delivery) when processing an eviction of their tenants.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Tips for Renters
Here are some tips for renters looking to find the right place.
1) Always remember that there are lots of rental units on the market. This is a renter's/buyer's market. If something does not smell right, walk away.
2) Consider using a real estate agent. In the downturn, many real estate agents have gotten into the game of showing apartments. It costs nothing from the renter's pocket to use an agent. Agents have access to MLS listings and can pre-arrange appointments to walk a potential renter through a number of units on the same day.
3) Tenants should be familiar with the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance and their rights under it vis a vis security deposits, prohibited lease provisions, and other required disclosures. It is actually better to find a landlord who complies rather than either 1) a landlord ignorant of the law or 2) a landlord who does not comply with the law.
4) Check the cook county clerk of the circuit court website to see if your potential landlord is a party to any lawsuits, especially foreclosures. You can also check the recorder of deeds website to see if there are any lis pendens recorded against the property. Building code violations can also be a good clue that the landlord has a big problem. Landlords involved in foreclosures are usually not going to be good landlords nor will a tenant's tenancy likely extend the full term.
5) If the landlord agrees that anything is to be done before a tenant moves in, the tenant should not move in before the work is done. This should be a provision in the lease excusing the tenant from performance until the landlord completes any necessary work. For instance, if a landlord is supposed to paint a bedroom but does not, a tenant can safely assume that most likely this is 1) probably the landlord's normal practice and 2) the yob will probably never get done. Tenants should negotiate a small hold fee or security deposit until any of those sorts of things are completed. A landlord who waits on those sorts of things is likely waiting for the tenant's deposit to have the money to do whatever work needs to be done or does not really intend to do the work.
6) Tenants should not spend their own money on a rental unit until they are sure that they will be staying/leasing. I was contacted a few months ago by a lady who told me that she had terrible allergies. After doing massive remodeling in the property, she told me she discovered mold in the unit and it was hazardous for her to live there. The landlord had committed numerous CRLTO violations that would give her a right to terminate the lease. The tenant declined to move because she "spent so much money fixing the place up". True story. Don't do this.
7) Plan in advance. A tenant should look in plenty of time before needing to move. Tenants should not get caught in a situation where they must move and then might have to accept a less than optimal situation.
8) Tenants should inspect a rental unit THOROUGHLY. Check under the kitchen sink or in places where water flows for mold. See how drafty the windows are. Listen for traffic/train noise. Make sure everything works (turn on anything that might leak and let it run for a while to be sure). Make sure there are no stains in the carpet being hidden. Look "UP" - at the ceilings for signs of water damage or repairs to water damage. Document the condition of the place. Take pictures. Sign something that indicates any bad conditions that exist at the start of the tenancy so there is not question as to who is on the hook at the end of the tenancy.
9) Prospective tenants should talk to other tenants in the building to get a sense of the landlord's responsiveness and practices. If things are bad, other tenants will usually say so.
10) Tenants should go with their gut and should not act stupid. Trust instincts when they say "run". Do NOT trust a landlord that does not have paperwork or copies available - if you don't get your lease and receipt up front, you might never get it.
I could probably go on and on, but those should give tenant's a good head start on having a successful run as a tenant.
1) Always remember that there are lots of rental units on the market. This is a renter's/buyer's market. If something does not smell right, walk away.
2) Consider using a real estate agent. In the downturn, many real estate agents have gotten into the game of showing apartments. It costs nothing from the renter's pocket to use an agent. Agents have access to MLS listings and can pre-arrange appointments to walk a potential renter through a number of units on the same day.
3) Tenants should be familiar with the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance and their rights under it vis a vis security deposits, prohibited lease provisions, and other required disclosures. It is actually better to find a landlord who complies rather than either 1) a landlord ignorant of the law or 2) a landlord who does not comply with the law.
4) Check the cook county clerk of the circuit court website to see if your potential landlord is a party to any lawsuits, especially foreclosures. You can also check the recorder of deeds website to see if there are any lis pendens recorded against the property. Building code violations can also be a good clue that the landlord has a big problem. Landlords involved in foreclosures are usually not going to be good landlords nor will a tenant's tenancy likely extend the full term.
5) If the landlord agrees that anything is to be done before a tenant moves in, the tenant should not move in before the work is done. This should be a provision in the lease excusing the tenant from performance until the landlord completes any necessary work. For instance, if a landlord is supposed to paint a bedroom but does not, a tenant can safely assume that most likely this is 1) probably the landlord's normal practice and 2) the yob will probably never get done. Tenants should negotiate a small hold fee or security deposit until any of those sorts of things are completed. A landlord who waits on those sorts of things is likely waiting for the tenant's deposit to have the money to do whatever work needs to be done or does not really intend to do the work.
6) Tenants should not spend their own money on a rental unit until they are sure that they will be staying/leasing. I was contacted a few months ago by a lady who told me that she had terrible allergies. After doing massive remodeling in the property, she told me she discovered mold in the unit and it was hazardous for her to live there. The landlord had committed numerous CRLTO violations that would give her a right to terminate the lease. The tenant declined to move because she "spent so much money fixing the place up". True story. Don't do this.
7) Plan in advance. A tenant should look in plenty of time before needing to move. Tenants should not get caught in a situation where they must move and then might have to accept a less than optimal situation.
8) Tenants should inspect a rental unit THOROUGHLY. Check under the kitchen sink or in places where water flows for mold. See how drafty the windows are. Listen for traffic/train noise. Make sure everything works (turn on anything that might leak and let it run for a while to be sure). Make sure there are no stains in the carpet being hidden. Look "UP" - at the ceilings for signs of water damage or repairs to water damage. Document the condition of the place. Take pictures. Sign something that indicates any bad conditions that exist at the start of the tenancy so there is not question as to who is on the hook at the end of the tenancy.
9) Prospective tenants should talk to other tenants in the building to get a sense of the landlord's responsiveness and practices. If things are bad, other tenants will usually say so.
10) Tenants should go with their gut and should not act stupid. Trust instincts when they say "run". Do NOT trust a landlord that does not have paperwork or copies available - if you don't get your lease and receipt up front, you might never get it.
I could probably go on and on, but those should give tenant's a good head start on having a successful run as a tenant.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Sheriff Dart Fined for Slow Evictions
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart who gained fame a few years ago by refusing to enforce evictions is foreclosure cases has been slammed by a Cook County Judge and ordered to pay a landlord $1400 for taking until February 16, 2010 to enforce an eviction order entered on August 24, 2009. That's about a six month wait. The Sheriff's office argues that manpower shortages, eviction backlogs, and a problem with the eviction order caused the delay.
Landlords are often surprised that it takes so long for the Sheriff to enforce an eviction. In my experience, the winter is always worse for evictions. Because of the holiday eviction moratorium and the delays caused by inclement weather, evictions in the winter used to back up quite a bit. These days, despite changes in the procedures at the Sheriff's office that allow for less time spent by the officers enforcing evictions, evictions take six to eight weeks in the good times and ten or eleven weeks during the winter.
Worse yet, the Sheriff's office has procedures in place to assist the elderly, disabled, and people with children with their move out. This sounds good in theory, but in practice, it adds a great deal of time to the process. There are bad apples out there among the ranks of both Landlords and Tenants, however, a Landlord with a mortgage can't afford to wait as long as it currently takes to get their tenants out.
Landlords are often surprised that it takes so long for the Sheriff to enforce an eviction. In my experience, the winter is always worse for evictions. Because of the holiday eviction moratorium and the delays caused by inclement weather, evictions in the winter used to back up quite a bit. These days, despite changes in the procedures at the Sheriff's office that allow for less time spent by the officers enforcing evictions, evictions take six to eight weeks in the good times and ten or eleven weeks during the winter.
Worse yet, the Sheriff's office has procedures in place to assist the elderly, disabled, and people with children with their move out. This sounds good in theory, but in practice, it adds a great deal of time to the process. There are bad apples out there among the ranks of both Landlords and Tenants, however, a Landlord with a mortgage can't afford to wait as long as it currently takes to get their tenants out.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Horizon Realty and the Twitter case
Wow. PR nightmare. I do not know the people at Horizon Realty, but they really have dug a hole over their comment that "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization" in response to the twitter comments of former tenant Amanda Bonnen. Clarifying their position that the comment was "tongue in cheek" in a written statement later in the day, Horizon also indicated that they are embroiled in a CRLTO dispute with their former tenant. I would hate to be the defendant in that case if the Plaintiff tenant was able to get the case to a jury trial.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Phonecall of the day!
I just fielded a phonecall from someone who found me on the web wondering "is it okay to take the hinges off of my tenant's door so that they just leave"? Apparently, the caller had already served the tenant with a five day notice and was now ready to engage in self help.
After I gathered my senses at such a question, I quickly remembered that this is exactly the reason why the landlord tenant laws have been slanted so far in favor of tenants. Just to be clear, because it seems to not be obvious to some landlords, there are only two people who can return a rental property to the landlord: (1) the tenant... voluntarily and (2) the sheriff after the landlord has obtained an order for possession from a judge. Other than those two scenarios, changing the locks, removing the door, cutting the electricity, moving someone else in, and any other nonsense that the landlord can think up is a wrongful eviction.
Landlords need to treat their rental business like what it is: a business. That means learning the rules and understanding how to move within the system. That means having a lease that complies with the CRLTO or other applicable laws (depending upon the location of the property).
Evictions cost lots of time and money. Lawsuits from tenants cost money. In these tougher economic times, landlord's can't afford to not do it by the book. They also need to build into their business plan the potential cost of an eviction and the cost of being in compliance with the law.
The Illinois forcible entry and detainer act provides that a tenant who is wrongfully or constructively evicted is entitled to an abatement of rent for the eviction period and also entitled to compensatory damages for any losses that were a result of the wrongful act. It is worse in Chicago. Under 5-12-160 of the CRLTO, a landlord is subject to a daily fine of between $200-$500 plus the tenant has a civil remedy to recover the greater of two months rent or twice the tenants actual damages plus court costs and attorney's fees. Landlords: don't lock out your tenants.
After I gathered my senses at such a question, I quickly remembered that this is exactly the reason why the landlord tenant laws have been slanted so far in favor of tenants. Just to be clear, because it seems to not be obvious to some landlords, there are only two people who can return a rental property to the landlord: (1) the tenant... voluntarily and (2) the sheriff after the landlord has obtained an order for possession from a judge. Other than those two scenarios, changing the locks, removing the door, cutting the electricity, moving someone else in, and any other nonsense that the landlord can think up is a wrongful eviction.
Landlords need to treat their rental business like what it is: a business. That means learning the rules and understanding how to move within the system. That means having a lease that complies with the CRLTO or other applicable laws (depending upon the location of the property).
Evictions cost lots of time and money. Lawsuits from tenants cost money. In these tougher economic times, landlord's can't afford to not do it by the book. They also need to build into their business plan the potential cost of an eviction and the cost of being in compliance with the law.
The Illinois forcible entry and detainer act provides that a tenant who is wrongfully or constructively evicted is entitled to an abatement of rent for the eviction period and also entitled to compensatory damages for any losses that were a result of the wrongful act. It is worse in Chicago. Under 5-12-160 of the CRLTO, a landlord is subject to a daily fine of between $200-$500 plus the tenant has a civil remedy to recover the greater of two months rent or twice the tenants actual damages plus court costs and attorney's fees. Landlords: don't lock out your tenants.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Exclusions from CRLTO
The City of Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance strictly governs the conduct of most landlords within the City of Chicago. Nearly all rental property within the City limits is regulated by the CRLTO. Some rental units, however, are not covered by the strictures of the Ordinance.
In fact, Section 5-12-010 provides in part that the CRLTO "...applies to, regulates and determines rights. obligations and remedies under every rental agreement entered into or to be performed after the effective date of is chapter for a dwelling unit located within the City of Chicago, regardless of where the unit is made, subject only to the limitations contained in Section 5-12-020".
Section 5-12-020 of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance sets forth the various exclusions from coverage of the ordinance. The most common exclusion from coverage arises under 5-12-020(a) of the CRLTO in situations where a building both (1) contains six or fewer units and (2) the landlord resides in the building. Even when the ordinance does not apply in the case of owner occupied buildings of six units or less, the provisions of Section 5-12-160 continue to apply.
Unfortunately for many condominium owners throughout the City of Chicago, the test for exclusion under 5-12-020(a) is a two part test. As a result, if a condominium owner owns a single unit in a four unit condominium building but does not also reside in the building, that condominium is governed by the CRLTO. Similarly, a single family home in the City of Chicago that is leased out is also governed by the CRLTO. Many landlords are surprised to find that their tenancies are governed by the ordinance. Usually, when they find out, it is too late.
The remainder of the exclusions in 5-12-020(b)-(f) provide for exemptions for various hotels, hospitals, purchasers of real estate who allow a seller to retain temporary possession, employee housing, and co-op property occupied by the co-op shareholder under the proprietary lease. The exclusions are quite limited and specific, with many being defined elsewhere in the City of Chicago code.
In fact, Section 5-12-010 provides in part that the CRLTO "...applies to, regulates and determines rights. obligations and remedies under every rental agreement entered into or to be performed after the effective date of is chapter for a dwelling unit located within the City of Chicago, regardless of where the unit is made, subject only to the limitations contained in Section 5-12-020".
Section 5-12-020 of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance sets forth the various exclusions from coverage of the ordinance. The most common exclusion from coverage arises under 5-12-020(a) of the CRLTO in situations where a building both (1) contains six or fewer units and (2) the landlord resides in the building. Even when the ordinance does not apply in the case of owner occupied buildings of six units or less, the provisions of Section 5-12-160 continue to apply.
Unfortunately for many condominium owners throughout the City of Chicago, the test for exclusion under 5-12-020(a) is a two part test. As a result, if a condominium owner owns a single unit in a four unit condominium building but does not also reside in the building, that condominium is governed by the CRLTO. Similarly, a single family home in the City of Chicago that is leased out is also governed by the CRLTO. Many landlords are surprised to find that their tenancies are governed by the ordinance. Usually, when they find out, it is too late.
The remainder of the exclusions in 5-12-020(b)-(f) provide for exemptions for various hotels, hospitals, purchasers of real estate who allow a seller to retain temporary possession, employee housing, and co-op property occupied by the co-op shareholder under the proprietary lease. The exclusions are quite limited and specific, with many being defined elsewhere in the City of Chicago code.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Relief for Tenants when Landlord is Being Foreclosed
Effective January 1, 2008, the State of Illinois has enacted Public Act 095-0262 amending 735 ILCS 5/15-1701 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow tenants a right of possession during a foreclosure. Under the old law, tenants could be evicted shortly after the entry of an order for possession in the foreclosure action.
Under the new law, in the case of a foreclosure where a tenant is current on his or her rent, an order for possession entered in a supplemental petition for possession in the foreclosure must allow the tenant to retain possession of the property covered by the tenant's rental agreement for the shorter of: (1) 120 days following the notice of the hearing that has been properly served upon the tenant or (2) through the duration of the tenant's lease.
As a result, tenants will have at least the balance of their lease if less than 4 months remain or up to 4 months after they receive notice that their landlord is in foreclosure. Tenants will still have to pay their rent. The law provides the additional right to possession only if the tenant continues to pay rent in full during the 120 day period. In addition, the right only extends to a case of "foreclosure where the tenant is current on his or her rent". This can lead to a few questions.
Who is entitled to rent during the pendancy of the foreclosure action? Is it the landlord, the mortgage holder foreclosing the loan, or the court appointed receiver? Generally, payment should be made to the landlord. However, many landlords in arrears refuse to accept rental payments. In such a case, the tenant should be careful to tender the rent payment to the landlord. If the payment is denied, the tenant should tender the rent payment to the court appointed receiver and/or mortgage holder. In either case, the tenant should get a receipt for payment! If neither the court appointed receiver/mortgage holder or the landlord will accept the rent, the tenant should appear in court and attmept to have the court order one of the parties to the suit to accept the rent.
Under the new law, in the case of a foreclosure where a tenant is current on his or her rent, an order for possession entered in a supplemental petition for possession in the foreclosure must allow the tenant to retain possession of the property covered by the tenant's rental agreement for the shorter of: (1) 120 days following the notice of the hearing that has been properly served upon the tenant or (2) through the duration of the tenant's lease.
As a result, tenants will have at least the balance of their lease if less than 4 months remain or up to 4 months after they receive notice that their landlord is in foreclosure. Tenants will still have to pay their rent. The law provides the additional right to possession only if the tenant continues to pay rent in full during the 120 day period. In addition, the right only extends to a case of "foreclosure where the tenant is current on his or her rent". This can lead to a few questions.
Who is entitled to rent during the pendancy of the foreclosure action? Is it the landlord, the mortgage holder foreclosing the loan, or the court appointed receiver? Generally, payment should be made to the landlord. However, many landlords in arrears refuse to accept rental payments. In such a case, the tenant should be careful to tender the rent payment to the landlord. If the payment is denied, the tenant should tender the rent payment to the court appointed receiver and/or mortgage holder. In either case, the tenant should get a receipt for payment! If neither the court appointed receiver/mortgage holder or the landlord will accept the rent, the tenant should appear in court and attmept to have the court order one of the parties to the suit to accept the rent.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Major changes to evictions in Cook County
Evictions in Cook County are never fun and are never fast - just ask any landlord. Until this year, the Sheriff typically enforced a court order for possession in about three weeks. Currently, the timeframe for removing a tenant in Cook County is more like six to ten weeks. Within the last few months, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness some serious delays in the enforcement of orders for possession by the Sheriff of Cook County.
In at least two cases, my clients have reported that despite thier presence to meet and "greet" the Sheriff (Having a "greeter" on behalf of the landlord is a requirement of the Sheriff in the enforcement of the order for possession obtained in an eviction order), the Sheriff did not appear to enforce the order. Upon checking into the situation, in both cases, the Sheriff indicated that he was present to enforce the orders and no one was at the property to meet him, so the evictions were called off. That means we need to pay an additional fee and get back at the end of the line. To add insult to injury, the landlords took time from work and were present at the property all day! It is possible that the Sheriff is telling the truth (ie. the landlord was present and the sheriff was present and they were unable to recognize each other). Unfortunately, there is no way to coordinate this process with the Sheriff. The Sheriff's eviction desk is of no help (they can tell you what happened the day after it happens, but they do not coordinate "just in time evictions"), so the system is, at best, handicapped.
In another recent case, the Sheriff called to indicated he would be out to evict the tenant "tomorrow". On the morning of that expected eviction, the Sheriff called my office to tell me that the eviction was cancelled and that the Sheriff would handle the eviction "tomorrow". After spending half a day at the building on the prior date, my client sat at the property on the new eviction date from 8am to 2pm (the time period provided by the Sheriff). The Sheriff never appeared. As one would expect, the landlord was fairly upset. When I followed up with the Sheriff's office the next day, they indicated that they were unable to make all of the evictions scheduled that day and that they would reschedule it "some time in the future". The Sheriff had no further information. Unfortunately, a short time after the two failed dates, the eviction order became "stale" (too much time had elapsed between the entry of the order and enforcement). The expiration was, in large part, due to the fact that the Sheriff failed to enforce the order in a timely fashion. I must admit that the tenant added some time with some fairly frivilous motions to extend their stay. As a result, the landlord had to motion the court to extend the court order, give notice to the tenant (adding to the landlord's expense in attorney fees and costs and providing yet another opportunity for the tenant to delay or stall the process) and the order could then be re-placed with the Sheriff (and we would get back in line at the beginning to wait again).
Luckily for us, the tenant got tired of waiting for her things to be thrown on the street and decided to leave on her own.
The current delays for the enforcement of an eviction are akin to those that occur in the winter months as a result of inclement weather and the Holiday moratoreum (extremely long). I don't fault the Sheriff for this as I suspect that the volume of evictions is overwealming considering the state of the economy.
As of July 19, 2007, the Sheriff has implemented a new procedure, I suspect, to increase the number of evictions that can be performed in a day and to reduce the current backlog of evictions. Prior to the new procedure, the Sheriff actually moved the tenant's property from an apartment as part of the eviction.
Effective August 06, 2007 the Cook County Sheriff’s Office will no longer arrange moving services for evictions. Landlords are now responsible for making arrangements to have the tenant's personal property removed from the real property after the Sheriff has enforced the Order for Possession and tendered possession of the real property to the plaintiff. In conjunction with the change, the cost of an eviction has decreased from a deposite of $225 to $60.
Despite my hope that the new rule will reduce the long wait for Sheriff enforcement, I suspect that landlords will now face a slew of new problems relating to the actual eviction of their tenants.
Two problems come to mind immediately.
First, the landord will have to deal with the problem of actualling moving the property. Likely, this will require the landlord to employ a professional moving company or some form of paid movers. I assume that the professionals will charge a greater amount than the Sheriff had charged, thereby increasing the landlord's eviction costs. The landlord will also have to determine when and where to actually remove the property. Should the landlord wait 24 hours? Should the landlord do it immediately? Should the landlord store the property and give the tenant an opportunity to retrieve the property? Should the landlord move the property to the curb or ally? A spokesman for the Sheriff recently indicated that once the eviction is processed by a Sheriff's officer, the landlord is free to move the property to the curb or ally regardless of weather conditions or other circumstances.
Second, landlords may have to deal with the recently dispossessed tenant's claims of property damage or theft by the landlords. It is easy for a tenant to claim that he or she had an expensive television and lots of cash among the tenant's possessions and can claim that the landlord stole those items or broke them while transporting them to the curb. Because the Sheriff will not be present, tenants and landlords could be prone to physical confrontation over the tenant's personal property.
I don't know how these issues will shake out, but I am certain that until some procedure is formalized, landlords and tenants will get into further disputes.
In at least two cases, my clients have reported that despite thier presence to meet and "greet" the Sheriff (Having a "greeter" on behalf of the landlord is a requirement of the Sheriff in the enforcement of the order for possession obtained in an eviction order), the Sheriff did not appear to enforce the order. Upon checking into the situation, in both cases, the Sheriff indicated that he was present to enforce the orders and no one was at the property to meet him, so the evictions were called off. That means we need to pay an additional fee and get back at the end of the line. To add insult to injury, the landlords took time from work and were present at the property all day! It is possible that the Sheriff is telling the truth (ie. the landlord was present and the sheriff was present and they were unable to recognize each other). Unfortunately, there is no way to coordinate this process with the Sheriff. The Sheriff's eviction desk is of no help (they can tell you what happened the day after it happens, but they do not coordinate "just in time evictions"), so the system is, at best, handicapped.
In another recent case, the Sheriff called to indicated he would be out to evict the tenant "tomorrow". On the morning of that expected eviction, the Sheriff called my office to tell me that the eviction was cancelled and that the Sheriff would handle the eviction "tomorrow". After spending half a day at the building on the prior date, my client sat at the property on the new eviction date from 8am to 2pm (the time period provided by the Sheriff). The Sheriff never appeared. As one would expect, the landlord was fairly upset. When I followed up with the Sheriff's office the next day, they indicated that they were unable to make all of the evictions scheduled that day and that they would reschedule it "some time in the future". The Sheriff had no further information. Unfortunately, a short time after the two failed dates, the eviction order became "stale" (too much time had elapsed between the entry of the order and enforcement). The expiration was, in large part, due to the fact that the Sheriff failed to enforce the order in a timely fashion. I must admit that the tenant added some time with some fairly frivilous motions to extend their stay. As a result, the landlord had to motion the court to extend the court order, give notice to the tenant (adding to the landlord's expense in attorney fees and costs and providing yet another opportunity for the tenant to delay or stall the process) and the order could then be re-placed with the Sheriff (and we would get back in line at the beginning to wait again).
Luckily for us, the tenant got tired of waiting for her things to be thrown on the street and decided to leave on her own.
The current delays for the enforcement of an eviction are akin to those that occur in the winter months as a result of inclement weather and the Holiday moratoreum (extremely long). I don't fault the Sheriff for this as I suspect that the volume of evictions is overwealming considering the state of the economy.
As of July 19, 2007, the Sheriff has implemented a new procedure, I suspect, to increase the number of evictions that can be performed in a day and to reduce the current backlog of evictions. Prior to the new procedure, the Sheriff actually moved the tenant's property from an apartment as part of the eviction.
Effective August 06, 2007 the Cook County Sheriff’s Office will no longer arrange moving services for evictions. Landlords are now responsible for making arrangements to have the tenant's personal property removed from the real property after the Sheriff has enforced the Order for Possession and tendered possession of the real property to the plaintiff. In conjunction with the change, the cost of an eviction has decreased from a deposite of $225 to $60.
Despite my hope that the new rule will reduce the long wait for Sheriff enforcement, I suspect that landlords will now face a slew of new problems relating to the actual eviction of their tenants.
Two problems come to mind immediately.
First, the landord will have to deal with the problem of actualling moving the property. Likely, this will require the landlord to employ a professional moving company or some form of paid movers. I assume that the professionals will charge a greater amount than the Sheriff had charged, thereby increasing the landlord's eviction costs. The landlord will also have to determine when and where to actually remove the property. Should the landlord wait 24 hours? Should the landlord do it immediately? Should the landlord store the property and give the tenant an opportunity to retrieve the property? Should the landlord move the property to the curb or ally? A spokesman for the Sheriff recently indicated that once the eviction is processed by a Sheriff's officer, the landlord is free to move the property to the curb or ally regardless of weather conditions or other circumstances.
Second, landlords may have to deal with the recently dispossessed tenant's claims of property damage or theft by the landlords. It is easy for a tenant to claim that he or she had an expensive television and lots of cash among the tenant's possessions and can claim that the landlord stole those items or broke them while transporting them to the curb. Because the Sheriff will not be present, tenants and landlords could be prone to physical confrontation over the tenant's personal property.
I don't know how these issues will shake out, but I am certain that until some procedure is formalized, landlords and tenants will get into further disputes.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Ever hear of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance?
These days, I am finding more and more work related to the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (CRLTO) from landlords who have run afoul of the provisions of the Ordinance without knowing that the ordinance exists!
Nearly all of these landlords have called me for reasons not related to their own issues with the ordinance. Instead, these issues are discovered during the course of discussions about tenant evictions, lease reviews or other "bad tenant" related issues and worse yet, when the issue comes up in regard to a real estate transaction!
Most of the folks I speak with are disappointed (and sometimes disbelieving) when I begin to explain the ordinance requirements and the penalties for failure to comply to them. The CRLTO governs most residential real estate tenancies in the City of Chicago (there are a few exceptions to the ordinance, but nearly all landlords must abide by the provisions). The ordinance supercedes any common law of Illinois and any terms of a lease or other agreement between the parties. The CRLTO governs all sorts of issues related to the landlord tenant relationship, from the proper care and feeding of security deposits to invalid, illegal or unenforceable lease terms all the way to the obligation of the landlord to make himself or herself known to a tenant. The penalties for violation of the CRLTO are severe.
After I inform a client of the serious repercussions of violating the CRLTO and, usually, a moment of silence and disbelief, the landlord asks me if I am serious. Unfortunately, I am. The CRLTO exists, it is real, it is slanted in favor of the tenant and Landlords need to comply with it. This has been confirmed time and again by the appellate courts and the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
While I don't want to discuss the merits of the CRLTO here, I do think that attorneys need to do a better job informing clients of the obligations under the CRLTO and landlords need to do a better job complying.
I will be writing in this blog regularly about the ordinance, its penalties and how landlords can better comply. I will also lobby herein for some reasonable amendments necessary to make the ordinance more "workable".
Nearly all of these landlords have called me for reasons not related to their own issues with the ordinance. Instead, these issues are discovered during the course of discussions about tenant evictions, lease reviews or other "bad tenant" related issues and worse yet, when the issue comes up in regard to a real estate transaction!
Most of the folks I speak with are disappointed (and sometimes disbelieving) when I begin to explain the ordinance requirements and the penalties for failure to comply to them. The CRLTO governs most residential real estate tenancies in the City of Chicago (there are a few exceptions to the ordinance, but nearly all landlords must abide by the provisions). The ordinance supercedes any common law of Illinois and any terms of a lease or other agreement between the parties. The CRLTO governs all sorts of issues related to the landlord tenant relationship, from the proper care and feeding of security deposits to invalid, illegal or unenforceable lease terms all the way to the obligation of the landlord to make himself or herself known to a tenant. The penalties for violation of the CRLTO are severe.
After I inform a client of the serious repercussions of violating the CRLTO and, usually, a moment of silence and disbelief, the landlord asks me if I am serious. Unfortunately, I am. The CRLTO exists, it is real, it is slanted in favor of the tenant and Landlords need to comply with it. This has been confirmed time and again by the appellate courts and the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
While I don't want to discuss the merits of the CRLTO here, I do think that attorneys need to do a better job informing clients of the obligations under the CRLTO and landlords need to do a better job complying.
I will be writing in this blog regularly about the ordinance, its penalties and how landlords can better comply. I will also lobby herein for some reasonable amendments necessary to make the ordinance more "workable".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)