The tenant does have to be evicted. I am not sure what rights they have. If a property is sold, the new owner has to honor the lease agreement. Under a foreclosure, any agreement with the former holder is suspect. I do think that tenants can petition the court for time to find (60 plus days ) to find a new place. Problem is many people are unaware that the foreclosure process in happening and/or not knowledgeable about what can be done. Many renters that are lower income may not know how to get legal advice outside of retaining an attorney at $300.00/hour - which they can't afford. Some new laws regarding the dealing with tenant interests would be helpful. People not finding out about evictions until they are forced to move out quickly is pretty common. Many people are unaware that they may be able to petition the court to slow the process until they can reasonably find new accommodation. The right is especially likely if they have kids.

I'd just like to state a few things:

"How can you blame someone for wanting a piece of the American Dream?" - Sicarius

Seriously? Is that still you Sicarius? What happened to the sickening disgust you once had for the American Dream and those who sought it? What happened to your anti-consumerism?

"You're gonna really hate me for this, but it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father (I assume they all have the same father)."

Yes, you're a jerk. You have no idea under what circumstances this marriage would come, it's not even about children out of wedlock. Perhaps the father wanted no part in a marriage, or if not there was definitely an active decision made by the mother not to do what you're suggesting, and I'm sure she has quite a few good reasons. Perhaps the father is an alcoholic truant who hardly works and mostly leeches his wife's income for booze... perhaps he's abusive... perhaps they just really don't get along and would be too stressed and expend too much energy in heated argument for such an arrangement to be worth it.

Regarding tenants being evicted, I think it depends on the local lease law. I know that here in Quebec, if the owner sells the property that I'm renting and my lease has not expired, he's required to transfer that lease to the new owner, who can then terminate it when time for lease renewal comes around or find reasonable excuse to evict me. Otherwise, I get to stay.

@Invictus - "You're gonna really hate me for this, but it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father (I assume they all have the same father)."

The real reason this is so upsetting is that you have no idea what the circumstances are. It's pretty rude and presumptuous of you to comment like that on someones situation when you know nothing about why they are in the situation they are in. Others have pointed out that the father or fathers may have been abusive or any number of other things that would have made marrying him a poor choice. For all you know they may have been married at some point, and divorced for good reason. For all you know she may have been married, but the father may have died. The point is you have no idea what the circumstances are, and it's not your place to judge someone who's situation you know next to nothing about.

Hold on, you're assuming just as much as I was. Don't come down on me like that.

All I meant was that it would be easier for her in that situation if she was married and there were two people sharing the responsibility of raising the kids. Is that really so crazy?

No, you said that she should marry THE FATHER. Not 'it would be easier if she was married', not 'it would be easier if she had 2 incomes, but "it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father"

Perhaps you would like to rephrase?

Chrispminis: That is true under the sale of the property, but probably not true for a foreclosure. Leases, or right of use, granted by a property owner are an agreement between tenant and owner. The rights of the tenant are guaranteed by the owner as an extension of his property rights. With a purchase the new owner, by law, must honor existing leases. The new owner is accepting the altered property rights established by that lease. Foreclosure is not a sale, the property owners rights have been taken away and any lease agreements with the foreclosed owner are null and void. This is generally true in the U.S. and probably Canada. Although variations abound from state to state, province to province and definitely between Canada and the U.S. Since we share an extremely similar heritage with regard to property - English - the differences are probably minor indeed. Granted in Quebec some additional traditions may hold sway.

congrats to Sicarius!!! For doing it. We all have our opinions and they may not coincide, but he puts action to his thoughts.

@Invictus I'm not assuming anything about this woman's situation and am not commenting on it one way or the other. I'm just pointing out your assumptions, and saying that there are many many possible explanations for her situation that you clearly didn't consider. I have no idea what her circumstances are, maybe her life would be better if she were married to whoever the father is of these kids (or even one of the fathers of some of them, I don't know that much either). But I don't know, so I'm not making judgments about what she should or shouldn't have done.

It is implicit in your statement that you assume she didn't marry the father, and that her life would be easier if she had (In fact your exact words were "it would be a lot easier for her if she had married those children's father").
I'm pointing out you know nothing about her situation, and so to make such a judgment is pretty presumptuous, and rude. Maybe she did marry the father and something happened (maybe he died, maybe he left), maybe her life would have been much much worse if she had married this person, maybe you are right and her life would be better. The point is you don't know the circumstances, so saying that her life WOULD be better is pretty presumptuous, and frankly rather judgmental.
You know nothing about her situation, and yet you feel the need to disapprove of her lifestyle, despite knowing nothing about how she came to be where she is.

He would have said widow or divorcee if that were the case. That's why we have those words.

By a wide margin married women are more successful than single mothers. I guess I made a bit too much of a jump in my assumptions without explaining them, but I don't deserve this kind of response.

Is it so offensive and horrible to say people shouldn't have kids unless they're married and love one another? Condoms and birth control pills are cheap, and whether you like it or not abortion is legal. There's no reason to have children you are unable to support in this day and age.

My assumption that marrying the father would have been better is sound, since single mothers have a much harder time than married ones. Get off my back.

he wouldnt have neccisarily said divorcee,your stance is so outdated

"He would have said widow or divorcee if that were the case. That's why we have those words."

That's not necessarily the case at all. For one, it's Sicarius... for another the term single mother encompasses unmarried, divorced, and widowed mothers.

My parents are divorced and my brother and I are being raised by a single mother. She is an exception though because she's highly successful.

"There's no reason to have children you are unable to support in this day and age."

Would a common person with a stable job or the means to obtain employment have reason to believe that they couldn't support a child before the recession? You're also ignoring religious ideals and personal choices. Also, I'd like to point out that you've never been pregnant. The choice to not have a child at that point goes against all your hormonal responses and is definitely not an easy choice to make. Just like you have no real control of your attraction to women because of hormonal influence during puberty.

"My assumption that marrying the father would have been better is sound, since single mothers have a much harder time than married ones. Get off my back."

Well, disregarding that I don't believe that is the reason you made that comment, and that you probably made it because of your personal beliefs regarding birth out of wedlock, I will say that not even that premise is sound. While single mothers may have a harder time than married ones statistically, you're ignoring that the single mothers might still have an easier time than if they chose to marry or stay married to the father of their children. Don't you think the single mothers are aware of the pro's and con's? Who else has given more thought to their plight?

Don't take this personally... the community jumps on anyone who is seen to make a presumptuous comment without evidence or explanation. I don't agree with your premise or conclusion, I'm going to debate the subject, it's not you, I would do it with anyone. You can't just pick and choose which close-to-heart topics you feel like examining and debating if you want rationality.

those wernt linked

"Is it so offensive and horrible to say people shouldn't have kids unless they're married and love one another? Condoms and birth control pills are cheap, and whether you like it or not abortion is legal. There's no reason to have children you are unable to support in this day and age.

My assumption that marrying the father would have been better is sound, since single mothers have a much harder time than married ones. Get off my back."

No, without knowing the father, it is not a sound conclusion. And yes, it is still offensive. Your explanation made it no better. Even if on the whole children who are raised in 2 parent households are better off, that does NOT mean that every 2 parent household would result in better situations for every current single parent family. It was a ridiculous jump in logic.

Look, I'm just saying you made a lot of assumptions about this woman's life and situation, and then made a judgmental comment about how she's living her life. You know nothing about her situation except that she's a single mother.

There are words like widow and divorcee, but I really don't think that the fact that they weren't used tells you anything. In fact in my experience "single mother" USUALLY refers to a divorced mother. At least where I'm from, that's the what it generally means. That being said I don't even assume that when I hear it. All I assume is that it means a mother who is raising children without another partner. I start with the assumption that most single mothers (or fathers) are doing the best they can with the situation they're in. I assume that if they are raising children on their own, it's probably for a reason. I don't make judgments about that persons life, I don't try to say how they should run their lives, and I certainly don't do it when I know nothing else about them.

You are right, statistically it is easier to raise children when you are married and there are two responsible parties. But I don't believe that's what you were trying to say. If you were you would have said something like "it's unfortunate that this woman doesn't have someone else there to help her out." Instead you blamed her for her situation, and said that her life WOULD be better if she had married the father of these children. You assumed that it was her fault that she's not married, and that her life WOULD be better if she was.

You were trying to make a judgment about this woman's life, and disapprove of how she's living, even though YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER.

I was almost waiting for Invictus to say 'if only she would submit her will to the child's father and learn her place.'

You know what they say... 50% of all marriages end in divorce. The other 50% end in death.

What happened to the sickening disgust you once had for the American Dream and those who sought it? What happened to your anti-consumerism?

oh its still there chris.
but I cant really blame people for going after what they've been basically brainswashed to want. I mean I can, and do, but his to me is on a different level.

also I want to say right now, does noboby else think its ridiculous to charge for the basic necessities of life?
food, water, shelter etc.
if you dont partipate in capitalism then just die.

I respect the inalienable rights of these people over evil corporations. ( I call them evil because they have to put profit above EVERYTHING else. )


yes invictus, I do hate you for that. the reasons are inumerable.

"also I want to say right now, does noboby else think its ridiculous to charge for the basic necessities of life?
food, water, shelter etc."

What is the alternative? You want it to be free? Who's going to produce food and build houses for nothing? Or am I supposed to build my home and then let whoever needs shelter in?

I dont know Ivo, I dont have the solution.
do you think its ridiculous?

yes or no.

answer then we can disscuss alternatives.
anyone?

building your own home would certainly be a start.
people who cant do things for themselves dissapoint me.
and dont think I'm insulting you, if I were left in the woods I would die as sure as you. I might be able to stretch it out a bit longer but dead is dead

a good way to start, is if people can be self sufficient, you have to let them.

I am a real estate professional and I have been active in the market here in Minnesota for almost ten years. My ideal contribution to this forum would be long and boring, so I won't submit you to that.

That said, Sicarius, I would love to open up a private dialog with you because understanding different points of view from my own is something that I want to do and, man, understanding yours is pretty difficult for me right now.

I'll end my post with this thought: Assuming that your civil disobedience does not land you in jail, do you think that your time/effort might be better used in helping those who are in danger of foreclosure, but not yet foreclosed on? Maybe help fix up their house, so they can sell it honestly and walk away with a bit of money and their dignity intact? Other ideas are there, but that's just one way of helping that does not put anyone at risk with the law.

I would love to disscuss it with you.


I think the main thing you dont understand is that my priority is living breathing loving eating fucking farting laughing people, not bits of green paper or 1s and 0s in a bank account.
I dont give a shit if someone makes money.
what I do care about is whether people have a roof over your head.

and if someone is going to say something about already homeless people dont, because we're working on that too.

I am a very firm believer that only people who live in an area decide what goes on there.

" a good way to start, is if people can be self sufficient, you have to let them."

Self-sufficiency is inefficient. I can become an expert at clothing manufacturing, or I can become competent at both that and farming. If I'm an expert at one, I can trade with someone who's an expert at the other, which gives me more than if I had to do both.

true, but if something gets fucked up you'll either be naked or hungry.

I would rather be able to make my own mediocre clothes and know a fair amount of gardening and et cetera than being the best at one thing and not knowing shit about anything else.

also when did efficiency become the most important thing? it would be more efficient if everyone ate through a tube and wore depends, but I wouldnt want to do that either

anyway that wasnt the point. I said that in response to ivo asking about possible alternatives for charging for the basic necessities of life

"also when did efficiency become the most important thing? it would be more efficient if everyone ate through a tube and wore depends, but I wouldnt want to do that either"

Yeah, but if we're talking about efficiency in growing food or providing shelter to the most people as we can, it is more important, because we're making sure that the most people get basic necessities.

"anyway that wasnt the point. I said that in response to ivo asking about possible alternatives for charging for the basic necessities of life"

The only alternative I can see (besides self sufficiency and communism) is the government buying them and providing them to everyone.

if thats your definition of efficiency then this civilization is grossly inefficient. think of native american tribes, or the kung! bushmen.
they dont go hungry or homeless, until our culture fucks it up that is.
but look at our culture, millions die each day from not having food to eat, countless people have no roof over thier head.


the goverment owning everything and providing it for free isnt communism?