Juror#8 Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) Sheriffs refused LEGAL orders to evict on behalf of the Court and a legally justified (and PAYING) entity. Do you think that they were right or wrong? What would you do? For the Atlanta Sheriffs it's *technically* dereliction of duty and a terminable offense. Story: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/movers-sheriffs-deputies-refuse-evict-103-year-old/nFp4Q/ Edited December 6, 2011 by Juror#8
Just Jack Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 Well, she will be dead soon. And it sounds like the family is trying to work with the bank on a payment.
KD in CA Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 Nothiing wrong with ignoring the rules once in a while to do the right thing. It's one little house. Like the old lady said, she'll be gone soon and they can have it then.
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 Sheriffs refused LEGAL orders to evict on behalf of the Court and a legally justified (and PAYING) entity. Do you think that they were right or wrong? What would you do? For the Atlanta Sheriffs it's *technically* dereliction of duty and a terminable offense. Story: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/movers-sheriffs-deputies-refuse-evict-103-year-old/nFp4Q/ What would I do? If I were the court issuing the order, I'd have never issued the order but instead told the bank "You want to evict a 103 year old woman who's offering to bring the loan current? Uh...lemme think...no." If I were the movers..."I'm not evicting a 103 year old lady. !@#$ that ****." If I were the sherrif...THAT'S a tough one. Probably tell the movers "I'm legally bound by the court's decree...you, however, aren't." And be thankful and back them completely when they said "I'm not evicting a 103 year old lady. !@#$ that ****."
Recommended Posts