At virtual court hearing. clockwise from left: Judge Claudia Baio, plaintiff’s attorney Ori Spiegel, defendant’s attorney Shelley White.
“With reluctance,” a housing court judge gave a Pendleton Street tenant a temporary reprieve from eviction — after she weighed whether the tenant losing her home would pose a public health risk during the pandemic.
Superior Court Judge Claudia Baio made that ruling Tuesday during an online hearing.
At issue was whether, and when, the rules of a federal eviction moratorium supersede the rules of a state Covid-19 eviction moratorium. That’s because Connecticut’s eviction moratorium does not cover tenants who missed rental payments before the onset of the pandemic here last March.
The tenant’s landlord, Shoe Girl LLC, was able to evict her from her Pendleton Street apartment under the state’s Covid-19 eviction moratorium.
The tenant and her attorney, Shelley White from New Haven Legal Assistance Association, argued before Judge Baio that the tenant should be able to stay in her apartment for now under a separate federal moratorium under guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The federal moratorium covers those who, even if they have missed rental payments pre-pandemic would likely become homeless or need to move into close quarters with others — and potentially spread or contract Covid-19 — if evicted.
Shoe Girl LLC filed suit against the tenant in February 2020, alleging that she failed to pay rent due that month, totaling $157. In the hearing, the landlord’s attorney, Ori Spiegel, added that there was a total arrearage, or overdue debt, of $3,700, accounting for multiple years of missed rent.
The renter, who qualifies for a federally subsidized Section 8 subsidy, pays less than 10 percent of the total $1,540 monthly rent for her home. Shoe Girl LLC continues to receive this balance every month.
Her enrollment in Section 8, however, bars her from participating in other rental assistance programs. (This is expected to change in the near future with revisions to the program.) When her two younger children recently became adults, the state Temporary Family Assistance she had been receiving of $549 a month also disappeared.
Without that assistance, the tenant has no income. She has severe mental disabilities as well as dependents who are also disabled, is not in a position to go live with another family, White argued.
Should the tenant be evicted, White said, “she would be homeless. She has no other place to go to.”
“She’s been doing the best she can under the circumstances,” White added.
Ori Spiegel, the attorney representing the landlord, argued that the tenant does not qualify for the CDC moratorium due to a lack of “best efforts to make any partial payments.”
Spiegel inquired as to the validity of the statement that no governmental assistance is available to the tenant, as well as that the only funds she is expecting is a potential federal stimulus payment, which has yet to be passed by Congress.
“My client isn’t cold-hearted,” Spiegel said, but noted that two years of missed payments, even if a “relatively small amount,” “adds up.”
White added that her client is “living so close to the edge” that even that even a $1,400 pandemic stimulus check might need to go to the tenant’s living expenses, instead of turned over to the landlord.
Judge Baio called both the tenant’s and the landlord’s argument “strong and relevant.” She considered the case very “close,” she said.
She ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that she demonstrated that an eviction would make her homeless and that she has no additional income with which to make partial payments to the landlord.
The CDC eviction moratorium currently runs through March 31; Baio acknowledged that it will likely be extended. Connecticut’s eviction moratorium, for which the tenant is ineligible in this case, currently runs through April 20.
Both attorneys agreed to Baio’s offer to refer the two parties to mediation, where they will work to reach a settlement agreement.
White said she was “pleased” by the result. But “respectfully to the judge,” White added, “I didn’t consider this [decision] ‘close.’”
“This is a situation where the vast majority of the rent is being paid by the federal government, with a lack of any ability to make up this difference,” she said. “[The tenant is] living a marginal life.”
Two other cases on Tuesday’s housing court docket also involved efforts to evict tenants for rent owed prior to March 2020, one on Mead Street, the other on Cooper Place. Those two cases were heard in private mediation sessions.
Tenants interested in rental assistance should click here to learn more.
More info on related issues, organizations:
Local Act: Empower underserved communities in Connecticut
Local Learn: New Haven community wealth-building initiatives
National Act: Organizations that support community development
Local Act: Connecticut Coalition To End Homelessness
Local Learn: New Haven Homelessness Fact Check
National Act: National Alliance To End Homelessness
This shouldn't have been a hard case.
The landlord would have had a much stronger case if it wasn't a Section 8 apartment for which the landlord was receiving 90% of the rent all along.
A landlord who's received more than $36,000 in rent over two years from the government (always paid on time, 100% recession proof) is going after his impoverished tenant (who brought in the $36k in government funds from her voucher) for the alleged $3.7k arrears. Is that the real reason the landlord is doing this? Because the money is adding up?
To do so he is paying (1) a marshal to serve a notice to quit, (2) a marshal to serve a summons, writ and complaint, (3) an attorney to prosecute the action, and then whatever costs to turn over and release the apartment.
The landlord is imposing all kinds of social costs with this case. The government has to pay for a judge, a court clerk, and a zoom subscription to hear this absurd case over 10% of the rent owed for this apartment over the tenancy; and if the landlord wins, the woman is homeless or the government pays for housing somewhere else. Talk about wasteful spending and a waste of time.
The irrational amount of resources devoted to the $3,700 debt suggests the landlord just wants to bring in more upscale tenants. Displacement by litigation. Why should we tolerate this kind of baseless and ridiculous harassment of our fellow citizens? Why is this a close case? How is this legal? The law needs to be changed.