After recent state law change, the only way to appeal an eviction in Tennessee is pay an entire year's rent upfront
After recent state law change, the only way to appeal an eviction in Tennessee is pay an entire year's rent upfront
A new state law makes it harder for tenants to go through with an appeal after an eviction.
Some attorneys say it's not practical, especially for tenants with overdue rent.
You don't say!
Only some
Other attorneys are paid by landlords.
more rules that only benefit rich people. slowly making being poor illegal.
totally makes sense for one of the poorest states
American "justice" system at work. This really makes my blood boil to read. I hope this law is overturned, it's beyond absurd - its also malicious.
“Sure, I’ll overturn it. For money.” -judge, probably
Being a judge seems like a pretty great deal honestly. I could use free luxury vacations and a 10 million dollar sinecure for my SO.
Legal industry is a better term than justice system. It is a a profitable industry using the law to extract profits.
So evict someone living paycheck to paycheck and force them onto the street, they won't be able to afford to challenge it because they'd need to put up more money than they have, and then arrest them because homelessness is illegal.
And.... prison labor is profitable...
"We're bringing back slavery baby!" - JD Vance probably
It never left.
JD Vance has that weird Christian-Soviet obsession with bringing industrial production (EDIT: back from China etc) to the USA. Maybe bunking on factory territory included, like in good old year 1904.
I know it's a propaganda device, but what isn't.
Fuck, when you put it like that, it almost sounds like it was planned that way. What a funny cowinky-dink.
It's free labour!
Who ya gonna believe? The honest Trump-fearing landlord, or the homeless criminal?
The fact that people will likely worship him as a God if he wins again...
It has never been about fairness or even what is legal in TN courts. I was at a court hearing in TN with a friend who was there as a witness in a civil suit. Most of the cases I saw were tenant - landlord disputes with a lot of defendants not showing up. For each one of these the judge had the bailiff call twice and render a default judgment in the plaintiffs favor. No problem on the surface, show up to defend yourself or face a default judgement.
Then a case came up where the defendant stepped up but the plaintiff wasn't there. The judge had the bailiff call at least five time, check the hallway and told the defendant to wait in the court room and see if the plaintiff showed up while the judge called other cases.
So if someone wants a cash infusion, they can evict their tenants without notice and get a years worth of rent instantly? I'm sure that won't be abused.
Bonds are paid into court. They don't go directly into the landlord's pocket. Also nobody gets evicted without notice (and understand that notice is a term of art in this context--plenty of people get evicted without knowing about it or being actually made aware, but every state has a requirement that you have to do one of a limited number of things in order to provide notice to a tenant of an eviction).
This is a shitty law, but please don't make stuff up or draw assumptions to pretend it's worse than it actually is.
The problem this state (via the landlords' lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation. If you're just now becoming familiar with the value of litigants dragging out litigation, well, welcome to 2024.
I know social media despises landlords (and there's very good reason to revile institutional real estate hoarders), but there are good public policy reasons to not want people squatting in properties rent-free, one of which is that if the landlord can't get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead. There are much better ways to accomplish this than the way TN has here, but shotgun evictions are something we'd really like to avoid.
The problem this state (via the landlords' lobbying for this change) is trying to fix is the scenario in which an evicted tenant gets a sympathetic judge in a jurisdiction with a long docket backlog and basically gets to squat in the property rent-free for however long they can stretch out the litigation
Classic case of the solution being many times worse than the problem.
Also, people too poor to afford rent don't tend to be able to afford dragging out litigation either. Lawyers are expensive and even if you manage to get pro bono representation, there's likely to be limits.
if the landlord can't get a non-paying tenant off the property through legal means, they will pursue non-legal means instead.
So the solution to landlords breaking the law to get rid of poor people is to make it unaffordable for poor people to contest unfair evictions?
Sounds like landlord logic..
shotgun evictions are something we'd really like to avoid.
Then take the gun away from landlords in stead of pointing one at homeless or soon to be homeless people.
I missed that it went to the court, the term payed rather than posed a bond or something suggested it went to the landlord. But to the court makes much more sense.
Sounds reasonable, at least to the Elon Musk type of folk. After all, laws are made to accommodate the wealthy. Look at the wealthy orange felon/rapist - he is waltzing all around laws that would put you in prison for ten lifetimes.
Why nobody wants to work anymore? <insert pikachu face>
Do you want mass migration out of your state? Because this is how you get mass migration out of your state.
Except for the fact that most of the people who can't afford rent can't afford to move to another state either.
Plus there's the ones who can't leave because of family or work.
If moving both yourself and who/what you need with you was free, almost nobody would live in non-Nashville Tennessee.
I love my non nashville tennessee city, and love my state. But I hate our state's legislature. And nashville honestly
Except for the fact that most of the people who can’t afford rent can’t afford to move to another state either.
What do people in USA need to move to another state? Is there some registration paperwork or something?
I mean, it seemed that not, with reading about needing an ID to vote being a point of contention and a tool for disenfranchising voters and such.
The minimal technicalities.
Distance itself matters, but hitchhiking is an option?.. Or if a bicycle is not too expensive?..
Finding a new job seems to be the main problem, but I think it's similar for people not struggling with rent too. It is simply not an easy predictable thing.
Family - well, same as the previous sentence.
So something specific for people unable to afford rent - they need to, well, be able to afford rent for some short time in the new place and they need to get there and find a job with time constraints, because of not having a buffer of money. Physically moving one's body seems the easiest part.
So long as businesses continue to develop capital projects that demand human labor, people will continue to migrate to the capital in order to secure livable wages. These policies are far more in line with a state that's actively gentrifying and wants to force low-wage residents out than one that's afraid it can't get high wage professionals to move in.
In saner years I'd say that the Supreme Court would never let this stand, but these days Clarence would just say "Fuck it, make it double."
Democrats will be blamed in 3, 2, 1…
That kind of money would get you a mortgage
Ooooh sorry I'm afraid you don't have enough income to qualify.
Already did. 3 years ago my house cost me $25k and change for down and closing
JFC that is dystopian AF.
I live in TN ( for now ) and our Trump loving leadership is making a fine case for moving out of state.
Shit I live in TN... well I have loud neighbors I need to shut up...
I guess I'm the odd one out here, but squatter stories infuriate me. Signing a contract and then intentionally violating it is super unethical. The renting/income/ownership problem needs to be solved in other ways than letting people steal the property they're living in. Letting people stay in properties without paying significantly increases landlord risk and causes shittier contracts and higher prices.
Also, if someone jas an eviction on their record, getting another rental is way harder. It's good to discourage it so people don't end up trapped unable to get another rental when they're back on their feet.
Coming up with 20,000 dollars in a week isn't a middle finger to squatters, it's a complete lock out of the justice system to anyone who isn't rich enough to be a land lord themselves.
This is peak, "the justice system protects everyone equally" bullshit.
“the justice system protects everyone equally” bullshit.
Which is an extension of the "same rules for everyone" bullshit. A works with the existing law, B doesn't. It's just rules same for everyone, right? But group 1 needs A every day, and doesn't need B at all, while group 2 is the inverse. Obviously laws benefit group 1, but due to the quoted thing being accepted as truth by many people, the injustice stands.
Same as with "territorial integrity" when it's the integrity of some squatter state genociding or expelling people whose land it squatted on, and with clueless or malicious bystanders saying that those people should be happy that it doesn't bite pieces off (spolier alert - it does that too now) their nation-state because "international laws" are "the same for everyone".
I don’t think most people think “oh, some dude signing a contract and then violating it is super cool.” I think most people here realize that the working-class landlord who is renting out a single unit for a little extra cash is basically a unicorn these days and that the vast majority of rental units are owned by people and corporations who rent as their primary or sole source of income; and that the stories of renters deliberately destroying rental units are foregrounded by these large scale landlords as a tactic to erode public sympathy for renters. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, any time you have a system that can be exploited people will exploit it. What I am saying is that these situations happen far less often than ones like the linked article describes, where a tenant was evicted because they were told the incorrect court date.
How about we just do away with landlords entirely and make every property by default mortgagable so that apartment dwellers at minimum wage can still recoup some of their monthly housing costs when selling the apartment. There's no reason this can't be done. Most cheap old low-end apartments are worth relatively little (dependent on location and other factors, but still). If the market was flooded with them due to redistribution of shelter and an end to landlording, the prices would drop much further, potentially making theoretical down payments comparable with the first month's rent + damage deposit. With the added bonus that no one steals your monthly payments. Housing co-ops are also great. There's just no reason for landlords to exist. Shelter is a human right, and there's no reason for a renting class to exist except to serve the interests of private landlords and enable the existence of a permanently impoverished working class.
A tenant who falls behind on rent isn't a squatter they are still a tenant and normal procedures already allow for removing the tenant in a reasonable time frame. The issue that obtains some places is that courts are too poorly funded and over burdened to deal with issues in a timely fashion.
A squatter is someone who moves in without paying. This gets ugly when as above court issus applies and squatter situations get in line with normal eviction.
WA instituted an expedited process that allows for removal of folks who were never tenants with just police so this doesn't happen.
That is a smart solution to actual squatting fully funding whomever handles your eviction cases is another.
If you want to take it to the next level look at Finland who almost eliminated homelessness by housing people who are temporarily in a bad way and Europeans generally providing support for those with health problems.
People who fall behind usually aren't stealing from the landlord and celebrating they are usually falling into a financial hole and living every day in increasing stress as they scramble for a solution. Ask me how I know.
It's technically a tenancy dispute, but the actual problem is the same. Someone occupies a residence wothout permission. I agree providing tiny home style emergency housing is fine - there are plenty in my area and they are valuable for the community - but saddling landlords with higher risk results in worse rates (assuming no rent monopoly in the area) and agreements for the majority of tenants who are paying rent without issue.
If you fault squatters in the midst of a homelessness crisis where upwards of 20 houses are left vacant for every unhoused person, you are either a landlord, or you have been oriented by the landowning class to ignore the massive economic and societal advantage that landlords have. To say that the issue comes down to squatters, and not to the hedge funds that are buying up streets-worth of housing at a time, is an affront to working-class people everywhere who are struggling more and more to obtain a home.
I say fuck yeah to squatters. Based. That is the "risk" that comes with being a landlord, and sometimes they strike out, so they can get fucked.
People lose money on investments all the time. Why should rental properties used as investments be any different?
My answer is no. Tough shit, people lose money on investments all the time.
Signing a contract and then intentionally violating it is super unethical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumancentiPad
Meanwhile, Cartman's classmate and frequent nemesis Kyle Broflovski, who did not read the Terms and Conditions when agreeing to download the latest iTunes update, is pursued by shadowy agents from Apple Inc., who wish to perform several intrusive acts upon him, informing him that he agreed to them when he downloaded the update. Kyle attempts to flee the men and is incredulous when his friends tell him they all read the entire Terms and Conditions when they downloaded the latest update. Kyle seeks refuge at his father Gerald's law office. Still, the Apple agents taser Gerald, kidnap Kyle, and throw him in a cage with a Japanese man named Junichi Takiyama and a young woman who also failed to read the fine print of their purchased updates.
"Lemmy progressive": I refuse to help fight this party's outrageous attack on the poor.
It is not his fight bro!
This is why burning places down is a good option
ITT: people who don't know what appeal means. The article gives an example at the end as to why this is a bad idea, but it doesn't affect the actual eviction process.
Oh it very well can when you get hit with default judgement due to not finding out about the court date and being half the country away in the new state you moved to...I know from personal experience you can be responsible, communicate and have everything above table and still get fucked.
That's basically the example from the article. So in order to appeal for improper service you would have to post one year of rent. If you show up to court and go through trial then you don't have to.
Makes complete sense. If you're evicted wrongfully, you have an appeal option that doesn't hurt either party. If you're evicted for not paying your rent, then... Yeah. Gtfo.
Lots of places worldwide require 1 year of rent upfront, no exceptions. In addition you have a security deposit and utilities deposit. And guess what, the rent is never late that way. Amazing how that works.
If you have a whole year’s rent saved up + security and utility deposit then you have a down payment on a mortgage saved up, what would be the point in renting?
Really curious what places require this absurd 1 year up front, I have never heard of that.
Rent is usually about 8% to 15% of the property purchase price per year globally. Many places that have laws like this require a minimum 20% or 25% downpayment for awesome candidates, 50% is normal down to get a mortgage.
For example most of the Middle East, which has the best real estate market in the world for the past few years, is 50% down to buy plus 8% ish in closing fees to buy. Rent is generally in that 10% range, paid upfront 100% for the year.
I have never in my 53 years of existence ever heard of a years rent as a deposit.
Cool for you. Get out of your bubble more then. A quick google may open your eyes.
How's that boot taste? Ya shinin' 'er up real good?
Pretty good since I can afford a house and you obviously can't and just keep getting evicted. STFU
How do you get evicted wrongfully?
An actual good question. Many places have no fault evictions. This means the landlord asks you to leave, but you've not violated your lease in any way. In those places, which are some cities in the US, entire provinces/states in some countries, and entire countries elsewhere in the world, that would be an unlawful eviction.
There are other places that allow eviction for specific reasons even if you've done nothing wrong, otherwise similar to no fault. For example the usual reasons are if the property is being sold, or if the landlord is moving back in themselves. It would be unlawful for the landlord to evict you on the guise of moving in themselves, and then find it re-rented a couple months later.