More (and More) Legislation Introduced That Will Affect Landlords
I'm not sure if it is just me but it seems like more and more legislation is popping up that affects landlords. Maybe it is just because I am paying more attention to the rental industry then I used to -- kind of like buying a new jacket, bike, or car and then noticing from that point forward how many other people also are wearing that same jacket, riding that same bike, or driving that same car. Who knows?
Set forth below are 3 new pieces of legislation that will affect landlords and the rental housing industry in general:
This bill would bar any landlord from requiring certain payments and from making certain claims against a deceased tenant's estate. If passed this bill would prevent a landlord from making a claim against his/her deceased tenant's estate for any rent owed under the lease that becomes due after the deceased tenant's personal belongings have been removed and the keys have been returned to the landlord. Additionally the proposed bill precludes a landlord from requiring payment from a tenant or including a contrary provision in his/her lease in an attempt to circumvent the above.
Under current law, a landlord is able to file a claim against a deceased tenant's estate for rent due under the lease if the landlord was unable to re-rent the unit. I have to admit that after reading this bill for the first time I couldn't believe that this issue was worthy of having a new statute created addressing it, but I then remembered that over the last 6 months or so I have received at least 5 telephone calls from landlords that have had tenant's pass away during their lease and who had questions about what they could and could not do with respect to the rent owed under the lease - so it must be more common then I first thought.
This proposed bill would require any plaintiff wishing to file a small claims lawsuit that has filed more than 20 small claims lawsuits in the prior year to pay an increased filing fee and would also limit the amount that that plaintiff can sue for to $5,000o or less, but at the same time the bill would also allow any plaintiff that has filed less than 20 small claims lawsuits in the prior year to pay a reduced filing fee and sue for up to $10,000.
Essentially, under this bill, if a plaintiff bringing a small claims action has filed 20 or fewer small claims actions (money judgment, attachment, garnishment, or to enforce a lien) within the prior 365 days, then the amount claimed may not exceed $10,000 and the plaintiff must pay a filing fee equal to 150% of the regular fee (or $33). If the plaintiff filing a small claims lawsuit has commenced more than 20 small claims lawsuits (money judgment, attachment, garnishment, or to enforce a lien) in the previous 365 days, then the bill would limit the amount that can be sued for to no more than $5,000 and requires the plaintiff to pay a filing fee equal to 200% of the regular filing fee (or $44).
The plaintiff must also include in their complaint a statement specifying how many small claims actions they have filed in the previous year. Additionally, the plaintiff will also have to file an Affidavit with the Clerk of Courts indicating how many lawsuits they have filed in the prior year. If a person misrepresents this information the court is required to award the opposing side $250 in damages and reasonable attorney's fees.
I'm not sure who came up with this idea or how they think it is fair to penalize a person for legally using the court system in the past, but the concept of equal access to the courts seems to have fallen by the wayside under this bill. Many large landlords and management companies that are attempting to collect debts from ex-tenants will be greatly affected by this bill. This proposed bill DOES NOT apply to eviction actions but it DOES apply to any small claims lawsuit that is not an eviction, such as money judgments, attachments, garnishments or lien enforcements.
This bill would require a landlord to change the locks to a tenant's unit, or allow the tenant to do so, within 48 hours after being requested to do so by the tenant, in situations where the tenant can demonstrate that the are facing an imminent threat of physical harm from another individual. Under current law, a tenant is legally allowed to terminate their tenancy and vacate a rental unit (even if they are under a lease for a specific term that has not expired), if the tenant or their child can prove that they face imminent threat of serious physical harm from another. This new bill appears to allow the tenant the option of staying in the property if they wish and having their locks changed rather than leaving.
Specifically, the bill would require a landlord to change a tenant's locks, or give the tenant permission to do so, if the tenant requests the lock change and provides the landlord with a certified copy of one of the following documents: (1) an injunction order protecting the tenant or child from a person, (2) a condition of release ordering a person not to contact the tenant, (3) a criminal complaint alleging that a person sexually assualted or stalked the tenant or her child, or (4) a criminal complaint filed against a person as a result of an arrest for committing a domestic abuse offense against the tenant.
The only exception in which the landlord would not be required to change the locks (or allow the tenant to change the locks) would be if the individual that poses a serious risk of physical harm to the tenant is also a tenant in that same unit. If that is the case, then the landlord would not have to change the locks to the unit unless the tenant requesting the lock change can provide a certified copy of either (1) an injunction directing the other tenant to avoid the residence of the tenant who is requesting that the locks be changed, or (2) a condition of release ordering that the other tenant not contact the tenant requesting that the locks be changed.
If a tenant requests to have her locks changed and meets the other requirements of this proposed bill then the landlord will have 48 hours in which to change the locks. The tenant shall be resonsible for the cost of the lock change.
