Moratorium on evictions
When Mayor Dan Rivera first announced the moratorium on evictions, it was immediately misunderstood. People would call the radio stations saying that they did not have to pay their rent because “the mayor said so.” Even those with Section 8 stopped paying their minimal portion of the rent.
After a couple of months, they realized that Mayor Rivera meant those evictions already in progress would have to wait until the current situation with COVID-19 is settled. Still, some property owners and building managers had to get tough with their tenants. If they depended on Section 8, they had to be threatened with calling the government to stop those payments if they insisted in not paying their share.
It is difficult to understand the reason for the lack of payment because those workers, who became unemployed as a result of the shutting down of businesses, are now collecting unemployment plus $600 on top. Retirees and people on public assistance or SSI continued getting their monthly benefits plus the government’s stimulus so, there is no reason to be short on this monthly obligation.
There is, after all, a percentage of residents who have seen their world crumble to the point of having to depend on food banks and the generosity of others. Those are the invisible people working under the table or lacking the necessary documents to collect unemployment, having to resort to charities.
Misusing our money
After the Lawrence City Council approved the Moratorium on Evictions, the mayor decided to get into a new field that I am afraid it will backfire. After much deliberation and voting, on April 7, it was “tabled” and it hasn’t been brought up again. Since there is a chance that someone in the council will try to do it, I want to give you my thoughts.
The city recently appropriated $150,000 dedicated to creating a legal defense fund for providing legal assistance to “tenants wrongfully evicted” from housing in Lawrence. I am quite certain the three city attorneys will probably not be able to maintain a litigation calendar dedicated to civil actions before the District and Housing Courts to seriously meet the demand or the specialty.
The fact remains that some people have fallen behind on their rents and now, Lawrence has decided to get into the tenant defense business. Merrimack Valley Legal Services is still at 170 Common Street and Northeast Legal Services is at 50 Island St.
When I first heard that being discussed in the council meeting, my thought was that taxpayers’ funds were being used for that. So, being limited to my legal knowledge, I consulted with some attorney friends and my faithful partner the internet, and I found out many things.
One of the concerns that hasn’t been fully considered is the civil and financial liability exposure resulting from intervening in a civil case in which the city may not have the standing to enter. The retort by the city is that a reason for representation is established by the relationship that arises from the fact that the property used for tenancy is located in Lawrence.
Other assertions by the city will be that the city has a regulatory role and interest to assure that landlords comply with eviction law. This argument is a true “red herring” because that is not the job of the city – that is the job of the courts.
Both of these arguments fail and are short-sighted primarily because once the city is involved with litigation its role is no longer “regulatory” because the city becomes a party in all cases they appear or intervene on the side of the tenant as a party. The scheme subjects the city and the money of the taxpayers to claims by landlords against the city for unlawful actions. They may include counterclaims for retaliation by the city that may be alleged to be taking action against a property owner because they failed to comply with city regulations. It could be that they failed to obtain an occupancy permit, failed to abide by city regulations, failed to pay taxes, failed to pay betterments – or any other allegation that may be asserted to show improper intervention.
More savvy landlords may even allege that the city is targeting only certain landlords as political retaliation for other reasons that have no limits. One question that has not been thought out by the city is: What happens when the city is found liable and a money judgment enters against the city for any claim sustained after trial?
The first defense available to the city – and likely to be claimed – is that the city is exempt from judgment as a sovereign entity of the Massachusetts government. That defense fails because the city is not exempt from actions it takes “outside the scope of its authority”. The “scope of authority” in this instance is not defined by the City of Lawrence but by State Law which has an array of landlord/tenant laws and cases that are available to parties to any civil property action – and does not extend that authority to voluntary intervenors. In other words, the city “chose” to interject itself into landlord/tenant litigation without any lawful basis or authority.
Another more perplexing conundrum is that the City of Lawrence is using taxpayer money to defend tenants against property owners who pay property taxes to the city. In other words, the property owners are paying for the city to defend the tenant/opponent in a lawsuit against themselves. At the very least this creates an “appearance of impropriety” if not an outright “conflict of interest”.
The City of Lawrence should be excluded from any action against Lawrence property owners on the premise that the city is unlawfully using taxpayer funds to sue the very taxpayers or property owners in a private cause of action. This issue will likely be raised before the court coupled with a claim for costs and attorney fees to be assessed against the city for a finding of negligence.
This scheme creates a liability that will open the “deep pockets” of the City of Lawrence taxpayer who will be “tapped” to pay for “judgments” incurred by the city who may be determined “liable” in a landlord/tenant case where the landlord/property owner may be competently represented and successful much like the failed case against Attorney DiAdamo who obtained a 3 million dollar settlement against the city’s wrongful prosecution.
The city wants to take another dive into the landlord/tenant litigation arena. One of the rules of litigation that all lawyers know is that you lose more than you win – and because you do, you must have enough money to pay the cost of litigation which must be paid continuously to “be the last one standing”. Litigation requires an unending commitment of time and money dedicated to the legal expertise– which takes mostly money that will be necessary to pay lawyers, fees, judgments, appeals, and costs associated with civil litigation.
Although it may be argued by the city that this is a just cause to intervene on behalf of the “innocent tenants” embroiled against “evil landlords” who are using “self-help” evictions and other unlawful means to remove tenants from their property during severe economic circumstances caused by COVID-19 which may have resulted in the loss of jobs, loss of income, divorce, injury, illness, COVID-19 hospitalization, and many other reasons.
All tenants affected by these severe repercussions deserve the best legal defense that can be provided – which is the reason that Merrimack Valley Legal Services, Northeast Legal Services, and Massachusetts Bar Foundation and other similar publicly funded organizations were created and are funded to provide legal representation to tenants with a staff of extremely competent and well-trained attorneys expert in landlord/tenant law and its practice and procedures before the courts.
The reasons that any municipality may seek to assist tenants to interject as an ally to wrongfully evicted tenants is not much more than opportunistic “virtue signaling” during a pandemic which will have serious financial consequences – none of which will be paid by the officials creating the ill-conceived idea but will use taxpayer funds to bail them out when it fails.
These questions must be considered: “What cases will be selected for intervention by the city?” “What criteria will be used in the selection of cases?” “Will cases be ‘referrals’ and ‘who is screening the referrals’? Public defense agencies spend more than significant time and effort to assure there is extensive office support to staff attorneys and clients to assure that legal representation is provided that exceeds the mere minimum of “competent representation”.
The cost of providing necessary counsel, staff, materials, office equipment, training, and many other items to operate a law firm offering representation in a specialized area of law is time-consuming and expensive requiring a level of dedication that the City of Lawrence is not equipped to provide without expanding its current legal staff or outsourcing all landlord/tenant litigation to an outside firm. This alone will increase the costs of operations using taxpayer money to litigate against Lawrence property owners.
I always find it interesting whenever anyone in public services offers to “help” when in reality they are only “helping themselves.” Next year we’ll be voting for a new mayor and someone will be scoring “brownie points” thanks to our money.
Speaking of misusing our money…
Carlos Morel, the Recycling Coordinator, has a city truck for his personal use. Sometimes it’s parked in front of his house; others, he has been seen riding around Methuen. The worst infraction was going to Lowe’s in Salem to return a table that City Councilor Celina Reyes had purchased – and she was in the truck with him!
Rules are very clear regarding city vehicles. No one who is not a city employee has any business riding around with them. Employees have gotten in trouble for that in the past but this guy is immune. He picks up trash someplace and drops it off at the City Yard.
He’s not the only one; Dan Mackland Rivera, Dan’s brother does the same things. He’s protected, as well.
Memorial Day
The Memorial Day Commemoration will be on Channel 8. What a waste! Let me know if you watch and what you think.
