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.
My brother in Christ, I have worked in landlord-tenant on and off for decades, and I’ve been on both sides of many, many evictions. If you think courts always exercise their discretion fairly and equitably, I have a bridge to sell you.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Then take the gun away from landlords in stead of pointing one at homeless or soon to be homeless people.
It was never rent free. The system they got rid of said the court set a payment already. The idea that it was rent free is pure propaganda.
My brother in Christ, I have worked in landlord-tenant on and off for decades, and I’ve been on both sides of many, many evictions. If you think courts always exercise their discretion fairly and equitably, I have a bridge to sell you.
Being fair some of the time is still a lot better than, “fuck you, you’re too poor for justice.”
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.