Hi fellow LL,

A while ago, I noticed a small law firm (one lawyer) that actively checked the court record and mailed out marketing material to encourage tenants who are being evicted to use her. She advertised free services and guarantee on prolonging the case and sometimes reduce/remove all back rent owed. Recently I initiated an eviction and just learned that this law firm is representing the dead beat. She filed jury demand requested six jurors. Most jury demand cases never gone all the way. They are settle (the dead beat lawyer would ask to get paid to settle the case).

What strike me is that this young attorney sends out mass mail to all deadbeats and files frivolously jury demand. Traditionally, tenants would seek attorney if they feel unjust. Those who don't pay rent simply agree to the move out date and the case is over. This new trend (jury demand) bothers me. It will bring up the eviction cost and time dramatically. I wonder if it's possible for a group of local LL to do something e.g. sue her for frivolously filing jury demand for every case, etc? What would you do if this happens to your rental market?

Thanks,

sid, thanks for responding.

We have the same landlord abuse lawyers in Southern California. They are smart though because they want their fee up front.

I keep my rents 5% below market. This provides longer times between move outs and fix up. My last eviction was in 2007.

When you you have class A tenants why force them to leave? My last token late charge was $50 3 years ago.

Yes if I rented to class C or D tenants I could make a little more income on late charges but probably get to know the eviction judges on a first name basis.

This is the problem: There is nothing "Frivolous" about a defendant in a civil case exercising their right to have a Jury hear the case vs. a Judge

While yes it increases the cost for the plaintiff (LL) to proceeded with the civil suit, it's not frivolous

Frivolous usually refers to a plaintiff Knowingly filing a case without merit

Jim, you are on to something big here, just like Brad 2 K's ETF. Suffering terribly from deadbeats, I'd rather get way less from decent folks whom I would reward for staying long-term.

Earlier this month, way past the 5th, a PM reported $ 0 in rents. Nothing, nada, zilch. Earlier that PM came up with the unsubstantiated horror story of local judges granting "stay" of half a year to a year to non-paying tenants.

QUALITY - or nothing. Properties, handy men, customers. No more "garbage disposal" machines costing hundreds. Quality paint, quality windows, quality PM. So what when I'm paying double? It would be worth it! Because at the other end of the spectrum, it ain't worth it.

Thank you everyone for your response.

Jim in O C [CA], agree that class A or B tenants would have much less headache with eviction.

phil [NY], not sure what's your point. The attorney didn't doing anything illegal... It's how we (as LL) should deal with this issue is what I'm asking.

I don't think there is much you can do, really.

I find myself wondering how this attorney is going to get paid. If all of her clients are deadbeats who can't pay the rent, how are they going to pay her?

I don't know about others, but I see this as a very scary trend for LLs. What if this happened for the majority of our typical "simple" evictions? No pay, no stay.

Let's hope the jurors are at least sensible. Perhaps if they see you as a fair, SMALL businessman who would suffer financial hardship if a dishonest tenant "took you to the cleaners" they will vote in your favor. You are also abiding by the law and working very hard to make a living. You are also helping others (especially the down trodden and poor).

If the jurors could see the lawyer as an ambulance chaser who is tying up the tax payers' dollar to play this game that the the big rich lawyers put into law, it might swing in your favor.

Pacman,

What a lousy way to make a living!

I don't have any experience with jury trials for eviction but I DO know the atty does not need to paid up front. Super easy to file and "attack" the LL. She is gambling that YOU have money to settle and include her fee, or you lose and pay her fee. She does not need money from the deadbeat.

Ask me how I know!

Thanks everyone for your response.

Robin [WI], the attorney will try to get LL to pay for her fee as part of settlement.

Kate [NJ], yes this is a bad trend. A simple no pay no stay case has been taken advantage of by crook lawyers like this one. Most likely it won't go to trial.

Brad20K [IN], true the attorney is gambling that I would settle. Since this tenant is Section8 and she has to move before her moving paper expire in 90 days (around end of November). I wonder if I should just keep filing motions to delay the case to wait for her to move out. Then case dismiss. No payment for attorney.

If this were to become a trend, I wonder if landlords would simply not pay.

I know the city can place a lien on the property but that lien will just sit there. I'm describing a mass disobedience.

Thank you everyone for your reply.

Smokowna [MD], not sure why you mentioned about lien and city. It's the tenant lawyer who wants to settle and get paid. Not the city.

Ken [NY], I have the exact same thought! If I pay the attorney for this case, she will want to do it again with my future eviction cases. Bad idea.

Not sure what county you are in, but in my county if the defendant claims they don't owe the money (pleads innocent) then they have to pay for the next court date, $127. Most deadbeats aren't willing to pony up the money to only gain some extra time. The follow-up court date is usually the next week so the deadbeat doesn't get much extra for this tactic.

Brad[IL], thanks for your response. I'm in Cook county (aka crook county) Chicago. Here, the deadbeats don't have to pay the court fee if they file a one page paper. It's only available to low income defendant, not plaintiff. Which county are you in? Your county sounds a lot more reasonable.

Ugh, sorry you are dealing with this. Makes me glad to be in TX - although I'm sure that could happen here as well, but most evictions here are pretty simple, as mentioned above "no pay, no stay."

Start filing is State Court. We all file in Magistrate AKA small claims court now. Just skip that and go right to State.

What is frivolous about the T’s demanding a jury trial? Under the applicable state law, is the T entitled to a jury? If so, what is frivolous about the demand?

Just because you don’t like it, and you in your “holier than thou” attitude feel that the T’s exercise of the T’s legal rights is “frivolous”, the T still has the legal right to exercise his/her legal rights to the fullest extent.

You and other LLs need to fight this attorney, force her to take her cases all the way to trial, force her to post jury fees, and prevail against her so that she cannot recover fees and costs. Right now, she is betting that you and your fellow LLs will cave in and pay her off. Until she faces a few counter-punchers who will escalate the litigation, tie her up, beat her up, and come after her and/or her clients for fees and costs, she will continue to mine this lucrative field.

I also recommend that you change your lease to provide for no fees and costs. I suspect that you are one of those LLs who have a lease provision that says that “LL can recover all of LL’s fees and costs.” Me, mine says “Each party shall bear his own fees and costs.” If your courts will enforce this, my clause discourages lawyers from taking the case.

Just to add a little info, there is no flat rate eviction in IL.

Asking for a jury trail, although legal of course, is just drawing out the timeline and buying the T time and therefore adding expense. it's not like the courts are fast now.

I agree with Mike45, she is going to have to eat a bunch of time and money or why would she stop?

The biggest problem we IL landlords face is that Chicago has it's own set of rules...and then there is the rest of us. And it's a big state, folks.

So, the greatest block of land owners with the highest rentals are not joined with those of downstate.

Thank you for your reply.

Emily [TX], If I could turn back time, I would start my LL business in Texas. The law is more fair. No pay = No stay. Nobody is cheating anyone.

myob [GA], Are you suggesting to take this case to federal? It's a minor civil case of non-payment. I don't think you could escalate any cases to federal level.

don [PA], totally agree.

I had a tenant file for a jury trial. i have a clause in my lease that says the tenant waives jury trial. So when they had the hearing about the jury trial, my lawyer argued that the tenant had already waived the right. The judge ruled in our favor. Don't know if that would work in your state.

I think I agree with some of the others though. I wouldn't settle. And I would change my lease to read that you each pay your own legal fees.

PAC no not at all. There are 3 courts-- magistrate, state and superior courts. yes all in the same building. NOT Federal.

Magistrate or small claims is what we (LL's) use because its easy. There is nothing to keep you from filing in STATE court or aka higher court.

FYI most don't realize any decision made by say Magistrate court can be appealed to State-- good ol USA. Not saying the State Court judges are smarter but THEY ARE. They know all the ins and outs of these types of atty's and don't stand for it in their court.

I would not visit the lawyer.

this is a game in california too.

the atty has the tenant assign the attorneys fees and damages in the case to them and they work on what equates to a contingency with an eye toward YOU paying them.