Has anyone in states with continually extended eviction moratoriums contacted a really good attorney regarding violation of the 5th ammendment?

I would imagine an excellent lawyer should be able to draft up a suit regarding the properties being taken for public use in the form of these moratoriums.

I'm no lawyer, but it sure seems like there would be a definite case for a class action suit in each state that has these.

Has anyone checked to see if any have already started?

I don't see how a state of emergency declaration can suspend this and continue to extend the suspension.

I read an article which said a lawyer in Calif had done this. Apparently his wife owned rentals and not receiving rent. He used the 5th, saying the govt has no right to interfere in contracts between individuals.

I read an article which said a lawyer in Calif had done this. Apparently his wife owned rentals and not receiving rent. He used the 5th, saying the govt has no right to interfere in contracts between individuals.

My first thought on this is this: Where are all of these excellent Landlord Associations that everyone is always talking about here? Why isn't your Association starting a Class Action suit if it is really just as easy as getting a good lawyer and doing it?

My second thought is: do you really think you can force them to open up courts? I mean, even if you win and concede that they can't prevent you from starting evictions, our local courthouse is simply closed for safety reasons. I don't see a lawyer being able to open a closed courthouse no matter how good he is.

I feel like the best you could do would be to win the battle and still lose the war. You'd have spent a bunch to prove a point only to have them go "Ok, you can file for eviction all you want, but the county clerk's office and courthouse are currently closed, so there is no one to process your request."

I don't think you'd be able to force people back into closed buildings -- especially ones that are closed for safety concerns.

- John...

NE, I think that it's ultimately a winnable case. However very few LLs are willing to spend the vast amount of money & time that it might take to initiate a suit & follow thru as it winds in way thru local, state, federal & perhaps even the supreme court. Currently in MA there are a few lawsuits that have been or are in the process of being filed in both state & federal court to have our current illegal (IMO) eviction moratorium overturned.

John, many courts are open yet still shut for evictions. My point isn't to file for eviction. My point is to sue the state for compensation due to the loss of rent and inability to evict as a violation of the 5th.

Eviction doesn't matter with that.

And even if the courts are closed, have this suit waiting for when they open.

John, many courts are open yet still shut for evictions. My point isn't to file for eviction. My point is to sue the state for compensation due to the loss of rent and inability to evict as a violation of the 5th.

Eviction doesn't matter with that.

And even if the courts are closed, have this suit waiting for when they open.

That's fine. I think you'd have a VERY hard time in court proving that this pandemic is "nonsense" and "overreaction."

I know you think it is obvious. I don't think a court or a jury of your peers would feel the same way.

I think the other side would point to the 4,000,000+ confirmed cases and the 150,000+ deaths in the USA and argue that closing public facilities was not an "over-reaction" nor "nonsense."

You could argue it all you wanted, of course, but I think you'd be unable to prove what you are saying here because it is mainly based on your opinion that this is all "nonsense." Most do not share your view. I doubt a judge would.

- John...

John…, I think you're bias in support of the hysteria is showing somewhat in your last post and is skirting around the fact that property is actually being taken for the public good without compensation. It's happening in a "gray area" type of reverse martial law. It's happening with MANY MANY things, not just evictions.

For the sake of the post, I'm looking at property being taken for the perceived greater good in the form of moratoriums at the expense of landlords with no restitution DIRECTLY to the property owners.

Now these are facts John. It's just a matter of if they'd stick.

And obviously, one would not approach the court with an attitude of the whole thing is nonsense and a scamdemic.

It would be approached from the point that property and/or property rights were taken away as a result of moratoriums without just compensation as it states clearly in the fifth amendment.

It really doesn't mater how you stand on the pandemic. It's a matter of our highest rule of law. Emergency orders can not supersede the Constitution, period.

I have only one tenant who has not paid full rent: we are missing $210 of their $1210 rent. I'm betting I'd have a hard time winning a lawsuit, even though our Governor's moratorium orders have expired and we can file summary ejectments again.

Right WMH, you aren't suffering major damages. I would imagine statewide, it would be a different story. It would also need many landlords together, one would most likely get crushed.

Some folks are out rent 6-7 month already with recent extensions now into October and who know when it'll stop. We all know most aren't going to see a dime of what is owed

JAC back in action again on apandemic thread. The Moshe of Covid!

These moratoriums are clearly take property for the greater good without just compensation to the landlord. PERIOD!

Ok... that wasn't otally off topic or anything.

Have you had an appraisal on that opinion of yours?

I'd like to know the market value of it.

Anyway, before we go any further down that rabbit hole, let's keep in ON TOPIC.

Please explain to the readers why you personally are ok with and support giving your apartments away for free until further notice.

NE, I don't see the eviction moratorium as a the taking of property without compensation. Have the moratoriums caused some Property owners harm? Yes.

I would think that "taking" is or could be subjective. Taking in this case would refer to taking control of your personal property in the form of the moratoriums.

As I see it, the non payment of the tenant causes the harm. Not the moratorium. Tenant owes the landlord, that fact isn't in question. I don't think Morattorium =5A violation case could prevail.

h t t p : / / law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

h t t p : / / law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm

There is an article on the Mr. LL FB page addressing which states have lawsuits filed. There are a variety of reasons. Check it out; it's very informative.

My 2 cents are it is better to take your time and screen renters carefully. That has ALWAYS been good advice. If you get good tenants who care about their reputation, who have good paying, stable jobs, then they will do everything in their power to pay you.

Thieves cheat all the time, not just when the Govt throws them a 6 month moratorium. I image the LLs having the worst problems right now are those who were slack on their screening standards. Sure, there are probably a few other isolate problems, but so far I am pleased to say that all of our tenants are paid up, on time, as agreed.

Next month might be different...will have to see.

On a personal level, yes, I think the Govt has overreached by slamming the doors shut on eviction court and failing to provide any solutions whatsoever. Rather than "shut it all down", there has to be a way to allow the situations to proceed. The lack of willingness to make creative solutions would surprise me except this is the Govt, and "We've always done it this way" is often their motto vs. there actually being a law requiring them to "do it this way." Govt inefficiency and lack of creativity is par for the course. Any business who failed to adapt would be bankrupt by now. Govt just promulgates rules "For the greater good" then ignores the collateral damage.

Of course the moratoriums have caused the harm when creating them removes any recourse the landlord has for mitigating their damages. It is akin to state sanctioned stealing- and don’t tell me rent isn’t cancelled or forgiven- not when the state also does not enforce payments in any way and allows people to walk away from their debts with no consequences.

Declaration of emergency does give the government the right to trample on our rights. It gave the president the power to require industries to retool to produce needed goods in WW2, and Trump had the right but businesses gladly volunteered to produce ventilators, masks, etc.

And Steve, "where are those Landlord Associations?" They're sitting back watching the world burn. The associations are formed and backed by the big rental operations who can ride out the storm so they can profit from a reduction in rental properties or wait for the next fire sale to snatch up properties for a fraction of their value.

LOTF, the emergency declarations among other laws can be put into effect anytime. Doesn't mean they don't violate constitutional rights. The constitution is there to check these acts, laws, ordinances against.

For example, the emergency declaration for my state was written in the 1950s. I probably sounded like a great deal at the time. What is it? Is it? It was most likely past and never challenged. I think it probably should be.

Countless businesses, landlords included, are getting crushed nationwide right now who under normal circumstances would be just fine. And just because that these are not normal circumstances, should not automatically mean that these businesses and landlords should have to foot the bill due to governmental decree.

We just won a lawsuit in an (open) courtroom in Ohio. We had to wear masks to enter the building. The magistrate sat 20' away from us up on his bench. The lawyer stood at the stand 10' away from both magistrate and us. It worked. Could this not be done for eviction court? For that matter, courts have heard cases via Zoom.

We just won a lawsuit in an (open) courtroom in Ohio. We had to wear masks to enter the building. The magistrate sat 20' away from us up on his bench. The lawyer stood at the stand 10' away from both magistrate and us. It worked. Could this not be done for eviction court? For that matter, courts have heard cases via Zoom.

I mentioned that aspect of it (being closed for safety reasons) because I think it would come up in a court case.

However, that isn't WHY evictions are currently stopped. It isn't because of safety in the courts, of course. According to the powers-that-be, it is because people can't work due to Covid and therefore can't pay their rent.

We can argue all day about whether or not that is true. Personally, I think it is true for some and not true for many. Likely a mix of all types of people in that situation.

But arguing about whether or not a court CAN open to do them probably doesn't matter much. Most of these moratoriums are clearly and obviously (and admittedly) based on the idea that some people CAN'T work and therefore CAN'T pay their rent and shouldn't be evicted for it. (Again, how abused that is is hard to say, but I would guess fairly widely abused with a sprinkle of some people really in dire straits.)

So, again, if you want to change things, arguing that a court COULD be open probably doesn't matter. You'd need be arguing against the idea of not evicting due to people being out of work due to Covid. True or not, THAT is the reason being given by those signing these moratorium orders.

- John...

John..., I 100% agree with you. My point is against the moratoriums and nothing to do with whether or not the courts are open.r

Small businesses are hurting and being closed down daily where I live due to government mandates. With our newest orders, in Pennsylvania MANY restaurants/bars are closed up and a good chance they won't be able to reopen. Many landlords will end up in the same boat as surely no one who has ever dealt with a tenant truly thinks that a tenant who hasn't paid in months and months will start to catch up and pay when their landlord will be able to evict when the warden says so.

Lets face it--- when they say it's not political-- well we know better don't we.

Nothing will happen until after Nov election. There are a lot more tenants than LL's so the vote counters are in full force.

A little history lesson. When the Revolution started it did concern the stationing of troops in homeowners dwellings where the owners had to feed and cloth the troops. Are tenants any different? Now there asking us "the public" to house people-- and not in the gov't properties. Here's why they say they can do it--- cause you don't really own that home. Remember you now have to prove you don't have a gov't back mortgage-- to even file for eviction there can be no type gov't loan. If no loan courts are closed so double whammy.

Here's a story to raise the hair on your neck. My sisters daughter and husband have an apt in Brooklyn NY. They had to move out in fear for 2 months out east to my sisters house with the 2 kids. Now they want to live at her house for 2 years!!!!!

Myob, you prove what I mean with housing the tenants. I know many pulling levers for the insanity. It's like the meme picture of the man watering the tree that grows to pull up the rope that's tied around his neck.

My sister in law fled NYC when this all started to the safety of the hills of NEPA and criticize us country folks.