Heads up Indiana LLs!

A law was passed in 2022 to SEAL evictions (remove them from public view).

Our judge has started this on our last 2 evictions. Their free attys asked for it. Judge actually dismissed the case and sealed the record so now we must pay again and serve again to re-file for what they owe.

Now when YOU look up the deadbeats I evicted that eviction may or may not appear. Not sure how widespread this will be.

This is a HUGE detriment to accurate screening. And a slap in the face to the people who pay their rent or cooperate to avoid court.

Apparently too many people were having a hard time finding housing after being evicted.

World's gone crazy!

BRAD

Sounds like it is spreading.

Ken,

That's just it - the case is removed from the county records even when dismissed.

I assume it will not show on a CR when SEALED.

BTW CRs do not always report Small Claims cases due to lack of accuracy on the part of the courts.

Yup, similar to other states not being able to consider eviction.

This MIGHT be a reaction to the Princeton Eviction Report a few years back which showed Indiana having a high number of evictions (because it's easy and quick here!)

Like Roseanna Roseanna Danna said "If it's not one thing it's another."

Brad, what was the stated reason the judge gave "Judge actually dismissed the case..."? Is there a way to handle the situation to avoid the dismissal?

It is my understanding by law a dismissed case is one way they can get the filing sealed. There are a couple things with this law, one is they have to ask for it to get sealed it doesn't happen automatically. And if there is any money owed to the landlord by judgement it can't be sealed until that is all taken care of.

We haven't ever been able to see evictions. In all my years of running credit reports I've only seen one or two evictions on credit or criminal records, I only remember one, from Florida. And she had already told me about it.

Covid showed us precisely what the Govt is willing to do. I see some or all of the following now necessary for IN LLs:

1) Increase minimum credit score requirements.

2) Maximum security deposits allowed by law.

3) No more first time renters....ever. Coupled with verification of paid rent for at least the past 12 months from current landlord.

4) Minimum of 1 full year on the job.

5) Charge more so-called "junk fees" (move in fees, lock fees, cleaning fees, leasing fees, etc) to all tenants to help offset the losses caused by the bad ones.

The more they remove screening tools from us, the harder we have to use the ones still available to us.

Other options:

* Move your investment money to a state like Missouri, where we still believe in private property rights and the ability of landlords to run their business without undue Govt shenanigans.

* Forget residential rentals and just do rent to own. Do I still think those deals are ultimately bad for most renters? Yep, I still do. But the Govt is backing LLs into a corner. Won't be able to rent to anyone any more unless it's RTO with a HEFTY fee up front to cover any expenses down the road.

* Consider commercial real estate. They sky is the limit on creativity here. Plus you can make "homeowner" a requirement, in which case they would have to be foreclosed on... otherwise, you can attach any lien secured to their real estate. Can't do that with residential renters.

* Consider self-storage. In my state, there's no eviction necessary. The day rent is late, I can lock them out of their unit, mail and post the required notices, and if they fail to respond in time (21 days if I'm on my game), sell all their junk to recoup the lost rent and cleaning expenses, and get a new renter.

I was in the hood back in the days before Al Gore invented the internet....our LL association had a connection to a clerk in the court. The "eviction list" was collected from a friendly clerk and distributed to the LLs in the association.

Credit report will be next. They are racist, you know, with bad reports most common with POCs so they disproportionately affect POC .... and I don't know if that is true or not. I just made it up, but the government makes things up all the time, so that is most likely the reason they will give.

Wasn't aware of this so looking at it a little right now.

From what I see it can only be sealed in cases where an eviction was filed but an eviction order was not granted, the case was dismissed, or the eviction order was overturned on appeal.

If that is the case then the tenant either didn't do anything wrong or they worked something out so the eviction did not proceed.

Please give details on your two cases so that maybe the rest of us in Indiana can be better prepared.

Not to say to you RED areas, we told you so, but we told you so! Creeping incrementalism. The Left NEVER stops marching. They get their way and then say "it's a good start." ™

It's coming to a neighborhood near you.

NE: Until they make collecting more than one month's sec dep illegal like they've done in NYS.

Looking a little deeper.

Section 32-31-11-1 - Applicability

3(b) This chapter does not apply to a hearing for damages in an eviction action in which a judgment has been awarded.

So, being a non-lawyer type I am reading this as they can not seal the eviction if they owe for damages.

And then they wonder why rents keep going up. This is a hidden risk that LLs must account for by building it into their rent prices for ALL tenants.

Zero/Scott, Until the Legal Aid types object and it is ALL sealed. Again, creeping incrementalism. This is the "first step" ™ or a "good start" ™ in increasing tenant protections.

I get that WMH, but this is the very first thing I do when screening.

Right now it seems to only be allowed when the tenant is found not guilty. That is fine and I understand it.

If/When it changes it will not be good.

I can see all statewide cases easily and for free. I ask if there are any pending or completed evictions. If they lie I DQ then right then. If they say yes I look to see if they had a large damages amount owed to the LL. Large amounts are a no go for me. If it was a small amount and it was paid back in a timely manner then I move forward and see what else I find in the application. Some LL's will file eviction just to get the place back. Maybe it really was so a family member could live there. Getting that glimpse is beneficial.

In my area I do not get many people from out of state, although the last tenants I accepted were from VA.

Wmh: Of course screening is more involved than looking at eviction records but to say it's not that big of a deal is what got us to where we are in the first place nationwide.

Boiling frog syndrome.

Didn't have access here all the time either, but we do now and it is a pretty nice thing now.

We didn't used to have cell phones, but now we do and I would not like to lose that valuable tool.

I'm sorry that you do not have court access like I do. Maybe you can start a campaign for it. Saves time and money for sure.

One minute looking the person up vs running a store bought background check makes sense to me.

We've had internet access to court records since the 90's.

Quick guess 70% of our paid applicants are denied with our first free step - evictions on court records.

A sealed eviction will not affect their Credit Report, so they can have a high score AND multiple evictions.

OUr app asks about evictions. Often when we tell folks they were denied due to evictions on public court records they truly are confused. Perhaps they moved out or the boyfriend never told her.

Dismissed: we use eviction to regain legal possession and avoid the res claiming they were not done moving out.

One gal still had leftover stuff in the home, had not turned in her keys, and not replied by text when we asked if she was out. She whined that she had moved out so the judge dismissed - no need for eviction. We asked for eviction for the legal possession aspect but he ignored us.

We asked him to set the damages hearing and he said "We're all done here." So we have to refile, pay, serve...again.

Basically the same on #2.

BRAD

Brad, This post is not the Brad I know. Brad comes with solutions to problems. Switching it up to survive. This law is a good law, the ones that don't want to do the extra work will not get sealed. You said it yourself if there is an eviction found during the application you throw it out. What if one of your kids messed up would you want an eviction to follow them to the end of time? I believe it was Jeffrey that said once, some of his best residents have an eviction on their record. There is a lot more to marketing and screening than this one item.

For your dismissals you may need professional advice on how to avoid that or if the Judge is wrong your going to have to figure out how to let him/her know. You are the one that taught us to communicate with the local judges.

I would love for Jeffrey to respond, I have an idea on what he would say and it would end with I am Jeffrey and I am your friend.

Thanks Brad/zero. I haven't done an eviction since before covid. This is a new wrinkle that I will have to be prepared for. Tenants and their free lawyers claiming in court that tenant has already moved out, then asking the judge to dismiss and seal the case.

J, an eviction is not someone messing up. EVERYONE messes up sometime. An eviction is much more of an attitude issue: you messed up, now will you attempt to fix it? You could - you could leave. Instead, you wait to be evicted, dragging it on, no thoughts for the person you are hurting with your actions.

If you can't pay the rent, move. You are going to have to move anyway - move now.

Brad, here I thought your judge was chummy and more pro LL.

This doesn't seem like a problem to me. The law states that it can be sealed in specific circumstances: when the "eviction action was dismissed, ruled in favor of the tenant, or overturned."

So, basically, if the landlord wins, then it stays there. If they don't, then it doesn't.

I get that there are weird cases where a legit case gets "dismissed" now and then but, in general, this seems reasonable to me.

Heck, if someone sues me and loses, I might be in favor of having those records sealed too. Not my fault someone sued me if they were wrong...

In any case, I think lots of people in this thread thought it meant that actual successful evictions were being sealed by this law. That isn't accurate.

Our state records are not sealed.

But if you use a national clearing house and credit screening company, those same evictions on the state website do not show up.

I checked online court records. I can see an eviction/dismissal for a tenant that paid me everything owed 14 years ago. She stayed for another 10 years after that.

MrLandlord has partnered with a debt collection agency that boasts one of the highest success rates in the industry . While their success rate consistently beats national averages, please understand that they may not collect from every debtor. However, the mark on the debtor's credit report remains visible for other owners to see. And there is the chance that once the debt is put on the tenant's credit report, I have personally had resident's get back with me one, two, three years or more later wanting to pay off the debt because they were now ready to buy a house, but could not do so until the debt was clear.

John, he mentioned having to file again for the damages hearing. In Indiana the eviction and damages hearings are filed at the same time, just not the same day.

If there were no damages then fine, case dismissed. If there were damages and he had to re-file then that is more money charged to the ex-tenant.

To clarify - even if the LL wins an eviction it can be sealed for no one to see.

The OLD judge was logical and would speak to our assoc every year. The new one just makes stuff up.

The old judge agreed with me that if ONE court eviction shows, that person has probably been "evicted" 2-3 more times without court.

Recently a defendant paid off her $2000 judgment over time so he sealed HER record from before 2022 when the law was passed.

Positive solutions: Require 1-2 year records as proof of rent payment. Not sure my applicants are savvy enough to get this done. We have enough trouble just getting their IDs and paystubs that show on their phone.

You can make a comment on Twitter that can haunt you years later because the internet never forgets, but you can owe $5000 to a LL and it disappears.

My fear is it GIVES deadbeats another tool to cheat.

BRAD

"My fear is it GIVES deadbeats another tool to cheat."

This has hit many states. Some reps are trying it in Penna but I don't think it will fly here.

This has hit many states. Some reps are trying it in Penna but I don't think it will fly here.

Brad: What you are saying does not line up to the law that you are talking about.

The law states that they can be sealed in very specific instances: "eviction action was dismissed, ruled in favor of the tenant, or overturned"

You are saying that you can WIN and your judge is somehow sealing those records. Again, that does not line up with the Indiana law that you mentioned.

If you have a rogue judge doing whatever he pleases and ignoring the law, then that is a very different issue than complaining about a law that doesn't allow what you say is happening.

That's a JUDGE problem, not a LAW problem.

Someone shared at a MrLL convention several years ago that they require the applicant's CURRENT lease with their rental application. Genius. You get their current LL's contact info and lease terms, current address, you know whether they're breaking their lease in the middle, etc.

That is a splendid idea. I have heard it before but never implemented it.

That is bad news what Brad is reporting for sure. I am now curious as to what Brad is going to have to refile, a small claim for damages or what?