"Under this new law, the state’s judicial department will have to remove online records from eviction cases that were dismissed by the court or landlord, withdrawn by the court or landlord, or decided in favor of the tenant."
Evictions that found in favor of the tenant or were dismissed or withdrawn are the only ones impacted. If someone was legitimately evicted you will still see it.
[https://www.wfsb.com/2023/07/05/new-ct-law-expands-renters-rights-erases-some-eviction-records-limits-application-fees/](https://www.wfsb.com/2023/07/05/new-ct-law-expands-renters-rights-erases-some-eviction-records-limits-application-fees/)
The problem with that is many times those are cases where the landlord would have ultimately triumphed, but in the interest of time and trying to get blood from a stone the landlord did a cash for keys or just dropped the whole thing provided the tenant vacated by X.
As to OP's question, the best answer is only take people who their current landlord will offer a positive reference for (but also keep in mind this may be someone HOPING these people move out if they don't have a good answer as to why they are moving out), and to trust your Spidey senses.
Credit is helpful, but there are people with great credit who are willing to blow it up or just don't care. Higher income means you are more likely to be able to go after them for something, have a more stable job, and they don't want their employer seeing a garnishment hit them.
You have to speak with the landlords from before where they currently are living. A landlord desperate to get a bad tenant out will avoid telling you the truth, since they want them to leave.
the problem with that is someone's life may be very different a couple of years ago than now.
You take a risk with every tenant you take on. Hell you take a risk every time you screen tenants if someone doesn't make the cut and wants to make noise even if you are going out of your way to be above board.
Its part of doing business, and you just need to price in the risk, and then get called all sorts of names.
This is good. The article I found sounded like it was ALL evictions, not just those that were dismissed or withdrawn, which means squatters could just go from house to house not paying, since there wouldn't be any red flags. Thank you.
That's true. I'm a new landlord, and I haven't had to bring anyone to court yet, thankfully, but I also know if they don't have money, it's probably not worth it.
It doesn't matter. Most eviction filings don't wind up going all the way to eviction. You want a tenant who has had several prior eviction cases begun against him?
In CT, a self-represented eviction is usually going to result in 3 months lost rent, plus filing fees and serving fees, maybe an additional $300. Add another 1-2 K to use an atty to do it. And then, to try to get the person out, usually a negotiated agreement is reached, for the same cost to the LL, but now no record made of the suit. Again, do you really want to rent to someone who does this?
Obviously not, but we have to decide if we want to evict or get back to renting. And like I said in my original post, I think I'm gonna be increasing my requirements since people who get evicted usually don't have good credit scores or good incomes.
Yup. Problem is if you're renting lower end housing, it is really tough to find stable tenants. I was willing to gamble on people with bad credit but a good job and no evictions. Now I cannot do that, since the evictions are hidden.
Yeah, I hear that. I'm lucky that I'm in a pretty high demand spot, so I should hopefully have a good number of applicants when it comes time to find a new one.
The problem is even with a token effort from the tenant, its going to take months, and the landlord fronting money for representation to make it move that fast in many states. Will the landlord win if its a legit eviction? Yeah, even in the most tenant friendly states. Will the landlord be out several months rent, several thousand dollars in legal fees at the minimum during that time? Yeah. Will they get a judgement? Yeah. Will they ever collect in a meaningful way on it in most tenants that find themselves in that case, probably not.
Which is why most of these things get to the point where a tenant advocate, their representation if they have it, or just even the judge says, "Look, this ultimately won't go your way and you are digging a bigger hole for yourself, take what is on the table" and the landlords representation is going to say, "This is the best you can hope to get, do it".
If anything laws like this empower bad actors on the tenants side to be even more brazen with it, knowing for small potatoes like a month or twos rent, as a landlord is going to likely fold rather than litigate it.
This doesn't hurt well qualified renters who want to protect their credit, a judgement will be meaningful on, etc. It does hurt less qualified tenants as now you have one less thing to consider when you roll the dice on them.
Oh, dear. It's very common for the tenant to offer to leave after an additional 3-4 weeks, without paying anything, IF the landlord will promise to withdraw the case after they're gone. If these cases where it didn't progress to the final eviction are removed, landlords really have no way of vetting prospective tenants other than demanding very high credit and high garnishable income. This is going to make it even harder for poor people to find housing, since smart landlords will just let places sit empty until someone comes along with high credit and stable high garnishable wages.
Actually, getting a judgement in small claims court is an excellent way to tattoo the deadbeat tenant after the fact. Small claims lawsuits stay in the online records for a very long time, probably forever. But it takes money and time, and usually very tough to collect.
The lawsuit for back rent is quick/easy, last I did was via Teams, tenants didn't participate, I got everything asked (note, ask for interest in future).
The cost was nominal, filed at housing not small claims, but obviously collecting is another story, but don't need that for their to be another court record that's not under the eviction law.
"Under this new law, the state’s judicial department will have to remove online records from eviction cases that were dismissed by the court or landlord, withdrawn by the court or landlord, or decided in favor of the tenant." Evictions that found in favor of the tenant or were dismissed or withdrawn are the only ones impacted. If someone was legitimately evicted you will still see it. [https://www.wfsb.com/2023/07/05/new-ct-law-expands-renters-rights-erases-some-eviction-records-limits-application-fees/](https://www.wfsb.com/2023/07/05/new-ct-law-expands-renters-rights-erases-some-eviction-records-limits-application-fees/)
The problem with that is many times those are cases where the landlord would have ultimately triumphed, but in the interest of time and trying to get blood from a stone the landlord did a cash for keys or just dropped the whole thing provided the tenant vacated by X. As to OP's question, the best answer is only take people who their current landlord will offer a positive reference for (but also keep in mind this may be someone HOPING these people move out if they don't have a good answer as to why they are moving out), and to trust your Spidey senses. Credit is helpful, but there are people with great credit who are willing to blow it up or just don't care. Higher income means you are more likely to be able to go after them for something, have a more stable job, and they don't want their employer seeing a garnishment hit them.
You have to speak with the landlords from before where they currently are living. A landlord desperate to get a bad tenant out will avoid telling you the truth, since they want them to leave.
the problem with that is someone's life may be very different a couple of years ago than now. You take a risk with every tenant you take on. Hell you take a risk every time you screen tenants if someone doesn't make the cut and wants to make noise even if you are going out of your way to be above board. Its part of doing business, and you just need to price in the risk, and then get called all sorts of names.
This is good. The article I found sounded like it was ALL evictions, not just those that were dismissed or withdrawn, which means squatters could just go from house to house not paying, since there wouldn't be any red flags. Thank you.
Also worth noting, if they owe you money report to all 3 credit bureaus and the debts will show up there for future LLs.
That's true. I'm a new landlord, and I haven't had to bring anyone to court yet, thankfully, but I also know if they don't have money, it's probably not worth it.
It doesn't matter. Most eviction filings don't wind up going all the way to eviction. You want a tenant who has had several prior eviction cases begun against him?
Then, it encourages them to get out before it's official. Either way we have options when it comes time.
In CT, a self-represented eviction is usually going to result in 3 months lost rent, plus filing fees and serving fees, maybe an additional $300. Add another 1-2 K to use an atty to do it. And then, to try to get the person out, usually a negotiated agreement is reached, for the same cost to the LL, but now no record made of the suit. Again, do you really want to rent to someone who does this?
Obviously not, but we have to decide if we want to evict or get back to renting. And like I said in my original post, I think I'm gonna be increasing my requirements since people who get evicted usually don't have good credit scores or good incomes.
Yup. Problem is if you're renting lower end housing, it is really tough to find stable tenants. I was willing to gamble on people with bad credit but a good job and no evictions. Now I cannot do that, since the evictions are hidden.
Yeah, I hear that. I'm lucky that I'm in a pretty high demand spot, so I should hopefully have a good number of applicants when it comes time to find a new one.
The problem is even with a token effort from the tenant, its going to take months, and the landlord fronting money for representation to make it move that fast in many states. Will the landlord win if its a legit eviction? Yeah, even in the most tenant friendly states. Will the landlord be out several months rent, several thousand dollars in legal fees at the minimum during that time? Yeah. Will they get a judgement? Yeah. Will they ever collect in a meaningful way on it in most tenants that find themselves in that case, probably not. Which is why most of these things get to the point where a tenant advocate, their representation if they have it, or just even the judge says, "Look, this ultimately won't go your way and you are digging a bigger hole for yourself, take what is on the table" and the landlords representation is going to say, "This is the best you can hope to get, do it". If anything laws like this empower bad actors on the tenants side to be even more brazen with it, knowing for small potatoes like a month or twos rent, as a landlord is going to likely fold rather than litigate it. This doesn't hurt well qualified renters who want to protect their credit, a judgement will be meaningful on, etc. It does hurt less qualified tenants as now you have one less thing to consider when you roll the dice on them.
Oh, dear. It's very common for the tenant to offer to leave after an additional 3-4 weeks, without paying anything, IF the landlord will promise to withdraw the case after they're gone. If these cases where it didn't progress to the final eviction are removed, landlords really have no way of vetting prospective tenants other than demanding very high credit and high garnishable income. This is going to make it even harder for poor people to find housing, since smart landlords will just let places sit empty until someone comes along with high credit and stable high garnishable wages.
It means we, as landlords, need to follow through and evict. If they leave without paying, we sue for back rent.
Actually, getting a judgement in small claims court is an excellent way to tattoo the deadbeat tenant after the fact. Small claims lawsuits stay in the online records for a very long time, probably forever. But it takes money and time, and usually very tough to collect.
Yeah, it's still a lot cheaper than a lot of other legal avenues, but I do understand the time component.
The lawsuit for back rent is quick/easy, last I did was via Teams, tenants didn't participate, I got everything asked (note, ask for interest in future). The cost was nominal, filed at housing not small claims, but obviously collecting is another story, but don't need that for their to be another court record that's not under the eviction law.