Thread for when someone on the other side does something good

[DQ12]

I had a pro bono client who represented himself and won his eviction case. If cat's stats (TM) are true, that is a rare result. Still, the slumlord continued to pursue him, and that's where we came into the case. We whipped the slumlord's ass pretty good, if I do say so myself. But most poor people don't have access to a white-shoe law firm and just throw up their hands and give up, flee, move, etc.

I'm a little dubious about whether most landlords are using "white-shoe law firms" for eviction proceedings.  EDIT - nvm i misread.  your tenant had the white shoe law firm.  not the slumlord.

But speaking of Cat's Stats, he said between 51-75% of self-represented tenants lost their case.  if something like 40ish% of self-represented tenants are winning, it doesn't really seem that rare.  .  Especially when you factor in the logical self-selection element (if you know you ought to be evicted, there's less of a chance of you showing up to court, getting representation, etc.).

[catastrophe]

FTR - not my stats. But I have no reason to dispute them. But fair point about the result of actual disputes being less skewed when you consider there will be a number of tenants who simply disappeared and would not show up at all, much less hire an attorney.

[steve dave]

I'm actually shocked that ~40% of tenants win these lawsuits. I would have assumed more than 60% were in the wrong and just mad. color me impressed with 40% of evicted tenants.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless

[Spracne]

I'm actually shocked that ~40% of tenants win these lawsuits. I would have assumed more than 60% were in the wrong and just mad. color me impressed with 40% of evicted tenants.

At least in big cities with diverse jury pools, I think jury nullification becomes more prevalent. People don't like slumlords, and they are a very real occurrence. I mean, my guy had mold growing over every porous surface in his place because there was a hole in the roof, so every time in rained, it rained inside ...

[Spracne]

Including things like child seats. I'm sure this is a common occurrence across the country. I mean hell, I've experienced it myself in my salad days.

[Fedor]

Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless

What are you talking about?  They live there until the case is decided.

[michigancat]

But speaking of Cat's Stats, he said between 51-75% of self-represented tenants lost their case.  if something like 40ish% of self-represented tenants are winning, it doesn't really seem that rare.  .  Especially when you factor in the logical self-selection element (if you know you ought to be evicted, there's less of a chance of you showing up to court, getting representation, etc.).

An alternative takeaway from that is that a crazy number of eviction cases must be utter bullshit, and there's a good chance that people who were threatened eviction would have a decent chance in court. I don't think people who don't fight their case in court necessarily have worse cases - they might not understand the system or not be able to take off work or going to court is really scary (it should be obvious, but a trial can be financially catastrophic to the working poor who is most impacted by evictions)

Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless

What are you talking about?  They live there until the case is decided.

well they probably won't in Florida now that this bill passed

[Spracne]

But speaking of Cat's Stats, he said between 51-75% of self-represented tenants lost their case.  if something like 40ish% of self-represented tenants are winning, it doesn't really seem that rare.  .  Especially when you factor in the logical self-selection element (if you know you ought to be evicted, there's less of a chance of you showing up to court, getting representation, etc.).

An alternative takeaway from that is that a crazy number of eviction cases must be utter bullshit, and there's a good chance that people who were threatened eviction would have a decent chance in court. I don't think people who don't fight their case in court necessarily have worse cases - they might not understand the system or not be able to take off work or going to court is really scary (it should be obvious, but a trial can be financially catastrophic to the working poor who is most impacted by evictions)

Of those ~40% who win their cases I’m curious to know what percentage of them were able to find some sort of housing in the interim and how many were just straight up out on their ass homeless

What are you talking about?  They live there until the case is decided.

well they probably won't in Florida now that this bill passed

eff yeah it can. Also catastrophic for everyone, including "billionaires."

[michigancat]

I was referring to just taking a couple days off work or finding child care or whatever to merely "show up" but yeah

[LickNeckey]

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/07/russian-propaganda-republican-party-mike-turner

[Kat Kid]

Well you’re using a different meaning of “legal” than me because evicting a rightful tenant subjects the landlord to damages, 3x rent, attorneys fees, and perjury charges.

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/621/billtext/er/pdf

The ACLU reports that 81% of landlords are represented in eviction court proceedings, compared to 3% of renters. Studies show that “between 51 percent and 75 percent of tenants without legal representation lost their case in court.”

Did you miss my point about how the new law includes a fee shifting provision when a tenant is removed from the property? Attorneys would be happy to take that case with no cash up front. Not so much if a tenant is in a bona fide legal dispute with a landlord.

If you think landlords have a massive advantage in traditional eviction proceedings (which I don’t disagree with), you would think they would much prefer that route over utilizing the anti-squatting law, which is exactly the policy you’ve been advocating for ITT.

I think you are overestimating how excited lawyers would get about a 3x rent plus attorney fee judgement, but even if we started seeing billboards to drum up business there are plenty of people who wouldn’t be able to do it because they couldn’t take off work, too scared, etc as mich pointed out.

There is an incredible amount of wage theft in this country and even when the worker knows they are being ripped off they don’t do anything because they are worried about their job. Losing your housing is very scary so people put up with incredibly bad situations for the most part. This should not be surprising.

[catastrophe]

I mean, there are a bunch of attorneys going around suing soda companies because their label says "preservative free" even though it contains citric acid--A KNOWN PRESERVATIVE. Those guys are really just chasing a right to collect their own fees. The same type of attorney would be happy to take a case that is (i) expedited, and (ii) won simply by showing your guy had a lease.

I don't take exception with anything in your second point, other than to say the anti-squatter law we've been talking about does not move the needle in either direction to make that situation better or worse. Obviously the tenant's hand is forced to act if they get kicked out of their own home by a landlord willing to perjure themselves.