This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Home   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Article Library
Blog Home All Blogs

District of Columbia Updates Eviction Legislation

Posted By USFN, Tuesday, February 14, 2023

By Regina M.Slowey, Esq.

Orlans PC*

USFN Member (DC, DE, FL, MD, MA, MI, NH, PA, RI, VA)

 

            The District of Columbia has instituted significant changes to its eviction process.  Introduced first in the Fairness in Renting Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2022, the emergency legislation was originally temporary and then adopted in the permanent statute (see links below for full text of Emergency, Temporary, and Permanent versions). 

            For former owner occupied property, the changes are minimal. The most significant change involves service by posting, which affects all properties regardless of occupancy status.  If a notice is served by posting a copy on the premises, a photograph of the posted notice must be submitted to the court, and the photograph must include a readable timestamp that indicates the date and time of when the summons was posted. Failure to provide the court with this evidence will result in dismissal of the action. D.C. Code § 42–3505.01(a)(2) and (a)(4)(C). Though it is always best practice to have timestamped (and geo-tagged) photographs of posted service, this legislation not only requires it, but provides for dismissal (“The Court shall dismiss…” D.C. Code § 42–3505.01(a)(4)(C), emphasis added) if not filed with the entry package. 

            The most significant changes, however, affect tenant occupied property. For the time being, there are very specific requirements necessary to proceed in a nonpayment of rent claim against a tenant. These requirements are detailed in a court supplied Checklist (see link below) that must be filed with the entry package and reviewed by the presiding judge prior to the first hearing. Currently, a nonpayment of rent claim may only be filed against tenants who owe more than $600 in rent, and on properties which have been registered with the District. However, in order to register the property or to obtain a writ for a tenant owned property, the plaintiff must hold a Basic Business License issued by the newly created Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection. As a threshold matter, to obtain the Basic Business License, the plaintiff must certify it does not owe more than $100 to the District. This is a very difficult certification for foreclosing lenders, as fines and assessments pop up daily and without notice, and has proven to be a non-starter in most situations. Work with your foreclosure counsel to determine options, as some options to liquidate the asset do exist. Though some of the provisions of the Emergency/Temporary legislation will sunset naturally in July (for example, the $600 minimum rent requirement), the Business License Requirement to obtain the Writ is in the permanent legislation.

            There are exceptions to the Business License Requirement, and those are listed on the Writ Verification Form (see below for link), submitted with the request for Writ. The exceptions aside from a non bona fide tenant are for commercial tenancy, a terminated cooperative member, and a foreclosed homeowner. It may be possible in some circumstances (such as illegal activity as the basis of default) to request an “Other” exception from the court at the Writ stage as well. 

      

·       For the Checklist required for proceeding with Non-payment of Rent actions:  Checklist-Supplement-for-NPR-Cases.pdf (dccourts.gov)

·       For the Writ Verification included in the permanent legislation, required to be filed in order to proceed with a Writ in any eviction (commercial, former owner, non-bona fide occupant, or tenant):  Writ Verification

·       For the text of the D.C. Act 24-307. Fairness in Renting Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2022 (expired April 2022, but has the easiest to follow changes to the process):  Here

·       For the text of D.C. Code § 42–3505.01. Evictions (expires on July 26, 2023):  Here

·       For the text of this Permanent legislation:  Here

 

Copyright @2023

USFN e-Update - February 2023

Tags:  #DC  #Evictions 

PermalinkComments (0)
 

In Illinois, Fees Charged by Associations and Management Companies May See Some Scrutiny

Posted By USFN, Thursday, July 28, 2022

By Michael J. Anselmo, Esq.

Codilis & Associates, P.C. *

USFN Member (IL)

 

If you mention associations and management companies related to fees to an Illinois practitioner, you will likely cause them inner turmoil. For years, associations and related management companies have been charging what many real estate practitioners and unit owners perceive to be exorbitant fees for the release of documents that are required upon resale of a unit by Section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act (the “Act”). Any objection to these fees often causes unnecessary delays for a real estate closing – sometimes lasting months. Associations and their management companies have largely gone unchecked and held transactions hostage with this power. Recently, through case law and legislative action, some movement has been made in the direction of protections for owners and purchasers.

 

Channon v. Westward Management, Inc.

 

These excessive fees and delays were at the center of the issue in Channon v. Westward Management, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 210176, where a condominium unit owner filed suit against a property manager for same. Here, the Plaintiff alleged that $150 for a paid assessment letter, $20 for a budget income statement, and $75 for a condo questionnaire were arbitrary and excessive.[1] Defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Section 22.1 of the Act was intended to protect prospective purchasers and, also, did not govern charges by property managers – only those charged by associations and boards.

  

Unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument, the trial court certified the following question to the appellate court: “Whether the Act provides an implied cause of action in favor of a condominium unit seller against a property manager, as agent of the condominium association or board of directors, based on allegations that the property manager charged excessive fees for the production of information to be disclosed to a prospective buyer under that statute.” The appellate court allowed review and held that such implied cause of action exists.

 

While the ruling does not necessarily provide a clear limit on what associations and their management companies may charge, it should give them pause. Whereas it was previously unclear whether a seller of a unit could bring a cause of action for such fees, the appellate court made it clear that they now can.

 

Condominium Property Act – House Bill 5246

 

Coincidentally (or maybe not), House Bill 5246 was passed into law on May 27, 2022. It changes the Act with respect to providing information to a prospective buyer by a unit owner. It requires that the principal officer of the unit owner’s association or other designated officer shall provide the information within 10 business days, rather than 30 days, of the request by the prospective purchaser. It also changes the fee to be imposed on the unit owner from “a reasonable fee” to “a reasonable fee not to exceed $375” covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing and copying the information. An association may also charge an additional $100 for rush service completed within 72 hours.



[1] Interestingly, these fees are lower than what many other associations and management companies charge for similar documents.

 

Copyright @2022

USFN Summer Report

Tags:  #Evictions  #IL  #REO  #StateReport 

PermalinkComments (0)
 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal