On August 27, 2021, the US Supreme Court opened the floodgates for evictions throughout the United States in the case of Alabama Association of Realtors v. DHHS. 

Landlords, have you called your attorney yet to start the eviction process? 

Investors, are you ready for the housing market to swing because of a flood of inventory? 

Tenants, have you started to make moving arrangements and tried to settle your arrears for less money? 

Wow, can you feel that tsunami coming? 

Make no mistake, this is the first domino to fall in our housing market's shift into a buyer's market on fundamentals. Are you ready? 

For the legal context of what transpired, the CDC had issued a moratorium on evictions in counties with substantial or high levels of COVID-19, which we explained here. That moratorium was thrown-out by the District Court for the District of Columbia, but that Court knew that the issue would get to the Supreme Court so they stayed (a/k/a, paused) the effectiveness of their Order overturning the moratorium until the Supreme Court could weigh-in, which we explained here. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed-in and the eviction moratorium is ineffective, unlawful, and unenforceable. 

To be clear, the Supreme Court did not weigh-in on the policy of an eviction moratorium. They didn't rule as to whether it is a good idea, good policy, or needed for our country. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled "that the statute on which the CDC relies does not grant it the authority it claims." In plain language, the eviction moratorium was thrown-out because the CDC's basis for imposing the moratorium does not afford it that power.

You see, Executive Branch agencies, like the CDC, can't do whatever they want. They need power before they act, which comes from Congress. Without that power, they can't do anything. They can't issue regulations, rules, or directives. This power, called an enabling statute, was missing from the eviction moratorium, according to the Supreme Court, which explained that the power relied upon by the CDC was meant "to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination," not eviction moratoriums. According to the Supreme Court, "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends." 

Knowing that, you should be wondering if Congress will act and impose its own eviction moratorium? 

For landlords, investors, and tenants that is a really important question given that the Supreme Court acknowledged, in its decision, that "[a]t least 80% of the country, including between 6 and 17 million tenants at risk of eviction, [fell] within the moratorium." 

However, we doubt that Congress will issue another moratorium because it can't get anything done with its division in the Senate. Further, the Supreme Court reminded Congress, in its decision, that a federal "moratorium intrudes into an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship." 

As a result, evictions are about to flood the court systems. Are you ready for the eviction tsunami? 

A new NYS law permits tenants who did not occupy a foreclosure premises at the time of the commencement of the foreclosure lawsuit to remain in occupancy for the remainder of their lease term, up to a maximum of 3 years. 

This new law gives tenants greater protection in the event that they happen to occupy a home subject to a foreclosure action, prior to their possession. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused so much chaos, disruption, and hardship to families across this nation (and the world for that matter) and the ability for families to be able to remain in a rental dwelling that is being foreclosed upon for at least the remainder of their lease and up to a maximum of 3 years, can give these families some relief and afford them a little more time to figure out their next move. 

On the other hand, this law could create delays in the purchase and sale of residential homes due to a tenant's ability to remain at a foreclosed home as referenced above. 

Would you even want to buy a house from foreclosure anymore? 

Do you support the new law that gives tenants additional rights during foreclosure? 

How much of an impact will this new bill have on future purchase and sales on foreclosed homes? 

On June 10, 2021, the New York State Legislature passed Assembly Bill A350 / Senate Bill S5105C (“Bill”) which set forth exemptions for cooperative housing corporations (co-ops) in relation to their tenants who are unit owners, purchasers, or shareholders. Once signed by the Governor, the Bill takes effect immediately.

While unit owners, purchasers, or shareholders of co-op units are generally considered “tenants” under their respective proprietary leases or occupancy agreements, if the bill becomes law, co-ops will be exempted from the usual landlord-tenant requirements and prohibitions set forth below:

• Security Deposit or Advance (GOL §7-108): A co-op will be allowed to collect more than one month’s rent for a deposit or advance from tenants who are unit owners, purchasers, or shareholders of owner-occupied units;
• Notice of Non-Renewal or Notice of Rent Increase (RPL §226-c): A co-op is no longer required to provide the RPL §226-c Notice of Non-Renewal or Notice of Rent Increase to tenants who are unit owners or shareholders of the co-op;
• Application Fees (RPL §238-a): A co-op may demand any payment, fee, or charge necessary to compensate a managing agent and/or transfer agent for processing, reviewing, or accepting a tenant’s application where such tenant would become prospective unit owner or shareholder;
• Credit and Background Check Fees (RPL §238-a): A co-op may charge more than $20, but such fees should not exceed the actual cost;
• Monthly Maintenance Fees for Late Payments (RPL §238-a): A co-op may charge up to 8% of the monthly maintenance fee for the late payment of such fee if provided for in the proprietary lease or occupancy agreement;
• “Rent” in a Summary Proceeding (RPL §702): A co-op may demand more than the rent in a summary proceeding against a unit owner or shareholder provided that the proprietary lease or occupancy agreement allows for the recovery of other fees, charges, penalties or assessments in a summary proceeding;
•  5-Day Notice of Non-Payment (RPL §235-e(d)): A co-op may provide another method of sending notice by mail other than certified mail as long as it is set forth in the proprietary lease or occupancy agreement; and
• Attorneys’ Fees upon a Default Judgment (RPL §234(2)): A co-op may be awarded attorney’s fees in the event of default judgment against a unit owner or shareholder if the recovery of such fees are set forth in the proprietary lease or occupancy agreement.

Essentially, the Bill aims to correct the unintended effects of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 towards unit owners or shareholders of co-ops who are “tenants” only because of their proprietary leases or occupancy agreements.

Do you agree with the Legislature’s corrections? Is it too little, too late?

For pending litigation, it sure seems that this new law affirms that co-ops that previously breached the Housing Stability & Tenant Protection Act as applicable to tenants, are liable, no?

Sharing Andrew Lieb's article published in the New York Law Journal. Landlord Liability for Tenant-on-Tenant Discrimination: Split in the Federal Circuits. For anyone who doesn't subscribe a text version will be available on the Lieb at Law website.

Landlord Liability for Tenant-on-Tenant Discrimination

1. Commencing a commercial eviction proceeding against any commercial tenant for the nonpayment of rent;
2. Commencing a foreclosure of any commercial mortgage for nonpayment of such mortgage; and
3. Enforcing of such eviction or foreclosure.

• Only in New York City, residential evictions are prohibited until October 1, 2020 and until September 4, 2020 for commercial evictions. This means eviction proceedings may be commenced but the Marshall cannot evict residential tenants until October 1, 2020 or until September 4, 2020 for commercial tenants.

• Beginning August 20, 2020, NYC Courts will begin accepting requisitions who have obtained judgments of possession issued before March 17, 2020. Such requisitions must be presented by motion on notice to the respondent and such motion must include the Notice to Respondent-Tenant and be served by mail and email, if possible. Trials for commercial evictions will also be conducted and virtual trials are strongly encouraged whenever possible. See DRP 214.

• Beginning August 20, 2020, landlords seeking to enforce a warrant of eviction issued before March 17, 2020 must request permission from the court through a motion on notice to respondent-tenant. Such motion must also include the Notice to Respondent-Tenant and be served by mail and email, if possible.

• In all matters where all parties have appeared, the judge has discretion to address any unexcused absence for noticed virtual or in-person appearances / conferences. The judge may reschedule with a “final” marking, resolve issues against such non-appearing party, impose sanctions, or issue a judgment of contempt.

• For deadlines to file an answer in residential eviction proceedings, no adverse action shall be taken based on the failure to file an answer in an eviction proceeding or failure to submit responsive papers to a motion submitted through the Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS). All other rules contained in AO 160/20 and 121/20 remain in effect.

1. Tenant’s or lawful occupant’s income prior to the COVID-19 period;
2. Tenant’s or lawful occupant’s income during the COVID-19 period;
3. Tenant's or lawful occupant's liquid assets; and
4. Tenant’s or lawful occupant's eligibility for and receipt of cash assistance, supplemental nutrition assistance program, supplemental security income, the New York State disability program, the home energy assistance program, or unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law.

1. Form petitioner’s attorney affirmation or petitioner’s affidavit (for self-represented petitioners), indicating that counsel / petitioner has reviewed the various state and federal restrictions and qualifications on eviction proceeding and believes in good faith that the proceeding is consistent with those restrictions and qualifications; and
2. Form notice to respondent-tenants (in both English and Spanish), informing them they may be eligible for an extension of time to respond to the petition in light of legal directives related to the COVID-10 pandemic, and directing them to a telephone number and/or website link for further information.

• Petitioner has made a good faith effort to ascertain whether the respondent is a person eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law or otherwise facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic;
• Respondent is not such a person; and
• Facts upon which the petitioner / individual signing the affidavit based such conclusion. See DRP 209.