Even a Fair Judge Doesn’t Mean Real Justice

By: Indigo Null

Today we will look at a case where the judge decided to send the parties to rent escrow instead of making a judgment against a tenant. Rent escrow is a process that allows tenants to pay their rent into an account held by the court until the landlord addresses conditions in the tenant’s home. The court can then decide to return some or all of the money to the tenant if the repairs aren’t made in a timely manner. Escrow can be filed affirmatively by a tenant at any time, or as a defense in an eviction proceeding. Although issues of disrepair that are threats to health and safety are heard frequently in failure-to-pay-rent court, judges rarely send cases to escrow in practice, and even when they do, tenants who are not able to deposit the amount of money the judge directs them to deposit into the escrow account have their escrow cases closed. Thus, even in affirmatively filed cases, only about 6% actually translate to reduced rent for tenants.

The docket began with Judge Scuti giving a relatively thorough introduction explaining how the court works and the implications of the various motions and judgments. You can see the effects of this more effective introduction immediately - each time a tenant came up for a hearing, they clearly understood what was happening and what the language meant - far more than tenants in the usual failure-to-pay-rent courtroom. Tenants seemed less distressed and more comfortable advocating for themselves or mentioning concerns about ledger discrepancies or poor conditions in their apartments as well.

As the case was called, a young black woman facing a failure-to-pay-rent case that could lead to her eviction came forward. Her had landlord sent an agent, a young man who said he’s the property manager and who stated that the tenant stopped paying her rent in late 2022.

The tenant testified that she hadn’t been paying rent because of severe leaks and open code violations on the property. She brought printouts of the violations to court with her, and handed them up to Judge Scuti. The manager was visibly confused and said he was unaware of the issues and had been told there were no open violations. He requested a “continuance” (which is a postponement of the case) so he could go over the record with the landlord, offering up the information that the building was soon to be sold, and he had just been hired on as a manager at the beginning of January. Apparently, he had never physically been to the property.

Judge Scuti pushed back on the request for postponement: the photos attached to the violations showed severe issues, some dated as far back as October 2022. He felt rent escrow was appropriate. The manager raised a concern that the tenant’s lease would end at the end of February, and asked what would happen if the tenant moved out and abandoned the escrow case.

One of the leaks in the tenant’s home.

The judge held up the photos from the violation notice to show the manager: You could clearly see an image of brown water coming through the ceiling of the room depicted, and it was apparent the leak had been painted over several times. Judge Scuti assessed that the manager’s concern was irrelevant, citing that the property plainly had substantial threats to health and safety, open mature violations, and more than enough evidence to send the case for an escrow hearing.

The judge told the tenant he was reducing her rent to $50 for January and $50 for February, and after she affirmed she could pay that immediately, he instructed her to go fill out the rent escrow paperwork and pay for the next two months. 

Another judge might have granted the manager’s request for a postponement instead of sending such a case to escrow, and BRU advocates have seen tenants in many cases ultimately be evicted despite severe conditions of disrepair on their property. It is a testament to the lack of consistency within the courts system that in almost a year, this is the first time this BRU Rent Court Watcher has ever seen ANY cases actually sent to escrow from failure-to-pay-rent, although it is routine to hear about dangerous and unlivable conditions in tenants’ testimony during cases. How many of those evictions should have become escrow hearings, which would allow tenants to stay in their homes, force landlords to fix issues, and result in a better outcome for all involved? 

Update As Of 04/28/23: 

BRU Rent Court Watchers followed up with the tenant and learned that her landlord came and painted over the visible damage from the leaks, but didn’t actually fix the source of the problem. Unfortunately, DHCD considered this acceptable enough to close the citation, and the escrow case was closed shortly thereafter, with all money in escrow going to the landlord. The tenant ultimately ended up moving out at the end of February, and she said the leaks were still a problem in many apartments in the building, including hers, when she left. The landlord kept her $1300 deposit, and is still licensed as of the time of this post.

*note: This story was published with the consent of the tenant and written in collaboration with her