Operating in Bad Faith
By Indigo Null
There were 3 cases with the same landlord representing himself. He’d voluntarily dismissed his first 2 cases at other addresses after the judge pointed out that proper notice was not given to tenants, who failed to appear. In one case, the landlord sent official notice the same day he filed, in the second he sent notice after he filed. In both the judge told him he could dismiss or the judge would dismiss it with prejudice. In Baltimore City, landlords are required to send written notice to tenants 10 days before they file, notifying tenants of their intent.
In the landlord's 3rd case, the tenant showed up. She was visibly upset and on the verge of tears, and seemed very eager to do whatever necessary to stay in her home. The tenant was representing herself, and had been trying to get help with her back rent - she stated she had been approved for rental assistance but the payment had not come yet. She owed $7813 - her rent was $980 a month and she owed for part of March through October, plus late fees.
The landlord admitted he’d never officially notified the tenant, but mentioned he had “texted the tenant that he was filing” on October 1st. The judge asked the tenant if this was true, and then when she replied affirmatively, the judge said: “So to be clear, you’re going to agree that this counts as proper notice for this case?” essentially leading the tenant. Tenant agreed again, clearly unaware that she had just consented to the landlord sidestepping her right to proper notice. The text was read aloud: the tenant had texted landlord stating she’d been approved for rental assistance and was waiting for the payment, the landlord replied that it had been a long time and they “were going to have to file” - there was no explicit notice when they were filing or stating tenant had 10 days before he could file.
The judge pushed for the tenant to consent to a judgment, and the tenant mentioned she previously had an agreement with the landlord that if she could pay half her balance she could stay. She restated she’d been approved for rental assistance, and also got paid on Nov. 25th and could give the landlord money then as well. The landlord agreed there had been a previous arrangement.
The judge asked if the landlord would like to formalize this agreement in the record, and asked the landlord what deadlines he would like to see. Eventually it was decided between the judge and landlord that if the tenant paid $3906.50 on or before November 18th, the landlord would stay the eviction until at least the 21st. If she didn’t pay, he would go ahead and proceed with the eviction. The tenant re-stated “I don’t get paid until the 25th” but the judge pressed “are you agreeing to this stay or not? If not, he will be able to file whenever he wants after this”. The tenant seemed afraid to assert her needs or push back, and appeared to not understand what a consent judgment was. She agreed to the “compromise” that would almost certainly lead to her being evicted. Evictions often take weeks or even a month or more to happen anyway, so tenants are almost never going to benefit from trading their rights for a stay of a week or two.
Consent judgments waive a tenants’ right to appeal a ruling, and are not supposed to be entered into unless the tenant understands the repercussions of what they are agreeing to.
After the docket, the tenant was found speaking to the landlord in the hallway. She was visibly shaken and crying. The landlord expressed his sympathies but then gave the tenant arguably bad legal advice around how evictions worked, and encouraged her to move out as soon as possible. It is illegal for anyone but a tenant’s lawyer to give them legal advice.