Attendance Is Mandatory - For Some
By: Bethany Straus
It’s a typical morning in Courtroom 2: tenants sit among landlords and agents listening to cases being called, while the clerk sitting besides the judge flips through stacks of papers and calls out case numbers, addresses, and tenants’ names to call them up for their hearing. It’s still early-on in the docket, so no actual landlords have appeared in front of the judge yet – only agents for landlords.
In all rent court cases the Court will only allow a defendant who has signed the lease to appear in court or assert defenses. It does not matter if the person is an adult child of the lessee, the lessee’s partner or parent. Only a signatory of the lease can appear on behalf of a tenant.
The same isn’t true for the landlord.
Like every morning in rent court, a case number is called out for the parties to appear. A young woman stands from her bench near the back of the courtroom and slowly walks towards the judge and clerk, seated at a desk at the front of the courtroom. She approached the rail that stands between the wooden benches and the rest of the courtroom and stopped, unsure of whether or not this was actually her case.
“Are you the tenant or the agent?” the judge asked.
“I’m here for the other party,” the young woman said quietly as she examined the green copy of a failure to pay rent complaint.
“So are you the tenant or an agent for this case?”
“Um, I’m here for the other party,” said the young woman, who was becoming more and more unsure of herself.
The young woman began to walk back to her seat, so the clerk read off the case number, address, and name of the tenant. No one else in the court room moved from their seat, (even as the judge called out the tenant’s name again) signaling to the judge that no one involved with this complaint was present and the case must be dismissed.
Just as the judge announced that with “no response, this case is dismissed,” the young woman got up and walked to the front of the courtroom again, quietly saying that she was here for the other party.
“Are you here for this case?” asked the judge.
“Uh, yeah, but I’m not here for the tenant, I’m here for the other party,” responded the young woman.
“So you’re an agent for the landlord?” By this time, the judge was growing frustrated with the young woman’s confusion, as it was now holding up the docket.
“Yeah, I’m here for the landlord,” the young woman said.
“Okay, then step up to the table on the right,” said the judge with a sigh.
By now, it was painfully obvious that this young woman had absolutely no idea what she was doing and was given very little – if any – guidance from the landlord before she was sent to represent them in court.
Most experienced agents blow through cases almost instantly, answering the judge’s questions with quick responses like, “yes, the amount is still due in owing,” and “no, it is not the basis of any previous judgements.” This agent, however, stumbled through the process, answering questions by reading off the complaint to the judge.
With no tenant present to argue their case or even confirm the amount due, the judge ruled in favor of the landlord by default – the same ruling handed down for nearly every case for which the tenant is not present.
As the young woman walked out of the courtroom, I couldn’t help but wonder how she was related to the property or the landlord. Assumably, she knew the landlord of the property in some context, seeing as it is common for landlords to send a relative, friend, or partner of some sort to represent them as an agent in rent court. It should be noted that a landlord’s agent is not required to be tied to – or even knowledgeable of – the property or tenant at hand in order to collect a judgement and subsequent eviction on behalf of a landlord. The agent most certainly does not have to be a party to the lease. Oftentimes, the agent and tenant meet each other for the first time at the rent court.
Even if the tenant appears in court through a domestic partner, a relative, or someone living in the property, the case will receive a default ruling if their names are not on the lease. There is no guarantee that the agent, on the other hand, has any personal knowledge of the tenancy, conversations between landlord and tenant, maintenance requests or payments made; still, agents may assert a claim and an argument on the behalf of the landlord, regardless of how familiar (or unfamiliar) they are with the property or tenant in question. Yet, an attorney appearing on behalf of the tenant is not granted the same benefit.
This is clearly an unfair double standard, especially when considering the fact that many of the tenants being called to court for failing to pay rent must now miss a day of work. Being forced to call out of work with only a few days of notice not only puts their next paycheck at risk but could put their job at risk.
For some tenants, having to miss work to appear in court would only set them further behind in their payments. Not to mention putting other things at risk, such as childcare, school, and any of the tenant’s time commitments.
This is just one of the many ways in which the rental property system favors landlords over tenants, with a burden that grows increasingly life-altering the less a tenant’s income is.
No one should have to risk missing a shift and ultimately losing their job in order to avoid an automatic loss in court – especially when the same is not required of the landlord.
Afterall, how could a landlord expect a tenant who is behind on their rent payments to pay off their debt if they are called away from their source of income? How is it that the Court can grant the remedy sought by the landlord, who filed the complaint but does not have to appear before the court?
The answer is clear: they shouldn’t. Both parties should have to appear for the court to adjudicate the issues. Appearing before the court for such an issue is part of the landlord’s business and the tenant’s responsibility to maintain a steady home.
If the tenant whose name is on the lease is required to be present in court, the landlord who holds the lease should be required to be there as well. The current rule seems to place an undue burden on the tenant to prove issues in the case against an agent who has no personal knowledge creating a clear advantage for the landlord.