The Eviction Process in Connecticut: A Comparative AnalysisPrepared by: Mark
SetterfieldˇAssociate Professor of EconomicsˇTrinity College Prepared for: Citizens for
Action in New Britainˇ19 Chestnut Street Trinity Center for Neighborhoods 1. Introduction The purpose of this study is twofold. First, to describe the workings of summary process (eviction) in the State of Connecticut. Second, to evaluate the eviction process in Connecticut in light of eviction processes in other states, in order to determine whether changes can and should be made in order to improve - specifically, to expedite - Connecticut's eviction process. The findings of the study are based on a variety of sources. First, reference has been made to literature on eviction, most if not all of which is available to the general public, from sources such as the New Britain Housing Court, the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut Inc., the Attorney General's Office of Massachusetts, and so forth. Second, the study draws on oral interviews with a number of people connected with the eviction process in Connecticut. These include Michael Flynn of the New Britain Housing Court, Raphael Podolsky of the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut Inc., Attorney Stephen Mangan, who represents landlords in eviction cases in the New Britain area, and Attorney Ivan Hirsch, who fulfils the same function in Bridgeport. Whilst I am grateful for the help of each of these individuals, it is important to note that they are not responsible for the contents of this final report; any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author. The remainder of the report is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a description of the eviction process in Connecticut. Section 3 contemplates the possibility of changing Connecticut's eviction process in light of a comparison with eviction processes in other states, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Finally, section 4 offers some conclusions by highlighting the most salient features of the preceding comparative analysis. The chief conclusion is that no changes should be made to the Connecticut eviction process in the interests of expediting this process. 2. A Description of the Eviction Process in Connecticut The following description is largely based on three documents, each of which is freely available at no charge from Connecticut's Housing Courts. These are Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants in Connecticut, A Landlord's Guide to Summary Process (Eviction), and A Tenant's Guide to Summary Process (Eviction). These documents contain considerably more information than the summary that follows, including samples of all documents relevant to the eviction process. Tenants and landlords who are actually involved in eviction proceedings in the State of Connecticut are therefore advised to consult these publications for more information. In the State of Connecticut, a landlord may begin eviction proceedings for any of the following reasons:
The first stage of an eviction proceeding begins when a landlord issues a tenant with a Notice to Quit, which must state a reason for the initiation of eviction proceedings, and must be served to the tenant by a sheriff or disinterested third party. In cases involving the non-payment of rent and where the tenancy is on a month-to-month basis, the Notice cannot be served until the tenth day after the rent was due, and must be served before the end of the month following the non-payment. In cases involving the non-payment of rent and where the tenancy is on a week-to-week basis, the Notice cannot be served until the fifth day after the rent was due. Regardless of the reason for the eviction, the Notice to Quit must always allow the tenant a minimum of five full days after the Notice is served during which he/she may voluntarily quit the property. If a tenant fails to remove him/herself within the time period stated in the Notice to Quit, a landlord may then proceed to issue a Summons and Complaint. This form, which must be issued to the tenant by a sheriff, begins the eviction proper; itinforms the tenant that they are now the subject of an eviction action. The Summons and Complaint states an important date, known as the return date, by which a tenant must issue a response to the Summons and Complaint (see below). The return date is set by a clerk at the Housing Court, and is typically set for six days after the date on which the Summons and Complaint is issued.1 Following the issuance of a Summons and Complaint, a tenant must file an Appearance with the Housing Court no later than two days after the return date indicated on the Summons and Complaint. The tenant must then file an Answer to the landlord's complaint, which addresses the landlord's claims against him/her, and may also list one or more Special Defenses against the eviction action. These Defenses may include, but are not limited to, the following:
It is extremely important for a tenant to file both an Appearance and an Answer in order to avoid losing an eviction proceeding by default. If no Appearance is filed within the time allowed, a landlord may file a Default Judgement for Failure to Appear with the Housing Court. A default judgement will be entered in the landlord's favour as soon as a judge signs the order. If an Appearance is filed by the tenant but contains no pleading (i.e., if the tenant provides no response to the landlord's original complaint), a landlord may file a Motion for Default Judgement for Failure to Plead. The tenant then has three days to respond, following which the landlord may obtain a default judgement as soon as a judge signs the order. In cases where a tenant defaults, a sheriff may remove the tenant from the property he/she is occupying as soon as ten days after the return date,3 or in as little as five days after the date of judgement.4 If a tenant files an Answer which includes Special Defenses, the landlord must then file a Reply with the Housing Court. Once all of the above steps have been completed, a trial before a judge will be scheduled by the Housing Court. This trial will be scheduled approximately one week to ten days after the tenants Answer, or the Answer plus Special Defenses and the landlord's Reply, are received by the Court.5 On the day of the trial, both landlords and tenants must arrive in court with any receipts, papers, witnesses etc. that are relevant to their case. In some instances, tenants may be able to arrange for a Housing Specialist employed by the Housing Court to perform a "site visit" (i.e., an inspection of a property) before the date of the trial. After a case has been called by the Court but before it is heard by a judge, both the landlord and tenant must meet with a Housing Specialist. Housing Specialists are trained mediators who will explore the possibility of settling the case without trial, and will help to construct a fair agreement should both landlord and tenant consent to a settlement. If the settlement is approved by a judge, it becomes a "Stipulated Judgement" and the eviction process ends. If no settlement is reached, the case proceeds to trial. Each party to the trial is given the opportunity to present their case, following which the judge makes his/her decision. If the judge decides in favour of the tenant, the tenant may then remain in the premises he/she is presently occupying and the process ends. If, however, the judge finds in favour of the landlord, the tenant will be given five days to remove him/herself from the property in cases of non-payment of rent, nuisance or serious nuisance, or where the occupant never had the privilege of occupancy. This is called a Stay of Execution. In cases of non-payment of rent, a tenant can apply for an extension of the Stay of up to three months, provided that they first:
A court hearing will then be scheduled, at which time a judge will decide on the exact length of any extension to the Stay. When eviction is granted by virtue of lapse of time or when the right to occupy has terminated, a tenant is granted an automatic fifteen day stay of execution. (Note, however, that according to information provided by Attorney Ivan Hirsch, as of October 1 1996, all automatic Stays will be reduced to a period of five days.) The tenant may, however, file a Stay of Execution Application; a subsequent hearing before a judge will determine the exact length of the extension, which may be up to six months. If a tenant does not voluntarily quit a property once the Stay of Execution has expired, or if he/she violates any condition of such a Stay (including those negotiated as part of Stipulated Judgements), a landlord may obtain from the Housing Court an Execution to have the tenant removed from his/her property. In cases where the conditions of a Stay of Execution have been violated, the landlord must file an Affidavit of Non-Compliance with the Court, to which a tenant may respond by filing an Objection within two days of the filing of the Affidavit. A hearing will then be scheduled at which a judge will decide whether or not an Execution should be ordered. Once an Execution has been issued, a sheriff can physically remove a tenant and his/her belongings from a property. If this comes to pass, the city public works department will store a tenants belongings for fifteen days, after which they will be sold at a public auction. In order to retrieve belongings from storage, a tenant must pay moving and storage costs. 3. Should Changes Be Made To Expedite the Connecticut Eviction Process? A Comparative Analysis. i) Evidence on the speed of the Connecticut eviction process It is not difficult to procure anecdotal evidence on the speed of the eviction process in Connecticut. Such evidence is frequently accompanied by the claim that the eviction process in Connecticut is "too slow". It is obviously difficult to evaluate statements of the latter type, as they beg prior specification of the "appropriate" speed of an eviction process. However, there is no need to rely on anecdotes or subjective evaluations in order to gauge the speed of the Connecticut eviction process - several more systematic studies exist. These include studies of the Hartford Housing Court published in 1983, 1988 and 1995, and of New London (a non-Housing Court district) published in 1992.6 The most recent study of the Hartford Housing Court reveals the following facts that are pertinent to the current study:
ii) Comparing Connecticut with other states It is important to note that the very notion of inter-state comparisons of eviction processes is fraught with difficulty. To begin with, eviction involves an obvious conflict of interest between the landlord and the tenant, so that any eviction process must strive to maintain "checks and balances" designed to ensure that both parties enjoy due process. Furthermore, eviction processes are part of social policy. This is necessarily so, if only because the end result of eviction may be homelessness, which creates problems that must then be addressed by public policy. The upshot of these considerations is that it is rarely appropriate to assess eviction processes on a piecemeal basis, by comparing part of the eviction process in one state with a similar part of the process in another state that appears to be more expedient. Any eviction process assembled as the aggregation of the fastest parts of all other states' eviction processes would be very unlikely to maintain the "checks and balances" or meet the broader social demands made of the eviction process as described above. Furthermore, when shelter and homelessness are socio-political problems that demand the attention of public policy, the desirable speed of the eviction process must be assessed in terms of the population density of a region, and hence the availability and cost of real estate. Again, this compounds the difficulties associated with comparing eviction processes between states, especially between north-eastern states such as Connecticut and the relatively less populous states of western USA. Bearing these caveats in mind, however, it may still be possible to gain some insights into the propriety of the Connecticut eviction process by comparing it with eviction processes in other states. Recall, for example, that the first step in an eviction proceeding in Connecticut is the issuance to the tenant, by the landlord of, a Notice to Quit. The tenant then has five full days during which to voluntarily quit the premises. The Notice to Quit is an ancient practice derived from English law which is characteristic of the older (e.g., New England) rather than the newer states in the Union. Is the Notice to Quit an anachronism, then? Would it not be possible to speed up the eviction process in Connecticut simply by abolishing the archaic Notice to Quit and permitting landlords to proceed directly to the issuance of a Summons and Complaint? The answers to these questions are rather more complicated than one might imagine. It is worth noting to begin with that the Notice to Quit in Connecticut is not long by comparison with neighbouring states; in Massachusetts, the minimum time that the tenant must be allowed to voluntarily quit is fourteen days in the case of non-payment of rent, and seven days in all other cases. Furthermore, both Raphael Podolsky and Attorney Ivan Hirsch suggest that abolishing the Notice to Quit would not automatically accelerate the eviction process, and may even slow it down. This is for two reasons. First, as Attorney Hirsch notes, because of the desire to ensure that eviction processes maintain proper "checks and balances", abolishing the Notice to Quit may simply lead to the subsequent lengthening of the return date or some other part of the eviction process, thus nullifying the original change. In Rhode Island, for example, a landlord need not issue a tenant with a Notice to Quit in the case of non-payment of rent - they may proceed directly to filing a Complaint for Eviction. However, this can only be done fifteen days after the day the rent is due (in Connecticut, the five day Notice to Quit can be issued ten days after the day the rent is due). Second, as noted earlier, many eviction cases in Connecticut result in pre-trial settlements. According to both Podolsky and Hirsch, many of these settlements take place during the period granted by the Notice to Quit. If these cases were instead admitted into the Housing Court system, the result would be to increase the caseload of the Court which, without any additional resources being committed to the Court, would slow down the rate at which it is able to move cases to judgement. Some anecdotal evidence on eviction in New England suggests that Rhode Island has a faster eviction process than Connecticut. Specifically, the anecdotes suggest that the Rhode Island system moves cases through the court to the point of judgement faster than the Connecticut system. Unfortunately, it is difficult to substantiate these claims with hard evidence. Moreover, two additional points need to be made. First, if the Rhode Island system is, indeed, faster at processing eviction cases once they have been submitted to the court, this may be connected with the level of resources committed to the eviction process in Rhode Island rather than to the legal features of the process itself. Once again, this point is difficult to substantiate - but it certainly demands consideration. Second, the Rhode Island process is unambiguously slower at moving eviction cases into court in the first place. As noted above, in cases of non-payment of rent, Rhode Island law requires a landlord to give a tenant a fifteen day grace period after the day the rent was due before filing a Complaint for Eviction. In cases relating to failure to abide by a rental agreement, the tenant must be given twenty days following the receipt of a letter of complaint from the landlord during which to voluntarily rectify the problem, after which the landlord may file a Complaint for Eviction. Once again, we are reminded of the inevitable "checks and balances" which may mean that whilst any one part of a given state's eviction process is faster than other states', some other part of the process is correspondingly slower. Stays of execution, which prolong a tenancy even after judgement has been granted in favour of the landlord, are also a source of concern for some property owners. Is Connecticut overly generous in the maximum Stays the law allows a judge to grant? Evidence from Massachusetts might, at first, appear to suggest so. In Massachusetts, a tenant has no right to appeal for a Stay of Execution if an eviction decision based on the non-payment of rent goes against him/her. This contrasts markedly with the maximum three month Stay permitted under Connecticut law. However, the automatic Stay granted in Massachusetts - ten days - is longer than that granted in Connecticut (recall that all automatic Stays in Connecticut will be reduced to five days as of October 1, 1996; the automatic Stay in the case of non-payment of rent is currently set at five days.) Furthermore, Massachusetts grants a maximum six months additional Stay of Execution in cases other than the non-payment of rent (identical to the maximum in Connecticut), and makes landlords financially responsible for the removal and storage of an evicted party's possessions (storage must be for at least three months) once an Execution has been granted. In Connecticut, this burden is borne by the State. iii) What do the experts think? It goes without saying that eviction is a contentious issue. As suggested earlier, there is an obvious conflict of interest between the parties involved. Before concluding that there is no basis for making changes to the Connecticut eviction process designed to expedite this process, it is therefore important to refer to the opinions of expert advocates involved in the eviction process in Connecticut on behalf of landlords, tenants and the Housing Court itself. To this end, four different parties were consulted; Raphael Podolsky, of the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut Inc., Attorney Stephen Mangan and Attorney Ivan Hirsch, who represent landlords in eviction cases in New Britain and Bridgeport respectively, and Michael Flynn, a clerk at the New Britain Housing Court. Despite the obvious conflict of interest involved in eviction proceedings, what emerged from these interviews was a remarkable degree of consensus reflecting the opinion that the eviction process in Connecticut is "just about right", and that it should not be altered in the interests of making it more expeditious. Some of the parties interviewed did offer suggestions for altering the Connecticut eviction process. For example, Attorney Mangan suggested that the non-separation of commercial and residential cases in Connecticut might impair the speed of the eviction process. Meanwhile, Mr. Flynn suggested that Connecticut should consider adopting a procedure found in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, whereby in non-payment of rent cases, tenants can stop eviction proceedings by paying rent arrears, as long as action for non-payment has not been brought against them in the previous six months (Rhode Island) or twelve months (Massachusetts). In Connecticut, if a landlord refuses to accept such a payment as rent and make a written request to stop the eviction, the proceeding will continue despite the effort of the tenant to pay rent arrears. Presumably, removing these cases from Connecticut courts would then allow more pressing cases to be dealt with in a more expedient fashion. Apart from these two suggestions, none of the parties contacted recommended changes to the Connecticut eviction process. However, a number of other comments were made which reflect on the process in other ways, and which are pertinent to a considered evaluation of the Connecticut eviction process in general. For example, both Attorneys Mangan and Hirsch mentioned that eviction is often a highly emotional process for both landlords and tenants. This means that comments on the eviction process based on the personal experience of participants are likely to reflect a high degree of emotional involvement - especially, perhaps, for those encountering eviction proceedings for the first time - and will lack the dispassionate detachment of third party observations on the process. Another recurring theme was the professionalism of small landlords. Attorney Hirsch, Mr. Podolsky and Mr. Flynn all suggested that some small landlords might be well advised to think of the management of their property in more business-like terms. Allowing tenants to continue in a property for several months without paying rent does not mean that the law will then look any differently on expediting a subsequent eviction process than if the process had been initiated immediately following the first failure to pay. Claims that it routinely takes, say, eight months to evict tenants are not justifiable if, for the first six of these eight months, the landlord has failed to initiate proceedings by issuing a Notice to Quit. Such claims are not a reflection upon Connecticut eviction law and its expedience, but rather upon the behaviour of certain parties (specifically, landlords) within the structure of this law. On a positive note, there was widespread praise for the Connecticut Housing Court system. Two features of the Housing Court system deserve particular attention. First, it is a "user friendly" system, and is good at disseminating information about the Connecticut eviction process to concerned residents of the State.7 Second, the Housing Specialists provide a vital service in their role as mediators of eviction cases. As noted above, many eviction cases in Connecticut end in a settlement, and the Housing Specialists succeed in keeping the number of cases that actually progress to a contested trial to a bare minimum. By increasing the likelihood of settlement and reducing the number of trials, the Housing Specialists reduce the burden that eviction cases might otherwise place on the court system. This helps to expedite the eviction process as a whole. Attorney Mangan and Mr. Flynn also raised the issue of the level of resources committed to the Connecticut eviction process. For example, Attorney Mangan pointed out that Housing Court cases in New Britain are only heard once a week, so that cases not heard one week must wait fully seven days before they can next be heard. Meanwhile, Mr. Flynn commented that due to downsizing and cutbacks, the New Britain Housing Court is now closed to the public between the hours of 1:00pm and 2:30pm, and between 4:00pm and 5:30pm. Whilst committing more resources to the eviction process might help expedite the process itself, it should also be noted that this brings into view the vital question of the economic ability and political willingness of Connecticut residents to commit these extra resources to the processing of eviction cases. Finally, a vital point raised by each of the parties consulted concerns the impact of the Connecticut economy on eviction proceedings. Raphael Podolsky commented that many landlords currently agree to waive first and/or last months rent requirements when renting to tenants, simply because they cannot find tenants to fill vacant properties who are capable of paying these sums. On the same note, Attorney Hirsch noted that Connecticut is now characterised by an over-supply of rented accommodation, whereas only fifteen years ago, it was characterised by an excess demand for accommodation; in the early 1980s, tenants threatened with eviction would complain that they were liable to end up in shelters, but such claims are now all but non-existent, due to confident expectations that alternative rented accommodation will be found after eviction. Furthermore, these problems are unlikely to improve in the near term. As Attorney Mangan suggested, impending welfare reforms will probably further increase the number of evictions. In his opinion, the prospects for both landlords and employees of the Connecticut Housing Courts are bleak in light of these reforms. Note, however, that to the extent that the stagnant Connecticut economy is placing a strain on the eviction process by reducing the ability of tenants to meet monthly or weekly rent commitments and increasing the incidence of evictions, it would be unwise to deal with this problem by seeking to expedite the eviction process. It is unlikely that Connecticut will gain from bowdlerising aspects of its legal system (such as the eviction process) in response to social problems created by the stagnation of its economy. 4. Conclusions. The preceding deliberations suggest that there is no basis for recommending changes to the Connecticut eviction process designed to expedite this process. Instead, the following conclusions can be drawn about the eviction process in Connecticut: The difference between rules and behaviour within these rules. The nature of a process versus the resources committed to the process.
It's the economy, stupid. 1 See page 4 of Tenants' Rights: Eviction, produced by the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut, Inc. 2 A longer list of possible Defenses can be found in Helping Yourself Through the Eviction Process, produced by the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut, Inc. 3 According to page 5 of Helping Yourself Through the Eviction Process, produced by the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut, Inc. 4 According to page 14 of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants in Connecticut. 5 A Tenant's Guide to Summary Process (Eviction), page 1. 6 Full citations of these studies can be found on page 3 of the most recent study of the Hartford Housing Court, entitled A Study of Eviction Cases in Hartford: A Follow-Up Review of the Hartford Housing Court by Raphael Podolsky and Steven O'Brien, published by the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut Inc. 7 Without wishing to add to the abundance of anecdotal evidence on the functioning of the Connecticut eviction process, the experiences of this researcher certainly suggest that it is far easier and cheaper to obtain detailed, impartial information about the eviction process in Connecticut than it is in neighbouring states such as Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
|