A Constitutional Approach to Avoiding Evictions in Virginia

by James C. Sherlock

There has been extensive discussion here about minimizing residential evictions in Virginia in the time of COVID. I will offer a constitutional approach to achieving that objective.

A Broad Consensus

The Governor and General Assembly want to avoid evictions of residential tenants who are unable to pay rent due to COVID-related issues beyond tenant control. So does every landlord in Virginia. And indeed I think every citizen. We have broad consensus on that point.

The Democratic Governor and Democratic majorities in both houses of the General Assembly can do whatever they wish with legislation. In this case they may wish to create a temporary, COVID-related rent payment program.

But they will have to pay for it, as opposed to asking landlords to eat the costs.  That seems to me a valid and effective use for federal COVID money.

And the executive branch will have to administer it, not the courts and not the landlords.

The wrong way

Recent attempts in Virginia to achieve the goal have carefully avoided accountability for elected officials, have been profoundly unconstitutional, and are frankly just strange.

The Governor twice asked the Virginia Supreme Court to deny access to the courts to residential landlords as his preferred alternative. The Court has done so twice. Really.

I have no idea how the Court justified even getting involved.

The core of the legal issues with what has been done to date is the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads in part:

“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

First, the Virginia Supreme Court has twice denied landlords due process of law because:

  1. it employed ex parte deliberations in consideration of its June 8 and August 7 Orders that did not allow landlords to state their case in opposition to the Orders; and
  2. the Orders themselves denied landlords access to the courts for unlawful detainer cases in which tenants failed to pay rent.

Second, the Governor and General Assembly failed to provide just compensation for taking the landlords’ property.

The Governor could have recalled the General Assembly in May or June or July to do just that, but he failed to do so for reasons only he can explain. They will be back August 18.

A Right Way

There is a constitutional way out of this mess.

The Governor’s second letter to the Court requested that the Court:

“extend and renew its Order of Judicial Emergency suspending unlawful detainer proceedings and writs of eviction until September 7, 2020. This will provide my administration the time to both work with the General Assembly to develop and pass a legislative package that will provide additional relief to those facing eviction and to expand financial assistance for tenants through our rent relief program…”

He has not to my knowledge specified that legislative package.

Generally the best approach to achieve a goal is the most direct.

Virginia can authorize and fund a program that both can pass Fifth Amendment tests and achieve broadly supported goals. One example:

  1. Create a state process for an executive department agency to identify tenants who are subjects of unlawful detainer actions and may be unable to pay rent due to COVID-related economic disruptions;
  2. Direct courts to submit for a rapid ruling on program eligibility the names of defendants before them in residential unlawful detainer actions;
  3. Allow courts to award to landlords directly from the state the rents due from such tenants under existing contracts; and
  4. Create a process in which the state can collect repayment from those tenants in such manner and over such a period as the law may specify.

With that type of solution, the courts will offer access to all. The administration, not the courts or landlords, will be responsible for identifying eligible persons and collecting reimbursements from them as the law may specify. The courts will not get bogged down in unlawful detainer cases. The Fifth Amendment rights of landlords will be satisfied.  Tenants will remain in their homes.

Critically such a law also will reestablish representative government in the Commonwealth.

We have sorely missed it.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

29 responses to “A Constitutional Approach to Avoiding Evictions in Virginia”

  1. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    Of course this is the right approach. Respecting the US Constitution. Respecting representative government. Being open and honest. Not picking winners and losers.

    I doubt it will ever happen. Once a tyrant gets a taste of unbridled power they almost never give it up and Ralph Northam is no George Washington. Don’t wait for Northam to do the equivalent of resigning his commission.

    As for the Virginia Supreme Court – what a waste. From the Virginia Constitution … “Every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and shall be so constituted as to give, as nearly as is practicable, representation in proportion to the population of the district.” Contiguous and compact. Now look at Virginia’s district maps at either the state or federal levels. Could any reasonable person declare those districts to be contiguous and compact? Our supreme court had a chance to right this wrong. They demurred. Essentially said that it was too hard to define “contiguous and compact”. Hmmm.

    It seems to me that the Democratic majority in the General Assembly is only too happy to let Il Duce Northam have permanent dictatorial power without regard to the constitution of the US. We’ll see how this special session goes but I’m not holding my breath for our representative government to represent us.

  2. Sherlock’s approach contains so much common sense that it is profoundly dispiriting that it wasn’t the approach adopted all along — as an emergency measure. I also share Steve’s misgivings that government intervention and subsidies is the reflex solution to every social problem under the sun. We spend more and more money for less and less return.

  3. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    Of course this is the right approach. Respecting the US Constitution. Respecting representative government. Being open and honest. Not picking winners and losers.

    I doubt it will ever happen. Once a tyrant gets a taste of unbridled power they almost never give it up and Ralph Northam is no George Washington. Don’t wait for Northam to do the equivalent of resigning his commission.

    As for the Virginia Supreme Court – what a waste. From the Virginia Constitution … “Every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and shall be so constituted as to give, as nearly as is practicable, representation in proportion to the population of the district.” Contiguous and compact. Now look at Virginia’s district maps at either the state or federal levels. Could any reasonable person declare those districts to be contiguous and compact? Our supreme court had a chance to right this wrong. They demurred. Essentially said that it was too hard to define “contiguous and compact”. Hmmm.

    It seems to me that the Democratic majority in the General Assembly is only too happy to let Il Duce Northam have permanent dictatorial power without regard to the constitution of the US. We’ll see how this special session goes but I’m not holding my breath for our representative government to represent us.

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      I sent this post to Clark Mercer. If anyone close to the Governor will recommend this approach to him, Mr. Mercer is my pick.

  4. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    We need to have national legislation that imposes a substantial tax penalty (say $30 K annually) on any employer with more than 10 employees or longer-term contractors who cannot prove it has 100% E-Verify for those people. The penalty would be annual and not deductible from federal or state income taxes. A substantial portion of the penalty should to local governments and school districts. Some of those funds could be used to assist renters and small landlords. Cut the unfair profits from the construction industry.

  5. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    The very fact of this discussion, the underlying assumption that it is the government’s duty to take money from all and use it to pay rent for a few…(sigh)..We have a massive federal housing bureaucracy and direct government housing stock — not enough. We have various rental subsidy programs in private apartments– not enough. We have mandates that a certain amount of new property be “affordable.” Not enough. There are charitable agencies — no way can that be enough. Tens of millions, perhaps billions in federal funny money created in response to COVID is now pledged to housing….not enough. As noted elsewhere, taxpayers fund legal agencies to argue for tenants and against landlords in court. Even that is not enough. Now we are going to have a “State Department of Who Shouldn’t Owe Rent”, or “Who Should Get Taxpayer Provided Rent.”

    The moratorium on utility shutoffs ends in a couple of weeks….Same thing there, right? Energy is just as much a fundamental human right as living in somebody else’s house and not owing rent….

    Anybody notice that Bernie Sanders is silent and smiling? He is getting exactly the America he’s been advocating for, and he’s smart enough to shut up and watch it happen. Re-open the economy full bore? Noooooo. Can’t do that. Reopen schools so parents can return to work? WE’LL ALL DIE! Just stay relaxed. We’ll all just rely on the government for everything. Lie still, little shad, this won’t hurt a bit.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Steve, above, nails it.

      Though I wouldn’t be so charitable. In my view, today’s Virginia state government is organized and run as a highly efficient kleptocracy. One that under color of law and legislation steals money from its non-supporters (all of whom by definition are deemed political enemies): and the regime then under color of law and legislation, feeds those monies (ill gotten money from its opponents) to its political supporters who, in return, work hard to harvest more votes and political power for the Regime. This has been going on for years. But now the “Covid crisis” is being manipulated into the perfect cover.

      Today’s Virginia regime is using Covid as a money laundering machine while at the same time the regime uses Covid to “lawfully” punish and intimidate those whom it considers its political opponents or enemies so as to weaken them into impotence and/or until they flip those “enemies” over onto into regime supporters. This includes those who then become crony capitalist allies of the regime, drunk with the regime’s favors.

      Hence, Virginia’s state government, in my view, now operates like a shake down operation, a mafia.

    2. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      Steve, I guess I would read my article and say that “Sherlock says that if the Democrats are going to do this at least they can do it constitutionally”. Or I might say “Sherlock wants to convert the grants of property owners money into loans of taxpayers money”. Just a couple of other ways to couch my essay. Yours is fair.

      1. Both are fair characterizations. If the State is going to get involved, this is indeed the way it should be done. And DJR is correct. Don’t hold your breath.

    3. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      If Ralph Northam and the Democratic majority were honest and passed visible taxes to support electricity subsidies, rent subsidies and higher education subsidies (among other subsidies) they would soon be run out of office. If you really want to defeat the Bernie Sanders syndrome in Virginia then you need to force Northam and his ilk to clearly and unambiguously raise taxes for all of his spending programs.

      1. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        I absolutely agree with you.

        That is why I designed the option as a temporary program funded with federal COVID money. When that runs out, the Democrats will have to pay for it or let it lapse.

        the option I offered is also designed as a loan rather than a grant program. The state won’t get all of the money back if they do as I suggest, but they will get some of it if they stick with the design of the program as a government bridge loan to the tenants.

    4. Top-GUN Avatar

      AMEN to that Steve

  6. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    If it’s OK for Northam to allow for the taking of small landlord’s property (and yes, depriving them of rent while requiring them to permit the use of their buildings is a taking), why isn’t it OK for mobs to seize the homes of Northam and Herring?

  7. Sherlock’s approach contains so much common sense that it is profoundly dispiriting that it wasn’t the approach adopted all along — as an emergency measure. I also share Steve’s misgivings that government intervention and subsidies is the reflex solution to every social problem under the sun. We spend more and more money for less and less return.

  8. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    We need to have national legislation that imposes a substantial tax penalty (say $30 K annually) on any employer with more than 10 employees or longer-term contractors who cannot prove it has 100% E-Verify for those people. The penalty would be annual and not deductible from federal or state income taxes. A substantial portion of the penalty should to local governments and school districts. Some of those funds could be used to assist renters and small landlords. Cut the unfair profits from the construction industry.

  9. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Ya know, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested that those over 70 years old should be willing to sacrifice themselves to keep the economy open for young Americans. (BTW, he was 69 at the time)

    Not a bad idea, Dan.

    But, let’s not ask you to die, Dan. How about those over 70, whose AGI is over $90,000 sacrifice their Social Security to pay unemployed persons’ rents? Nobody has to die that way.

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      OK “Nancy”. We get it. You are a pedant who breaks himself up with weak attempts at sophisticated humor.

      You have never once offered a solution, only criticism for those who do so.

      You crave attention without meaning. Pitiful.

      Get a mirror and save the rest of us your self assessments.

      Or go out on a limb and offer a solution of your own.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Gee, who put marbles in your bunk?

        Ya know, Cap’n, they actually can solve these problems without you.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Aye, aye, roger the mirror, Cap’n Pedantic.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Maybe I missed it but in all these discussions, has a number ever been put on how many landlords have actually lost their properties because they could no longer make mortgage payments or pay their taxes?

    If people actually saw that landlords were also being severely impacted – it may lead more public outcry to not put all of this just on the landlords and especially true of those properties that are income for small owners.

    In some respects, if landlords were actually more successful in evicting but there is very low demand for rentals so that the landlord ended up with vacant properties that were not producing income – what happens?

    Seems like the big boys – the big banks – will get those properties for pennies on the dollar and hold on to them until the economy recovers and make a killing.

    As always, the folks who have lots of money will weather the storm easy than those with less and those at the bottom just take the pain.

  11. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Maybe I missed it but in all these discussions, has a number ever been put on how many landlords have actually lost their properties because they could no longer make mortgage payments or pay their taxes?

    If people actually saw that landlords were also being severely impacted – it may lead more public outcry to not put all of this just on the landlords and especially true of those properties that are income for small owners.

    In some respects, if landlords were actually more successful in evicting but there is very low demand for rentals so that the landlord ended up with vacant properties that were not producing income – what happens?

    Seems like the big boys – the big banks – will get those properties for pennies on the dollar and hold on to them until the economy recovers and make a killing.

    As always, the folks who have lots of money will weather the storm easy than those with less and those at the bottom just take the pain.

  12. Atlas Rand Avatar
    Atlas Rand

    Larry, everything you said here is wrong. A landlord has no obligation to show they’re losing properties or suffering to justify not having their property stolen. I live in a nice house, I have a spare bedroom. Would you advocate the government telling me I had to allow someone to live there? I have undeveloped land, people need houses I guess the government should just mandate I donate that for development because they need it more. What about peoples vacation homes, can the government mandate people allow tenants into them because they need a home? This whole insertion by the government into private property is no more than theft, some people like you and your idol Bernard just think it’s okay because it’s only taking from the “wealthy”. I’ve wondered what would happen if someone rented a week at a VB beach house and then just refused to vacate and cited the Non-eviction orders. Could get a free extended vacation! Apparently you can take what you want as long as it’s from someone who allegedly has more.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Hey Atlas, Bernard not my idol.

      So how many states have had an eviction moratorium? Isn’t the Federal Govt “protecting” property owners who have Fannie Mae mortgages? Should the govt not do that because it’s “taking” from the mortgage holders?

      In general, in normal times I agree with you. I even think Dominion should not have the right to take private property for their pipeline.

      These are not normal times.

      We are giving taxpayer money to everybody and their dog.

      And yes, the government DOES have the right to “take property” for a legitimate public need. Happens all the time, no?

      1. Atlas Rand Avatar
        Atlas Rand

        If you have a mortgage, it’s in abeyance. You still have to pay that money, the bank still has the tangible property to foreclose on you later, it’s a secure asset. That’s comparing apples to oranges. If a renter falls behind on rent, most cannot or will not ever catch it up. Every month of rent lost at this point is lost money that will most likely never be recouped. Which is assigning some individual, rather than a group, to subsidize others housing.

        If the government wants to mandate a taking, then they should pay for it, just like Dominion or for roads or anything else.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Are there any other states that are doing this “right” ?

          I understand the mortgage/property issue. But you still own the property and it still have it’s value when the economy recovers. You’re just not making any money off of it which is similar to what is happening to a lot of other businesses… like sports, cruise ships, etc…

          And it’s not likely even after renters are evicted that you’d make any money on it.

          Would it be fair to offer mortgage abeyance as long as you don’t evict, but if you do evict – you no longer have the abeyance?

          I’m still surprised that the govt payments to people does not require some of it go for rent.. that some of it only be spendable for rent.

          So I do wonder if any other states got it “right”.

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            The difference between rental real estate and other businesses is that the former requires the landlord to allow the tenant to live in the landlord’s building and may also require the landlord to deliver services, such as water and heat, often included in rent. On the other hand, most other businesses losing sales to COVID 19 don’t have to deliver services. My legal practice revenue is down because of the pandemic but I have my time. I can do marketing, community service or just spend time with my wife. I don’t have to perform services for clients that aren’t buying my services.

            We have a rental house. Our tenant is still largely employed. We’ve allowed a couple of late payments to work with the tenant. But our mortgage, taxes, insurance and covered utility bills still need to be paid. I don’t know what we’d do if the tenant just stopped paying altogether.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Thanks for your info TMT. Did not know you were a landlord.

            I wonder if Nova is better off that some parts of Virginia.

            I thought I read that the housing market in NoVa is still alive.

            I’d bet that most small businesses also have taxes, insurance, utilities and if they’re not open or open but at 1/2 capacity they got financial issues.

            But the landlord issue is nationwide as far as I know. I keep asking what states are doing it right since many feel that Virginia is doing it wrong. It would be good to be able to point to a state that is a better model. Perhaps Maryland?

          3. TooManyTaxes Avatar
            TooManyTaxes

            What to do right? Herring should tell Northam that he will not make another ex parte approach to the courts on extending the eviction moratorium. Herring should request intervention or urge landowners to sue the state. We need a bona fide law suit as contemplated by our legal system.

Leave a Reply