State Supreme Court Backs Northam Decree Denying Landlords Access to Courts

The question: Are there any bounds on King Ralph’s rule by executive decree?

by James C. Sherlock

This essay is a follow-up based upon a June 7 letter from Governor Northam to the Virginia Supreme Court to which I just gained access. That letter makes the situation much worse.

The Order

On June 8 the Virginia Supreme Court issued IN RE: FIFTH ORDER MODIFYING AND EXTENDING DECLARATION OF JUDICIAL EMERGENCY IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 EMERGENCY.  

That order suspended the execution of tenant eviction orders. I have no problem with that. It represents a stay well within the Court’s authority and addresses emergency public health concerns brought about by COVID. 

It went further by acceding to a specific Gubernatorial request to deny access to courts by plaintiffs seeking residential unlawful detainer actions.   

Unlawful detainer actions determine who is entitled to possession of property. At the request of either party, they result in a jury trial.

Suspension of residential unlawful detainer actions is unconstitutional. It suspends access to the courts for plaintiffs seeking relief under Code of Virginia § 8.01-124. Motion for judgment in circuit court for unlawful entry or detainer and § 8.01-125. When summons returnable to circuit court; jury. 

The Bills of Rights of the Constitutions of Virginia and of the United States deny governments authority to suspend access to the courts for relief of grievances.

The full order is available at http://www.vacourts.gov/news/items/covid/2020_0608_scv_amendment_to_fifth_order.pdf  

I recommend changing the order to read: 

“Effective immediately and for the duration of the Fifth Order, through June 28, 2020, pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-330, the issuance of writs of eviction is suspended and continued.” 

The change will cure the legal problems while still addressing emergency-driven public health concerns. I have recommended the change by letter to the Chief Justice.

Governor Northam’s letter

The Order was issued in response to a June 7 letter from Governor Northam available at https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/FINAL-6.7.2020-RSN-Letter-to-Chief-Justice-Lemons.pdf 

That letter should be read by all Virginians. The Governor requested from the Supreme Court an order to:

 “relieve the public health risk associated with evicting Virginians from their place of residence.” 

Fine. The part of the order that stayed writs of eviction accomplished that.

The letter went much further, however, and so did the order.  The Governor requested:

 “to suspend unlawful detainer proceedings.”

The fact that the Court granted the Governor’s request to suspend residential unlawful detainer actions is the source of the legal problems with the order and with the Governor’s request.

In support of his request, the Governor wrote:  

“Section 4024 of the CARES Act provides some protections for tenants by preventing a property owner that receives a federal subsidy or has a federally backed mortgage loan from filing for eviction against a tenant who cannot pay rent for a period of 120 days. I also signed legislation that the General Assembly passed during the 2020 Reconvene Session providing tenants with the opportunity to seek a 60-day continuance of an unlawful detainer action if the tenant appears in court and provides written proof that the tenant has lost income during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“However, not all tenants have access to these federal or state eviction protections. A subset of tenants, including those who are most vulnerable, may be evicted from their homes in the midst of this global pandemic.” 

He did not support the claim that some Virginia tenants do not have access to the federal or state eviction protections he cited.  He did not indicate in what way the legislation in the Reconvene Session did not protect all tenants.  

At the most basic level, the claim that tenant rights are not protected by the legal system is false on its face and an insult to both the General Assembly and our legal system.   Eviction protections are in place in current Virginia law for every tenant in the state. 

The letter requested an order to:

 “allow the Commonwealth the time to implement our comprehensive rent relief program”.  

That is a request for a court order to cure executive inefficiency, not a legal argument. The law establishing that 3-year pilot program and is not yet in effect. It is also not clear that the funding is sufficient to make Virginia landlords whole. The Governor did not indicate in his letter how much time he needed to accomplish his objective. The Order is set to expire June 28 because by law it could not be issued for more than 21 calendar days. Expect another extension, or perhaps several.

The Supreme Court of Virginia sits to interpret the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Virginia, not support policy objectives and laws not yet in force.

Court Procedure Violated

I also have concerns major that the Court did not follow its own rules in considering the question. Those rules provide important protections for the independence of the Court as well as the rights of the people.

The Governor’s letter is at its core a plea for Judicial Branch relief to satisfy Executive Branch policy objectives.   

It is not a legal brief, and cites no legal authority. Under Court rules, it is considered hearsay.

The Governor’s letter was written on the 7th of June and the Court Order was signed on the 8th of June,

So it appears the Court accepted the Governor’s unsubstantiated allegations without evidence and without hearing opposing briefs.

That may be the biggest problem of all.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

16 responses to “State Supreme Court Backs Northam Decree Denying Landlords Access to Courts”

  1. MAdams Avatar

    He should just get it over with and declare Martial Law at the state level, not that I believe anyone would heed his declaration.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      It is safe to assume substantial ex parte communications involving the Third Floor (Governor’s Office), the AG’s Office, the SCV and probably groups such as the Virginia Poverty Law Center before that letter was sent and the ruling quickly issued. Those two steps ended the process. Was anybody representing the rental housing industry or creditor’s bar consulted or involved? An excellent question that likely will never be explored.

      1. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        I will check with the rental housing industry.

  2. MAdams Avatar

    He should just get it over with and declare Martial Law at the state level, not that I believe anyone would heed his declaration.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      It is safe to assume substantial ex parte communications involving the Third Floor (Governor’s Office), the AG’s Office, the SCV and probably groups such as the Virginia Poverty Law Center before that letter was sent and the ruling quickly issued. Those two steps ended the process. Was anybody representing the rental housing industry or creditor’s bar consulted or involved? An excellent question that likely will never be explored.

      1. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        I will check with the rental housing industry.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    As I have argued before, the Supreme Court’s order says that “all residential unlawful detainer actions” are suspended and continued. That does not prevent access to the courts to any property owner who wishes to file for a unlawful detainer. Under the statute authorizing the Court to declare a Judicial Emergency, it has the authority to suspend, toll, etc. “any court processes and proceedings.”

    One may argue that such action was not justified in this instance, but that is a different argument than that the Court acted unconstitutionally.

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      Dick, you clearly consider singling one small class of plaintiffs and delaying their day in court until the law changes to be constitutional. I don’t.
      Moving on, what did you think of the Governor’s letter?
      What did you think of how the Supreme Court of Virginia conducted itself when the next day they granted everything the Governor asked for without a hearing?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I am uncomfortable with the situation. The Governor’s rationale for the request was pretty flimsy. I also do not like the Governor linking the action to giving the administration time to implement the rent relief program. That is not necessarily related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

        However, it is clear that the Court is trying not to substitute its judgement for the administration’s on the harm that some people could incur as a result of the pandemic. Under the Judicial Emergency law, the Court has the authority to suspend any court process. As for a hearing, the Emergency law does not require a hearing. After all, this is an emergency situation and not an adversarial one.

        1. sherlockj Avatar
          sherlockj

          I agree with your analysis on what the Court may do under the law, I just don’t think what they did under the law comports with their obligations under both the Virginia and United States constitutions. The law as written is not unconstitutional. Indeed the drafters of that law were right to assume that the Court would not use it to violate the constitution. When they denied redress of grievances to a single class of pleaders, that is exactly what it did.
          As for the Governor, his letter was beyond contemptible. It was his way of ruling by executive order through a court order.
          As for the court process, the court accepted the Governor’s unsubstantiated allegations without evidence and without hearing opposing briefs.
          The staying of eviction orders was an emergency order.
          The suspension of residential unlawful detainer actions was not in response to an emergency. There was plenty of time to take briefs on that issue.
          Equal justice under the law and the separation of powers has no meaning if that is the court’s new process. Neither does the guarantee in the U.S. constitution of a republican form of government in the states.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    As I have argued before, the Supreme Court’s order says that “all residential unlawful detainer actions” are suspended and continued. That does not prevent access to the courts to any property owner who wishes to file for a unlawful detainer. Under the statute authorizing the Court to declare a Judicial Emergency, it has the authority to suspend, toll, etc. “any court processes and proceedings.”

    One may argue that such action was not justified in this instance, but that is a different argument than that the Court acted unconstitutionally.

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      Dick, you clearly consider singling one small class of plaintiffs and delaying their day in court until the law changes to be constitutional. I don’t.
      Moving on, what did you think of the Governor’s letter?
      What did you think of how the Supreme Court of Virginia conducted itself when the next day they granted everything the Governor asked for without a hearing?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I am uncomfortable with the situation. The Governor’s rationale for the request was pretty flimsy. I also do not like the Governor linking the action to giving the administration time to implement the rent relief program. That is not necessarily related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

        However, it is clear that the Court is trying not to substitute its judgement for the administration’s on the harm that some people could incur as a result of the pandemic. Under the Judicial Emergency law, the Court has the authority to suspend any court process. As for a hearing, the Emergency law does not require a hearing. After all, this is an emergency situation and not an adversarial one.

        1. sherlockj Avatar
          sherlockj

          I agree with your analysis on what the Court may do under the law, I just don’t think what they did under the law comports with their obligations under both the Virginia and United States constitutions. The law as written is not unconstitutional. Indeed the drafters of that law were right to assume that the Court would not use it to violate the constitution. When they denied redress of grievances to a single class of pleaders, that is exactly what it did.
          As for the Governor, his letter was beyond contemptible. It was his way of ruling by executive order through a court order.
          As for the court process, the court accepted the Governor’s unsubstantiated allegations without evidence and without hearing opposing briefs.
          The staying of eviction orders was an emergency order.
          The suspension of residential unlawful detainer actions was not in response to an emergency. There was plenty of time to take briefs on that issue.
          Equal justice under the law and the separation of powers has no meaning if that is the court’s new process. Neither does the guarantee in the U.S. constitution of a republican form of government in the states.

  5. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Northam has moved from incompetent and dishonest to dangerous.

  6. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Northam has moved from incompetent and dishonest to dangerous.

Leave a Reply