Federal judge rules eviction moratorium is unconstitutional

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/judge-evictions-moratorium-unconstitutional/index.html

Because a conservative would do that. They care about money, not the people. The stay is still in effect, I don’t see Biden or the CDC just caving on the evil ruling.

This judge needs to be removed from the bench. It says the CDC can’t, Biden should continue with it as independent states. Just disgusting the right is willing to put millions on the street like this.

This is what Republicans kept Trump in power to accomplish, putting in federal judges like this.

so how do these moratoriums work exactly?

if i own a property that i rent out to someone who lost their job or had hours cut due to covid and struggles to make rent, should i be forced then to just eat it as the property owner? how do i make mortgage payments on the property if i don't have income coming in from rent? will the bank give me a moratorium on paying my mortgage?

who is ultimately expected to eat it in this situation? the renter? the property owner? the bank?

@yessir: Explain what this is, never heard of it?

@comp_atkins: They have to prove Covid hardship then pay 25% of the monthly rent and you can’t evict them until to stay is over, they violate their lease in other ways or the term ends. After any of those three the landlord has the right to sue for all back rent. It doesn’t go away, you still owe the money.

These stays also usually include blocks on foreclosures as well. So no, the property owner can’t lose the property. But they will still have to pay the back money owed. All three eat it.

I only care about the people hurting, not some corrupt bank.

Should you be without risk when renting out a place? Should the bank be without risk when borrowing you money?

There are ways in which to solve issues materializing from"risk" but the government stepped in and said property owners can not do such a thing.

The property owner still pays taxes, no? The property owner still pays for maintenance, no?

@horgen: That’s asymmetrical risk because a law changed AFTER they bought a property.

I can assure you if the new baseline is that the landlord always gets screwed during economic downturns, then expect rents to skyrocket so they can use the good times to fund the bad ones.

Wait just a minute.

So now its OK to expect people to accept risk and either prepare for it or suffer? I thought that was being mean spirited. You know, republican.

Or is it just OK to expect the evil richers to prepare for risk? Evil richers that own property and rent it out to other people. Evil richers that run banks and loan money to people.

@Baconstrip78: @Solaryellow: And here I both expected you to mention that the risk the owner has is not being able to rent out his house.

Bacon: Rent can't go above what the marked wants to pay, can it?

Actually, you can't rent if you can't evict the individual who won't pay his rent although he/she is living in YOUR property.

The "risk" you mention about not being able to rent a property is almost nil and even so, there were ways (eviction and such) in which to protect oneself but that has been stopped for the most part.

The government has not issued a moratorium on paying taxes.

There should have never been a moratorium in the first place.

@lamprey263: "This is what Republicans kept Trump in power to accomplish, putting in federal judges like this"

Exactly. Congrats Republicans, you won.

A moratorium isn't really necessary IF we just give those impacted money to replace their wages. We did do that for awhile, but it's since lapsed.

Both renters and landlords are (often) poorly positioned to take the brunt of this impact given the upheaval in the housing market from 2008.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Yes there should have.

@mattbbpl: Problem, the right hated that too. With them it’s your screwed, no matter what.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/whats-difference-between-grace-period-and-moratorium-period.asp

good broad term.

now it mostly works the same way in terms of content rights to. i.e a movie or such.

@yessir: Yeah, tell me about it.

And that's all that needed to be done. But a certain party doesn't want anyone to get something. Selfish really.

@yessir: What if you're a landlord and this is your only source of income?

Dumb thread. The judge had every right to end the moratorium. The property owner not getting paid rent and not being able to evict isn't fair end of story. If there's any entity that should have taken the hit, its the banks. But funnily enough, the rich banks didn't lose a single dime while covid ravaged all of us. The renters had long enough to find alternative means

What about the extra WEEKLY federal unemployment benefits people received for months? Not enough for some people huh?

@Solaryellow: That's what I was referring to.

I will say that as a landlord myself this pandemic has so far worked out OK for both myself and my tenant. It has required some flexibility on my end and working with some third parties, but it hasn't destroyed either one of us yet, either.

The background here, which I think is important for understanding the situation, is that I had to move for a new job in the depths of the Great Recession when housing prices were in the toilet and I was way underwater. I didn't want to issue a short sale for ethical reasons, so I rented out the property and got lucky with a tenant who didn't immediately destroy the place. He's been renting from me ever since, and I've become a reluctant short-term single-property landlord.

A few months into the pandemic the first of his late rental payment was logged, meaning past the grace period. The management company called me up and asked me if I wanted to initiate proceedings. I said, "Whoa, hold on. He's been renting from me for nearly a decade now with no significant incidents. Can we just call him up and see what's going on?"

It turned out he, like MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE, were having trouble making ends meet those months but he said he'd make the payment soon (he's self employed). There were some other late payments after that, but he always made them eventually which I certainly appreciated, and I told the management company to not report them as late. After the initial economic shock wore off and he'd replaced his lost clients, he's all squared away again and on much better footing. He didn't even incur a credit hit.

Now, I was both experienced enough to know that I'd need a little financial cushion socked away for that house and fortunate enough to have been able to build it up (owning a leased property is something that often requires thousands of dollars in liquidity at a moment's notice - I've continually built up a dedicated account for the purpose and then instantly drained it [and sometimes thousands more beyond that]) so I was able to delay and even miss some incoming payments just fine. However, under no circumstances, would I have been able to incur that during the entire pandemic. We'd have had to have had a mortgage moratorium in addition to a rent moratorium (or, as I continue to advocate, labor hoarding policies which we largely started and have since stopped).

There are more than a few takeaways from this experience that I think are worthwhile. One is that, particularly after the 2008 housing crisis, not all landlords are wealthy/have significant capital. Another is that many people in general are really struggling right now, and if you can afford them some empathy and flexibility, please do so. Finally, it's tough being a tenant, too! The management company proposed starting the eviction process as an initial option, and that shouldn't be what jumps to mind first in these situations.

@blaznwiipspman1: Maybe it’s time for you to take a break. Because of Covid some people can fall thousands short, but I’m sure people can just pull 1k out of their butts?

They have to pay 25% of the rent and are still on the hook for the rest. The stay isn’t over, and it only deals with one. Seriously dude, go over there.

@mattbbpl: There is one on mortgages.

@yessir: Only on some. It has to be backed by certain entities.

@LJS9502_basic: You mean the left who keeps handing billions to everybody and everything other then US citizens? Yeah, I see your point and agree.

Pst. Democrats passed a bill to help Americans. Republicans haven't....and won't.

@LJS9502_basic: Psst, how much of that bills money is geared towards American citizens, hint not much. Thanks for helping me prove my point even further.

Psst, doesn't matter because it's more than the zero the Republicans gave. Thanks for helping me prove my point even further.

Well, the 1.9 trillion Democrat bill mostly goes to and help Americans and has a 76% approval.....

Which bills?

ordinarily, if a property owner is faced with a property they can no longer afford what is their recourse? to sell the properly and terminate the investment. that is the risk they took on when they purchased it for the purposes of renting.

does the moratorium PREVENT a properly owner from telling a tenant they must vacate as the property is being sold?

should they be forced to hold it indefinitely but not be able to make payments on it and not be allowed to sell it either for the benefit of the renter?

Evil ruling? The ruling appears to adhere to the rule of law. These are judges whose jobs are to rule on the letter of the laws written, not create laws based on their emotions. Like JFC, you're whining because a judge isn't unilaterally creating a law you feel should be in place.