Walking into the Center Township Small Claims Court was a different kind of experience; absent were the usual cosmetic fixtures of a more glamorous courthouse. There were no high ceilings, grand beams, or oversized portraits of justices. A modest bench centers the room facing the inexpensive schoolhouse chairs lined wall-to-wall allowing little room to walk about. A single attorney’s table sat before the bench but one of the matching chairs was sticky-noted as “broken, do not sit.” All around, it seemed as if every inch in the room was utilized and nothing was spared of their functional relevance. The whole place smelled efficiency. It has to, after all, in order to accommodate the fifteen thousand or so landlords and tenants to come each year and pay their homage.
Most of the cases were about the landlords’ right of possession, effecting an eviction of the tenant for none payment of rent. In each case, Judge Scott usually began by asking the tenant if her rent payment is current. Each proceeding lasted no more than a few minutes and there were very few deviants. In some cases, the landlord simply wanted possession so she could gain access to the apartment no longer occupied by the defaulted renter. Some landlords requested damage hearings. Where some tenants challenged landlord’s claims by either health code violations or other none performed landlord duties, they were asked to present their cases at the damage hearing as well. All damage hearings were scheduled at a later date. A few rounds of this repeated patterns quickly told the tale that this weekly landlord tenant court is a screening process by design – saving Judge Scott’s full attention to the fewer contested cases allowing for a more careful consideration of the facts of these cases.
Understandably, this screening process may just be the most effective way to streamline the overall judicial process and reduce the bottleneck effect that surly will occur if unmanaged. Judge Scott acknowledged that landlord and tenant court hearing sometimes do serve as a catch all for other relevant issues. When an interesting case would present itself, judge Scott would defer the hearing just as she would for damage hearings. One of the cases today involved rent payments to a trailer park for the use of a lot and separate rent payments to a different landlord for the lease of the actual trailer. The tenant challenged her landlord’s title, or the lack thereof, to the trailer and thus claimed a right to withhold payment. Judge Scott admitted that it was the single trailer rental dispute in three years and trailer rental disputes were rare in general by her standards. This raised a curious hint of the demographic spread of tenants that lands in her presence, but it is doubtful that there be any simple explanations I can offer at this time.
Judge Scott informed us afterwards that her caseload has gone up year after year since the recession began. When she was first elected to the bench, seven years ago, she saw around twelve thousand cases per year. In 2009, she saw over fifteen thousand landlord-tenant cases and 2010 seems to be on track to match or break that record. From a mass-production perspective, her process doesn’t appear to have any wasted steps or redundant procedures. Her entire staff is also very focused on producing results in the most proficient manner. They took pride in their accuracy and authority, as they should, in maintaining their judicial machine. It must be noted that talking without the Court’s permission is strictly prohibited and the constables enforced that rule with an almost dictator mentality. It was clear that in a small room crammed with more people than floor tiles, the slightest aggregate of noise could cause delay in the court’s smooth running – hence further proof of the court’s goal in efficiency.
I could not offer any sound and reasonable suggestions to improve her judicial process since I’ve not immersed myself with its many steps. I would also abstain from formulating any legal theories to resolve the general problems of landlord-tenant troubles since I know very little about this area of the law. I would like to point out that perhaps the solution is more of a political and social matter, a choice if you will, one that deserves the attention of our legislatures and our community leaders. While I understand that judges often can be judicial activists, but it seems Judge Scott’s hands were bound by the laws that mostly favor landlords. I would say that perhaps as a community responsible for the wellbeing of each other, we ought to consider the possibility that long-term legal and social reform to decommercialize housing as the ideal. If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so postulated a right to adequate living standards, there should be no reason why we can’t demand that this right be on equal footing as right to life, liberty, and personal security. Would it not be an ideal world where tenants would not suffer eviction during the harsh winter month? Even Judge Scott acknowledged a trend of lesser eviction rate during the holidays suggesting a glimmer of caring and compassion from the few. Would it not be ideal where landlords and tenants could exist as landlady and Tam in a narrative void of greed, that they be exemplary of power in our choice to do good in the world? But those are romantic wishes in old dusty books. Next Tuesday, Judge Scott would face the same harsh reality and be forced to smile to be respectful to her tenants. She would continue to respect the rights of those less fortunate, giving hopes where there seem to be very little hope by way of her authority in justice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment