iStock illustration
Judges at both the state and federal level will hear arguments over the next two weeks about whether the temporary ban on evictions and foreclosures Massachusetts implemented is unconstitutional.
Landlords filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Judicial Court in late May claiming the law Gov. Charlie Baker signed made it impossible for them to recover from financial losses that came as a result of tenants not paying rent, and they filed another lawsuit in federal court last week.
Plaintiffs in the former case – Mitchell Matorin, who owns a three-family rental property at 162 Ingelside Ave. in Worcester, and Linda Smith, who owns a three-family at 11 Harvard Terrace in Allston – both say they have tenants who ceased paying rent before the pandemic struck. Thanks to the eviction ban and the closure of the courts, court documents say, neither has been able to proceed with an eviction process. Smith uses rental income to fund her retirement, the plaintiffs’ filing states.
A Suffolk Superior Court judge, where the SJC transferred the case, will hear arguments on whether to freeze the law at a Thursday, July 30 hearing, while the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts scheduled a Thursday, Aug. 6 hearing in the federal case, according to Richard Vetstein, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Vetstein said his clients landlords “essentially bifurcated the claims” and will pursue both cases simultaneously, with the state case arguing the law violates the Massachusetts constitution and the federal case arguing it violates their U.S. constitutional rights.
On Tuesday, Baker triggered a 60-day extension to the law, pushing its expiration from Aug. 18 to Oct. 17, and lawmakers are also pushing for a legislative extension that would keep the temporary ban in place until one year after the COVID-19 state of emergency ends.
Vetstein and Jordana Roubicek Greenman, the other lead attorney in the case, criticized Baker’s decision in a statement following the announcement, and raised the possibility that the continued moratorium will cause landlords to withhold apartments from the market for fear of being able to evict a tenant who cannot pay.
“In the meantime, small landlords continue having to pay their mortgage, property taxes, insurance, utilities, water/sewer for nonpaying tenants, and maintenance and repair, all without receiving the rent payments necessary to meet those obligations,” the pair said in a statement. “If the Commonwealth insists on a moratorium it must simultaneously provide direct rent replacement payments to the rental property owners who are being affected by it. It cannot continue imposing the burden entirely on the rental property owners.”
