A housing bill in the state Senate intended to help victims of domestic violence is causing controversy with property owners, who say the law is poorly conceived and could leave them caught between a rock and a hard place when trying to deal with problem tenants.
But supporters say the bill will provide needful protections for victims, who may otherwise hesitate to leave their abuser for fear of ending up homeless or because they lack sufficient funds to break a lease.
“It’s one of the reasons a lot of people stay in a relationship,” said Blair Cushing, a victim’s safety and support advocate at Boston Medical Center. “For a lot of people shelter doesn’t feel like a real option.”
Since the passage of the 2005 Violence against Women Act, residents of federally subsidized housing have had protections and procedures in place to deal with domestic violence.
But similar state regulations don’t exist in Massachusetts for state-owned housing and private residences, and by fleeing a domestic violence situation, victims may in some cases be considered to have broken a lease.
Entirely Unclear
The pending bill would allow victims to break a lease without penalty, request that locks be changed and, most controversially, offer a defense against eviction. It is currently before the Senate Ways and Means committee. Supporters say it’s likely to be voted on before the legislative session ends in July.
“Landlords are in a predicament,” said Skip Schloming, executive director of the Cambridge-based Small Property Owners Association. “How do you know whether something having to do with domestic violence is going on? You’re going to evict because of something you see or you hear about, and you’re concerned about that, and its relationship with domestic violence could be unclear entirely.”
Landlords worry that the eviction prevention language in the law will stymie their ability to deal with problematic tenants. Loud arguments and violent behavior common in domestic violence cases can scare and disturb other tenants in a building. According to state law, if a landlord fails to provide an atmosphere of “quiet enjoyment,” tenants can break their lease without penalty. That could leave landlords squeezed – unable to remove a tenant whose presence is causing other tenants to depart.
“Exactly the same behavior can be evictable if it’s not related to domestic violence, and un-evicatable if it is related to domestic violence,” said Schloming.
Such determinations may be difficult for a property owner to make.
“We do not condone domestic violence, and it’s a huge problem for landlords,” said Greg Vasil, chief executive officer of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. But “there are people who would use this to scam the system. That’s our biggest concern.”
The group wants to be sure that tenants citing domestic violence have to present formal documentation in order to avail themselves of the law’s anti-eviction provision, Vasil said.
In the case of a victim wishing to break a lease, the proposed law requires a victim to present proof to the landlord in the form of a protection order, a police report or a letter from a certified counselor.
Summary Judgment
But when domestic violence is offered as a defense against eviction, determining whether abuse occurred and is the underlying reason for eviction is left to the discretion of a judge.
Under current state housing law landlords must move to evict an entire household, not just one individual. The new law doesn’t change that. In cases where a landlord wants to evict an abuser, while allowing a domestic violence victim to remain in place, such situations would have to be handled by a court order handed down by the judge reviewing the case. Advocates say the procedure would be similar to what happens when a household member is involved in criminal activity.
“We see this in housing court a lot, where the judge will say, “Mrs. X, you can stay, but you have to get rid of Child Y,” said Barbara Zimbel, senior attorney in the housing unit at Greater Boston Legal Services. “The only difference is that [under this bill the victim] would be able to bring up the domestic violence. It’d be something the judge would have to deal with.”
But by leaving so many details to be worked out on a case-by-case basis in court or between the parties could leave landlords confused about their rights and responsibilities.
“There are a lot of details in this bill that haven’t been worked out,” said Schloming. He pointed to another gray area – the division of rent if a victim breaks a lease because of to domestic violence. The law, as written, requires landlords to return any rent paid in advance, but does not outline what to do if one of the tenants remains in residence.
“The language of the bill could be interpreted to mean that the landlord should return all of the money to the victim,” said Schloming. “If someone’s still staying on the lease, that means the landlord is left with a tenant where perhaps there’s not enough money to pay the rent, and there’s no security deposit, no last month’s rent, and the tenants are in occupancy.”
Zimbel said these kinds of concerns were overblown.
“The reality is a good majority of tenants are tenants at will. This really doesn’t change that much,” in terms of eviction proceedings, she said. “But when it’s needed, it will really help.”
Rewriting the bill to indicate that a victim would be due their proportion of the pre-paid rent would fix this issue, said Schloming. But he cited it as indicative of the problems property owners have with the bill.
“It’s something they ought to be dealing with, but they just haven’t thought of it,” he said.
