Michigan has not stopped termination cases because of the CDC declaration.
Frankly, I think the CDC was pretty clear that their moratorium was only about non-payment of rent.
Some Michigan courts are – correctly in my opinion – deciding that some termination cases against month-to-month tenants are retaliatory for their having filed a CDC declaration and those are losing.
I. Matthew Miller
Swistak & Levine, P.C.
30833 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 120
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
(248) 851-8000, Ext. 226
Fax (248) 851-4620
C ONFIDENTIAL . This Electronic message and all attachments contain information from the law firm of Swistak & Levine, P.C., which may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, or if you have received this message in error, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email or telephone (248-851-8000) and destroy the original message and all attachments without retaining any copies.
From: Christopher Walker via NAA Connect <noreply@connect.naahq.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 10:56 AM
To: Matthew Miller <mmiller@swistaklevine.com>
Subject: RE: Removing the tenant at the end of nonrenewal/holdover cases by Christopher Walker in Landlord Tenant Attorneys
Harry I agree with you. We are arguing that this infringes on our right to freedom of...
Harry
I agree with you. We are arguing that this infringes on our right to freedom of contract and forces us to house someone we don’t want to house. In taking up this fight we want to point out any state that has been allowing non renewals with CDC’s in place. If you have any guidance from your courts on this it would be greatly appreciated. We are getting fed up here in AZ and this battle is just beginning.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Walker, Esq.
Managing Attorney
Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, P.C.
4222 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. 230
Phoenix, Arizona 85018-7609
[O] (602) 957-7877 • [D] (480) 605-1911 • [F] (602) 957-7876
christopher@scottclarklaw.com www.scottclarklaw.com
This email message and any attachments thereto is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by response email and then deleting the original email message from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s position is exactly why this issue concerns me. Most judges in Florida have been allowing the full eviction of tenants for nonrenewal/holdover despite a Declaration in place. The underlying reason for most nonrenewal/holdover evictions is usually nonpayment of rent. The legal aid organizations have been referring to trying to close “loopholes” in the CDC Order and this is what they are referring to.
If the DOJ or FTC take this same position, there will be major ramifications to eviction attorneys and landlords.
Hopefully the CDC will come out with a new FAQ that addresses this simple issue. To me, this is of utmost importance. It is indeed the elephant in the room.
Harry Heist
Christopher Walker | |||
Kirk, Is there any local or statewide order that discusses the non renewals and the non-applicability to the CDC Order? We are looking to challenge the AZ Supreme Court on its position that the CDC applies to non renewals. Sincerely, Christopher R. Walker, Esq. Managing Attorney Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, P.C. 4222 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. 230 Phoenix, Arizona 85018-7609 [O] (602) 957-7877 • [D] (480) 605-1911 • [F] (602) 957-7876 christopher@scottclarklaw.com www.scottclarklaw.com This email message and any attachments thereto is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by response email and then deleting the original email message from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. |
LAW OFFICES OF
HEIST, WEISSE & WOLK P.A.
PH: 1 800 253 8428
FAX: 1 800 367 9038
"Serving the Property Management Professional"
Website: www.evict.com
Email: harry@evict.com
Kirk,
Is there any local or statewide order that discusses the non renewals and the non-applicability to the CDC Order? We are looking to challenge the AZ Supreme Court on its position that the CDC applies to non renewals.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Walker, Esq.
Managing Attorney
Law Offices of Scott M. Clark, P.C.
4222 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. 230
Phoenix, Arizona 85018-7609
[O] (602) 957-7877 • [D] (480) 605-1911 • [F] (602) 957-7876
christopher@scottclarklaw.com www.scottclarklaw.com
This email message and any attachments thereto is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by response email and then deleting the original email message from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
In Oklahoma we have Legal Aid appear on the Eviction docket and sometimes they are succcessful in defending by alleging the 30 day is a subtefuge to evict for Non-payment of rent. In any event you cannot combine the 30day termination with a demand for rent. Robert GoldmanKirk Cullimore Sr wrote:
In Utah, our nonrenewal does not require “cause”. Landlords don’t give a reason (except in Section 42 and Section 8). Most judges have determined that the CDC order does not apply to nonrenewal. We have had a couple question if this was just a means around the CDC order since the person clearly owed rent. But even in those cases, they have granted the restitution. Just my experience.
Kirk A. Cullimore
This is a communication from a Debt Collector.
This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be utilized for that purpose.
In Utah, our nonrenewal does not require “cause”. Landlords don’t give a reason (except in Section 42 and Section 8). Most judges have determined that the CDC order does not apply to nonrenewal. We have had a couple question if this was just a means around the CDC order since the person clearly owed rent. But even in those cases, they have granted the restitution. Just my experience.
Kirk A. Cullimore
This is a communication from a Debt Collector.
This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be utilized for that purpose.