Housing Court Funding

I recently had the opportunity to attend a Judicial Forum of the Housing Court where the panel consisted of five Housing Court judges.  As its name implies, the Forum was geared specifically toward the Housing Court and the challenges and trends facing the Housing Court over the last year.  The judges discussed some interesting issues about hoarding and certain court rules which need to be updated.  However, Chief Justice Steven D. Pierce's discussion regarding  the funding of the Court was eye-opening and alarming.    In 2008, the Legislature approved a substantial budget cut for the Housing Court.  Each year since 2008 the budget has increased; however, the 2013 budget is still smaller than 2007 and earlier – and the number of cases filed has increased over that time period.  Moreover, the Housing Court has lost a considerable number of employees due to retirement, death, or otherwise, but has only been able to replace employees deemed essential such as clerk-magistrates.  Unfortunately, the budget cuts and staffing challenges are not unique to the Housing Court, but instead are merely representative of across the board spending cuts within the judicial branch of government. 

Even under the best of circumstances, litigation can be long and expensive.  This past year, we have started to explain to clients that the cases will be even longer.  We now regularly explain the effect that fewer personnel has on their case. We see the effects of these budget cuts every day.  Cases are moving more slowly, decisions are taking longer, and clerks are overburdened.  The courts are doing the best under the circumstances, but the wheels of justice seem to be moving  more slowly than we would like.

Curing a Defective Notice to Quit

     I was in Court this morning, representing a tenant on a motion to dismiss.  Our claim was that the landlord's Notice to Quit was defective in several ways, thereby necessitating dismissal of the summary process.  One error was that the tenant's name was incorrect.  Landlord's counsel conceded that the name was incorrect, but asked to cure the defect, rather than a dismissal.  Fortunately for my client, but unfortunately for landlords is the only way to cure a defective Notice to Quit is to start all over again.  The summary process was dismissed.

     What is to be learned from this?  First, if you are the landlord, make sure you have your i's dotted and t's crossed when you serve a notice to quit.  In this case, at least in my opinion, there were numerous problems with the Notice to Quit and the summary process.  But really, you only need the judge to agree with the tenant on one of the defects and the case will be dismissed.  Second, if a legitimate defect is brought to your attention by the tenant, then dismiss the case.  We waited in Court for more than two hours to be heard today because of the Court's schedule.  During that time, clients missed work and attorneys accrued time.  Third, if you are a tenant and are served with a Notice to Quit, take a good look at it.  Is it procedurally correct?  Was it served properly?  Some types of leases, particularly Section 8 leases require that the landlord give additional notices.  If those prerequisites were not followed, it the Notice may be invalid.