A disastrous ripple effect for all of Illinois could follow if the courts allow Gov. JB Pritzker to continue to forbid landlords, in the name of fighting COVID-19, from evicting tenants who simply refuse to pay rent, a group of landlords has argued in a brief filed in an Illinois appellate court.
On Friday, Oct. 16, Pritzker announced he would extend his moratorium on residential evictions, a “temporary” ban he has imposed on the entire state since March. It marks the seventh consecutive month rental property owners have been forbidden by Pritzker’s so-called emergency orders from removing non-paying tenants from their properties.
It also marks four months since the governor, through the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, told a Will County judge the eviction ban was temporary, and was likely to be lifted when the state rolled out a rental assistance program. At that time, in July, the governor and attorney general estimated the program would be in place in 30 days.
On Oct. 16, the governor said the money for that program was just beginning to flow, so the eviction ban is still needed.
Pritzker has argued the eviction ban was needed to help the state combat the spread of COVID-19. Since Pritzker believes the best place for people to remain amid the pandemic is in their own homes, allowing rental property owners to remove tenants for non-payment of rent and potentially throw them out on the street, or into the home of a friend or family member, would only exacerbate the spread of the virus.
Further, the governor has noted many tenants may be unable to pay rent as a result of job losses caused by the onset of the pandemic and the economic and social activity restrictions imposed by Pritzker and other state governors in the name of fighting the virus’ spread.
However, landlords have contested the governor’s power to continuously impose evictions month to month, even during a pandemic.
In June, just three months into the continuing evictions ban, a group of property owners filed suit, asserting Pritzker’s order was illegal and unconstitutional. They argued Pritzker’s actions effectively forced them to pay to house the tenants out of their own pocket. This, they said, amounted to a move by the state to seize their property without compensation.
Further, they argued Pritkzer’s actions unconstitutionally stripped them of their rights to protect their property rights in court, while also trampling on the power of the courts, transgressing the line between the state’s executive and judicial branches of government.
The judge agreed with Pritzker’s contention that the governor’s actions did not permanently remove their property rights, or forever block landlords from accessing the courts to file eviction actions, but rather merely “delayed” the landlords from exercising their rights “because of a public health emergency.”
The judge said it did not matter if landlords faced “economic devastation” as a result of Pritzker’s orders.
The group of landlords appealed that decision to the Illinois Third District Appellate Court in downstate Ottawa.
In a brief filed Oct. 2, the landlords repeated many of the assertions and claims rejected in Will County court.
They argued the Will County court had gotten the law wrong.
“At issue in this case is how far the Governor can go, and what are the limits of the power he can wield, to deal with the crisis and still remain within the bounds of Illinois law,” the landlords wrote in their brief. “The trial court seems to believe his power is nearly unbounded and there are virtually no restrictions to what he can do to address the crisis, and no limits on how long he may exercise the powers he was given by the legislature under the (law.)
“The gravity of the Pandemic justifies the Moratoria and pretty much anything else the Governor has prohibited, limited or curtailed through the use of Executive Orders.
“But the law says otherwise,” they argued.
In this case, they said it does not matter if the evictions ban is “temporary.” The test, they said, is whether their rights have been violated improperly. And in this case, they said, that is what Pritzker has done.
They argued the governor could have followed the course employed by many other states and even the federal Centers for Disease Control in creating a state policy designed to protect tenants whose ability to pay has been harmed by job losses, illnesses or other factors directly attributable to COVID-19.
“Instead, the present moratoria just imposes a blanket ban on foreclosing non-paying tenants regardless of why they are not paying,” the landlords wrote.
Under the evictions ban, they said, residential landlords alone are forbidden from using the courts to secure their property rights and remove tenants who refuse to pay.
Should Pritzker’s orders remain in place, the landlords said, the entire economy could be affected, both now and far into the future, in many ways.
“Lost income” for landlords “puts both renters and small landlords in a vulnerable position,” the landlords argued. “… If too many rent payments are missed, there will be ripple effects in the form of unpaid property taxes, deferred maintenance, and mortgage delinquencies.”
They argued this will, in turn, lead to fewer apartments and houses for rent, particularly from landlords offering homes “renting for less than $750” a month.
They said the eviction moratorium benefits only tenants who refuse to pay and large corporate landlords who can afford to weather the storm.
But even large landlords could be impacted by decrease in rent payments, causing them to lay off staff, further increasing the number of people who can’t afford to pay rent and endangering the quality of neighborhoods throughout the state.
Pritzker and the Attorney General’s Office have until Oct. 23 to file their reply.
The landlords are represented in the action by attorneys James V. Noonan and Solomon Maman, of the firm of Noonan and Lieberman Ltd., of Chicago, and attorney Jeffrey Grant Brown, of Chicago.