Online eviction records could go
from following a person for 20 years to just one year.
A tenant advocacy group has petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to make a
rule change that orders eviction records to be removed from the state's
electronic case search after one year. The petitioners legal action of Wisconsin
argue state law says dismissed eviction cases are to be removed from a tenants
record after two years but in practice even if an eviction is not granted the
record of the eviction filing remains on the tenants record for up to 20 years.
The same as someone who was evicted. For more we're joined by Carmen Ayers
housing priority coordinator and staff attorney at Legal Action of Wisconsin
and thanks for your time today. Thank you. So sum up your argument for me. Why do
you think this rule change is necessary for renters around the state? So particularly
the issue of housing is one that is a basic human need. All outcomes are
determined by whether or not you're properly housed. We think that having
these eviction records follow people for an extended period of time makes it
almost impossible to get rehouse. One of the main tools that my large are using
now is to just determine whether or not an eviction is on the record is our
court animated system. If they go on they're not looking at the outcomes of what
these cases are where they've gone what what the underlying issues were.
Sometimes they were improperly filed but this record follows them and there's
not even a deep dive into what's going on with that record and people are far
from housing. A year we think it's reasonable because any court outcome can
be concluded within a year after the filing and we think it's really
important that people have a fresh start. So having these records removed will
make it so that maybe there's some hope for getting people rehoused in safe
affordable housing. So this issue goes beyond renters and cities because there's
renters across the state rural Wisconsin medium-sized cities. There's renters
everywhere that are facing some of these issues right? Correct and this will make
an even playing field across the board. We think there should be a unified
response. Right now it could be some people are having their records removed
after two years. Some people are having their records removed after 10 years but
the majority of people is there's some form of judgment that's filed and so
20 years is a typical time and thinking about something following you for 20
years maybe there was an issue when you were in college you had college
housing. You didn't keep up with your rent you get a judgment against you. What
you did 20 years ago probably isn't the mature adult that you are now and why
should that have to follow you and keep you from being able to be housed. So the
landlords arguing against this rule say this will drive up the cost of rent for
every renter both those who have faced eviction and those who haven't through
extra fees and costs. How do you respond to their claims that this will raise
prices for everyone? This is an equalizing factor cost arriving regardless. The
markets are very tight. There's a limited amount of housing available to
those who can afford it. So the idea that somehow some rule that could
potentially remove a record after a year would do that is to me disingenuous to
make that assertion. These things are happening every month, every year and
also there's access to this information outside of a court record that's
rated on. Renters now are paying application fees of upwards of 50 to
$200 for them to do these background checks and a lot of times that's
money just thrown away because they're not even using those services or just
simply relying on a record online. That's free. Now we heard from a county
clerk of courts argue that many renters already file motions to expunge eviction
records and that this could create more work for the courts. How do you respond
to some of those concerns? Well, first of all, these types of filings are only
happening in cases where primarily there's an attorney link to them. Most
people that are going through eviction cases don't actually have the benefit of
having counsel. Most people that are facing eviction don't have the money to
stay in their apartments let alone have an attorney provided to them. We are one
of the few advocate opportunities because we don't charge clients for our
services and there is a limited amount of attorneys and grant funding. So we're
not in any way helping the majority of people facing these evictions. The idea
that these are going to be removed after a year will probably decrease the amount
of filings that you're seeing rather than increase it. So we think it's a larger
benefit, especially to those that don't have counsel. Now this policy could be
changed through a bill from the legislature, but you're going through the
Supreme Court to change it as a rule. Is it because you don't think the
legislature would be responsive or why why this route? We think that the court
process should be overseen by the courts themselves. We think it squarely falls
within the preview of what the courts have control over. We think they're the
best determining factor of what's appropriate in these cases. Courts should
run their own courts. We don't think the legislature in this particular case has
the highest authority. So we're going to the individuals we believe that have the
most invested and know the most about the issue itself. Just a few seconds left.
So for the people, if this happens, will you see people less likely to be in
shelters or what will change in housing for some of these people? So we think
it will clean the slate. We do think that people will be rehoused faster. We
think it will decrease the amount of people that are going into shelter and
staying in shelter long term. It might be a shorter turnaround if people do need
a shelter stay. And we think that it will reflect adequately when people can get
back on their feet and be ready to run again. All right, Carmen Ayers for legal
action of Wisconsin. Thanks for your time today. I appreciate you thinking of this
issue. Thank you.
All right, five minutes goes by pretty fast, but we got a lot in there. It's not
quite the Supreme Court, right? I'm not interrupting and asking for statute. But
no, thank you very much for agreeing to be flexible with us on this issue. When I
was there in court, I thought that was something that we wanted to revisit. So
I appreciate it. I'm glad you did. This is really important work for us and I
think that you have a wider reach than what we had that was in the court. So I
appreciate it. All right, take care. You too.