JUSTICE GESKE, THANK FOR YOUR
TIME TODAY.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> EVICTION RECORDS COULD GO
FROM FOLLOWING A PERSON FROM 20
YEARS TO JUST TWO YEARS.
PETITION TO THE 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 RECORD AFTER
TWO YEARS, BUT EVEN IF AN
EVICTION IS NOT GRANTED, THE
RECORD OF THE EVICTION FILING
REMAINS FOR UP TO 20 YEARS, THE
SAME AS SOMEONE WHO WAS
EVICTING.
FOR MORE, WE'RE JOINED BY
HOUSING PRIORITY COORDINATOR AND
STAFF ATTORNEY AT LEGAL ACTION
OF WISCONSIN.
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 -- ALL OUTCOMES ARE
DETERMINED BY WHETHER OR NOT
YOU'RE PROPERLY HOUSED.
WE THINK THAT HAVING THESE
EVICTION RECORDS FOLLOWING
PEOPLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF
TIME, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO
GET REHOUSED.
ONE OF THE MAIN TOOLS THAT
THEY'RE USING NOW TO 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
THEY SAY THESE CASES ARE --
WHERE THEY'VE GONE, 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 -- A
YEAR WE THINK IS 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 REHOUSE
IN SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> SO THIS ISSUE GOES BEYOND
RENTERS IN CITIES BECAUSE
THERE'S RENTERS ACROSS THE
STATE, RURAL WISCONSIN,
MEDIUM-SIZED RENTERS, THEY'RE
EVERY FACING SOME OF THESE
ISSUES.
RIGHT?
>> YES.
THIS WILL MAKE IT 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
REMOVED AFTER 10 YEARS, BUT THE
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IS
THERE'S SOME FORM OF JUDGMENT
THAT'S FILED AND SO 20 YEARS IS
THE TYPICAL TIME.
AND THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING
FOLLOWING YOU FOR 20 YEARS,
MAYBE THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHEN
YOU WERE IN COLLEGE, OUTCOLLEGE
HOUSING -- YOU HAD COLLEGE
HOUSING, YOU DIDN'T KEEP UP WITH
YOUR RENT, YOU GOT A JUDGMENT
AGAINST YOU.
PROBABLY WHAT YOU DID 20 YEARS
PROBABLY IS NOT THE MATURE ADULT
YOU ARE NOW AND WHY SHOULD THAT
HAVE TO FOLLOW YOU AND KEEP YOU
FROM BEING ABLE TO BE HOUSED.
>> SO THE LANDLORDS AGAINST THIS
SAY THIS WILL DRIVE UP THE RENT
FOR EVERYONE, BOTH FOR THOSE WHO
FACED EVICTION AND THOSE WHO
HAVEN'T, THROUGH EXTRA FEES AND
COSTS.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE THAT THIS
WILL RAISE COSTS FOR EVERYONE.
>> THE MARKETS ARE VERY TIGHT.
THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF
HOUSING AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO
CAN AFFORD IT.
SO THE IDEA THAT SOME HOW 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 FREE TO THEM.
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 MONEY JUST THROWN
AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN
USING THOSE SERVICES, THEY'RE
SIMPLY RELYING ON A RECORD
ON-LINE THAT'S FREE.
>> WE HEARD FROM COUNTY CLERK OF
COURTS ARGUE THAT MANY RENTERS
ALREADY FILED 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
LINKED 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'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF
ATTORNEYS IN 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 LIVER WILL BE RESPONSIVE?
OR 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 MOST ABLE TO
COURTS SHOULD RUN THEIR OWN
COURTS.
WE DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS THE
HIGHEST AUTHORITY SO WE ARE
GOING TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT
HAVE THE MOST INVESTED AND KNOW
MOST ABOUT THE ISSUE ITSELF.
>> 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 GOING INTO
SHELTER AND STAYING IN SHELTER
LONG-TERM.
IT MIGHT BE A SHORTER
TURN-AROUND IF PEOPLE DO NEED A
STAY, AND WE THINK IT WILL
REFLECT ADEQUATELILY WHEN PEOPLE
ARE GET BACK ON THEIR FEET AND
BE READY TO RENT AGAIN.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.