ABSTRACT
Housing courts need a renovation. Referred to more commonly as ‘eviction courts’, they have gone from a forum where tenants and landlords resolve lease and habitability disputes to a graveyard for housing security. In non-payment proceedings, during which landlords seek to recover unpaid rent, the lack of remedies available to low-income tenants makes evictions a certainty. Evictions should be removed as a possible result for non-payment of rent. When an eviction happens because of a non-payment proceeding, both the landlord and tenant lose. The landlord loses litigation costs and any ability to recuperate the rent owed, but the tenant loses more — the stability and security that a home provides. Evictions also put a strain on the resources local governments use to support low-income households. Repudiating evictions as a resolution for these proceedings would allow for equitable solutions for all parties to materialize.
This Article narrows in on the inequity of non-payment proceedings by focusing on the displacement of low-income households. It analyzes the intended role of evictions through the progression of housing courts into eviction courts. It then examines the harm evictions pose for all litigants and their communities. It subsequently explores the scholarly interest in housing court reform, most of which suggests innovative methods to reduce evictions. This Article contends that even with these innovations, evictions have an unfair impact on poor tenants of color. It concludes that the most straightforward way to reduce evictions is to remove them as a result of nonpayment proceedings in housing court.
Barry, Aissatou, Evicting Evictions (October 25, 2025).
Leave a Reply