'The CDC As Far As I Know Has No Control Over Georgia Courts': Judges Continue Evictions Despite Moratorium
By - lowcountrygrits
This was all done so poorly. Long story short we got an eviction notice from our rental property management company that at the end had a statement that pretty much boiled down to "We understand there is an eviction moratorium by the CDC, but they can't stop us and we don't give a fuck".
We had already moved out of the house and been dealing with the company otherwise but it's ridiculous that they can even say that.
They know the system is in thier favor and courts will side with them
So my Grandpa was a real-estate investor and as a result we have approx 30 single family homes under our management. Now we are lucky because all the mortgages on those properties were paid off MANY years ago. We actually used to have more, but since my Grandpa passed we have slowly been selling them off.
However we are in a position where we don't rely on the rental income. And a couple of our tenants can't pay rent and we aren't heartless so we have let them go on a pay as you can model, we've asked they either pay the monthly rent of 20% of whatever income they earned (whichever they can do) and as long as they maintain the properties we won't evict them.
But the thing is we are lucky, that we don't have a bank to pay. But the fact is for a lot of landlords, your rent...that you pay most likely BARELY coverages the mortgage. Or hell in some instances I've seen where the rent is less then the mortgage and the landlord is paying the difference. Now obviously as a renter the mortgage isn't your problem.
But if all of a sudden you can't pay rent, and this is the reason why your landlord can't pay his mortgage it won't take very long for his credit to be ruined, the house foreclosed on etc. So I'm not even mad at landlords for evicting.
In times like this, its the Govt job to step in and help folks out. Seriously if you are unemployed because of COVID19 the Govt should be paying your rent. Or something has to be done.
Real estate investment is a risk. I have no sympathy for landlords having hard times. You shouldnt bet more than you can lose, and you shouldnt bet with money that isnt yours. AllAB
Right now the problem is landlord is geting absolutely fcked from moratorium. They still gotta pay property tax and home insurance, not paying tax can get the home repossesed, and banks can only push back the mortgage so much, government is expecting ppl to be housed for free and thats not what other countries did, this country just totally screwed up the whole pandemic. if i was younger id seriously consider moving out.
I'm the kind of socialist SJW that conservatives have nightmares about, but I agree. It's ridiculous to create a rule that gives people free housing but we're not going to use tax money to pay for it, we'll just make landlords pay for it.
Instead they focused on sliding in a tax break for millionaires.
I agree, like I get it you can't pay rent cause of the pandemic. But your landlord still has to pay taxes and the mortgage.
I get its not your fault, but I'm also not going blame the landlord for evicting you.
The most common sense thing would be for the Govt to step in and say "anyone that can't pay rent because of the pandemic, let us know we will pay the rent for you"
Hell it should be free, but say its not the Govt can say "we will pay your rent for you, and this will become a tax debt and you pay back the IRS over X number of years" or whatever.
I’m already telling my kids to do very well in school, get a good/useful career and immigrate to Canada. My parents came here from Europe in the 60’s so I’m not that attached to this place.
EDIT: Lol, a lot of hurt snowflakes here don’t like people saying Georgia isn’t the bee’s knees?? Ahh, fuck em.
Why don’t u just go to Canada yourself then?
Working on it, Billy Bob Podunk! Thanks for “axing”...
Good deal! If Canada has all the answers, do us all a favor and go lol.
My husband is a native Georgian, and he’s not open to ever leaving the US. I grew up overseas, and came back to the states as an adult. I’m honestly not that impressed. I’ve spent the last 15 years trying to assimilate and “be American” but honestly I’d love to move to Canada.
Am younger and am actually forming a plan to gtfo of here by 2025.
Tax write offs.
Unfortunately, the federal government can't force a private company or landlord to follow their CDC orders. The federal government would be stepping on state's rights and laws.
While I feel for the tenants, the laws were not made by the judge, and can't be ignored either. If people don't like them, then call your state rep/senator and get them changed. But don't blame the judge, blame the system.
The federal government can force a private company to follow CDC orders, just like it can force them to follow EPA orders. Otherwise why would we have federal regulations at all?
The judge is ignoring federal law, and federal law trumps state law. The Public Health Act of 1944 gives the CDC the authority to issue regulations to combat the spread of disease between states. It's the same authority that allows the CDC to quarantine people if necessary.
And orders of this nature contradict the 10th Amendment (which trumps federal law) because the feds are attempting to exercise the general police power in issuing them. The scope of the order that was issued is far too broad to allow it to survive.
> It's the same authority that allows the CDC to quarantine people if necessary.
Only upon entry, not as a general power.
The feds are attempting to stop the spread of disease between states, so the 10th amendment doesn't apply due to the commerce clause. Or at least that's what they would argue in federal court, which is where these disputes are supposed to be adjudicated.
That’s only one of the 3 cited bases for the order, and given that it’s present in all states/territories and all nations that border the US it’s an extremely weak basis
The income cutoff also casts considerable doubt as to the CDC’s motives, as income doesn’t determine whether or not one can spread the virus.
The fundamental issue also remains that the CDC is purporting to strip jurisdiction from state courts to hear eviction cases, something that federal administrative agencies lack the ability to do.
All valid arguments one could make in federal court. In the meantime, state judges can't just ignore federal regulations they don't like. It violates the Supremacy Clause.
> In the meantime, state judges can't just ignore federal regulations they don't like.
When the regulation purports to extend federal authority into areas that it doesn’t exist they are required to.
There is no federal law against private housing from evicting non paying tenants period. And a regulation is not a law. You don't pass regulations, you pass laws and then regulations are use to apply the law.
Example. Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns, but permits the transfer of machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986, if the transfer is approved by the Bureau of **Alcohol**, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. As a result, a substantial number of machine guns are still in circulation.
Then the ATF would promulgate regulations on how the transfer and documentation of such transfer takes place.
But without the law existing, regulations are meanless. Again there is no federal law against evictions by private businesses, the landlord can evict them regardless of the pandemic.
Probably the only reason the landlord didn't do this early was the enormous backlog of cases in that judge's docket due to the pandemic.
You don't even have to go back to the commerce clause. IANAL, but from what I understand your civil rights can legally be suspended in the name of "public safety". That is why Typhoid Mary was imprisoned in her home for the remainder of her life. That is how NYC took down the 99% protests. From what I understand, those aren't examples of flaunting the law. Rather, there is a longish history of court cases that support suspending civil rights in favor of public health.
What you are going to find as the common thread in every one of those cases is the action in question was taken by the state government, not the federal government.
The ability of the feds to take those actions is effectively nonexistant.
Excellent point. Thank you.
She was never criminally or civilly tried in a court, but was isolated to a cottage at North Brother Island to Riverside Hospital, where she was quarantined in a cottage.
She was later released in 1910 and then requarantined on Christmas the same year to the same hospital, where she remained until 1932.
Two take aways.
One it was the City of New York that did this, not the state or the federal government. There never a legal court case on this. And if it happened today, it would fail in court.
Second this has nothing to do with non payment of rent. Neither of the tenants afaik was/is patient zero, in an environment where a treatment and vaccine doesn't exist.
The judge following the facts and the laws of Georgia rendered the right legal decision. Again evictions are happening across the country all the time. So why is this one any different?
First the CDC is not a rule making body, its a health agency, it can not pass rules or laws, period. It can make recommendations or give guidance.
Second, no the constitution does not apply to here as this is not a law. Property ownership by private individuals for personal or business use unless regulated by interstate commerce laws, are reserved to the states.
So unless the Federal Government is going to pass a law making it unlawful to evict people during a pandemic and try to defend that in court, they can do nothing about private rental/apartment businesses.
Are you sure federal law trumps state law?
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
There is no federal law against eviction of tenants from privately owned housing. So this does not apply.
Here is a tracking website of evictions during the pandemic so far.
Well it may be cold comfort to the families thrown out of their homes this sounds like it could be the makings of a class action suit in the federal courts... one day down the road they might get compensation
There won’t be a class action suit in relation to this because the feds are depending on people not actually knowing what the law is and simply ceasing evictions out of fear.
The second someone tries to sue because they were evicted while one of these orders was in place the suit’ll get tossed at summary judgement because these orders don’t have any legal effect.
“The system” here is the private/absentee property system that commodifies shelter and you can absolutely blame the judge for enforcing the cold, inhumane norms of that system by depriving tenants of their shelter for the financial benefit of their landlord.
You really don't understand the legal system. The judge is an arbitrator of the laws, he hears the evidence and based upon that passes judgement. In this case the facts and evidence favored the landlord. The judge can't just decide not enforce the laws, then we have anarchy.
I understand the legal system just fine. I just don't care about it because it's a system designed to keep the poor and the working classes trapped in relationships of exploitation with the owning classes. Landlords are parasites who profit off the would-be homelessness of others by renting them surplus properties: properties that the landlords own and that will held out of use all together if people in desperate need them don't cough up some money.
Based upon your argument, we shouldn't allow farmers to profit from excess growing of crops, or manufacturers to make a profit. This is what capitalism is and for all of its flaws and blemishes it's still the best economy model we have.
AlL wOrK ShOuLD aLl Be FoR tHe GoOd Of ThE cOlLeCtIve!
>Based upon your argument, we shouldn't allow farmers to profit from excess growing of crops, or manufacturers to make a profit.
Correct, not least of which because the "farmers" and "manufacturers" making the profit aren't the ones actually doing the farming and manufacturing.
>This is what capitalism is and for all of its flaws and blemishes it's still the best economy model we have.
The apocalyptic destruction of the global ecosystem, the recurring and worsening crises, the artificial scarcities, the gross overproduction and waste, the increasing cost of necessities, the eroding off-time of the working class despite sky-rocketing productivity, and all of the violence (historical and present) beg to differ. And let's not forget the deformed ethical code that capitalism creates and spreads to the point where people can defend landlords and the courts that serve them throwing people out the homes they live in during a deadly pandemic, in *Winter*, because they can't afford the rent due to there being a global fucking recession and not even think twice about. *Well* of course *they should be thrown onto the street. I'd do the same thing to my fellow human being in a time of crisis if I were in the landlord's position. What are they supposed to do?* Not *make a profit off of other people's desperation?*
Capitalism is and has always been robbery. It was robbery when it formed out of the Enclosure movements that legally deprived the peasantry of Europe of the lands on which they lived and granted ownership to the aristocracy, who became their landlords and extracted what the peasants produced for sale elsewhere. It was robbery when the first factory owners coerced the evicted peasants that had ventured into the urban centers looking for work into becoming their employees. It was robbery when colonialism and imperialism spread enclosures and exploitation to the New World and beyond. It was robbery when the first modern police forces formed to violently put down workers' efforts to demand better pay and conditions. It was robbery when Pinkertons and other industrial mercenaries started spying on and machine-gunning striking workers down. It was robbery when the new social democratic states offered labor a seat at the table in exchange for never challenging ownership and giving up it's most potent weapon: the wildcat strike.
All of these things created the current economy that capitalist bootlickers defend. The owning classes of today directly benefit from centuries of workers, minorities, and the poor being deliberately deprived of having their own shelter, among other means of subsistence. Landlords can eat shit and wash it down with piss.
So we should let people stay in someone else's house for free to the financial detriment of the landlord instead?
Lol, ok there Che. I guess all the mom-n-pop landlords can just just be foreclosed on and then have the tenant be evicted because the tenants can't or won't fulfill an agreement they signed.
Lmao think of the small family landlords!
For real though, can't those landlords just get real jobs? Put those resumes out. Learn to code. Pick up a part time job. You know, all the things they tell tenants who got laid off during the pandemic to do.
Lol, you quiet obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I own property, as do others I know, which I have worked for, and have a full time job. That property is my investment for my future for me and my family and I'm not fabulously wealthy like you seem to think all landlords are.
I try and take care of my tenants and be as flexible as I can, but if someone came to me with your attitude they can fuck right off if they want to stop paying me to live in a property I worked for because they took a freshman level polisci course and now have the world figured out.
Sucks that you took such a risky investment, bro. Take some personal responsibility for it, yeah?
Personal responsibility for someone who reneged on a contract they signed with me? Dude, you really need to come out of your mom's basement every once in a while.
Nah, not a risky investment. I screen my tenants pretty well to avoid people with your mentality.
"Someone else's house" is such a nicer way of saying "the surplus shelters that landlords profitably leverage against people that have been priced out having a shelter of their own".
No he shouldn't. He rules on the law as it's written. You should be mad at the GA legislature, not the judge.
Not rationally. We shouldn't expect, or even want, judges to issue rulings that don't follow the law.
Or, apparently, what a federal order is. Something doesn't need to strictly be a law to have to be enforced...
Edit: After reading through the article a bit more... the order, does (sadly) only apply to housing subsidized by federal money. Which sucks, really. But sadly I can understand where the judge is coming from (even if I disagree with it).
The judge's job is to diligently apply all of the law, including observing the limits of all relevant jurisdictions. If GA law says "do X" and there's a federal rule which says don't do X but that rule only applies to a specific subset of cases, then the judge is not just allowed but obligated to follow GA law wherever the federal rule does not apply.
If you don't like that it's not the judge you should be unhappy with, it's the GA legislature which is failing to give the judge the right instructions.
Thank you. This is like protesting and not voting or contributing to the democratic process.
I feel for these people. It’s a very hard time right now, but we can’t start blaming the wrong people.
But the federal rule does apply in this case. The CDC's order is not limited to those who receive federal subsidies.
From the CDC moratorium.
**How can CDC help me from being evicted?**
CDC has issued this Order to temporarily halt residential evictions of covered persons for nonpayment of rent from September 4, 2020 through January 31, 2021. ***CDC is not able to help individual tenants or landlords in eviction actions.*** Individuals should seek the assistance of a legal aid program or private legal counsel (see footnote #1). Please see question below regarding enforcement of the Order.
This is why there are thousands of evictions that have occurred during the Pandemic, the order has no legal teeth. Waving the CDC order in front of a judge (federal, state or county) is pretty much useless. Since this order was put in place over 240K+ evictions have occurred. Tell me this is just one judge in a rural county not following the CDC order. Its clearly does not have any legal authority behind it or that number would be zero or close to it (see link below)
**Who do I contact to appeal an eviction decision made against me?**
*The Order does not establish an administrative appeal process. Individuals who need legal assistance with appeals for eviction actions taken that they believe are in violation of this Order should consult with a private attorney or legal aid program (see footnote #1).*
And when you do get evicted, guess what. Your on your own. Again if this carried any real legal weight, there would be some sort of process to prevent evictions.
Although the judge even acknowledge that other Georgia judges are following the cdc moratorium
This was HIS choice. His
The moratorium from the CARES act is separate from the CDC one. The CDC's isn't limited by federal subsidy.
The CDC one does, however, contain an income cap ($99k single/$198k joint).
Aren't some mortgages backed by federal loans?
I feel for them. Truly.
At the same time I want to shake them. Carroll county is deeply red and most certainly doesn't want any federal interference in how they run their good businesses. Helping the people is a blue, socialist value.
This is what happens in red areas. As the judge stated, he will literally have to be forced by law to help people. Otherwise it is business as usual
The conservative Supreme Court justices say the same thing. They've straight up said that their job is to interpret if laws are constitutional. If you don't like their ruling, then you need to change the constitution.
Of course, that's not an easy thing to do. But I understand their perspective, even if I disagree with their interpretation of the constitution.
That's how any judge should decide a case, conservative or liberal. They're bound to interpret the law, not do whatever they want based on political leanings.
I would still talk to an attorney about preserving your rights. Just because there's a moratorium doesn't mean they get to skip out on rent with no consequences. Do so sooner than later so you don't run into issues with the statute of limitations.
I have started. (Deleted my comment because i over shared)
I'm sorry but "helping people" comment is not accurate. In fact, Conservatives donate more $ to aid organizations than liberals do ; however, liberals are not weaker in this area. Both groups care about people and want to help them. It's whether the gov't helps or private organizations help. That's the main difference.
This is only true if you count church donations as an aid organization.
You mean gay conversion camps and fake abortion clinics don't count as charity?
And since i am talking about Republican policy, them yes, this judge would have to be forced to help these people
Republican policy favors business, not social assistance programs. I am not incorrect here, you even started essentially the same thing.
Yes helping people is a blue, socialist value. Even though republicans are more charitable than democrats. One side believes they are entitled to someone’s money and do with it as they please and the other believes they can spend it more effectively themselves.
"I'll only help the people I personally deem worthy of survival".
God forbid that I believe the money I work for goes to people I feel deserve it. You should go and donate everything you have that’s not essential to live in order to provide for others.
Therein lies the problem right? You only donate to white christian organizations. Most people believe aid should be spread out evenly and with minimal overhead - one good way to do that is through public services.
I’m not a Christian so I do not donate to Christian organizations. I’m also not white. I do not understand why race was even brought up. The government is highly inefficient at spending money wisely. Just look at the VA.
The VA is entirely the fault of republicans defunding it over and over. If you want government spending to be done properly stop voting for conservatives.
I didn't downvote you by the way. And forgive me for assuming. I used to date a white girl who worked for a tax credit agency and all they did was take private money and steal it from public schools in Georgia and funnel it to christian schools.
> Even though republicans are more charitable than democrats.
One of the most-abused data points in modern political discourse.
Studies do often find that Republicans have more itemized charitable donations on their taxes, but not all itemized charitable donations are created equal. And the amount of itemized charitable donations do not come close to compensating for a proper safety net.
Here, [Non Profit Quarterly](https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/) can put it better than I can:
> Republicans do give more, but where that money ends up is not yet clear. One of the study’s authors, Rebecca Nesbit, associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, told the New York Times that Republicans prefer to “provide for the collective good through private institutions. But we don’t know what type of institutions they’re giving to.” It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school.
>While red counties may be more philanthropic, tax rates are higher in blue counties, reflecting stronger support for collective action and for a social safety net of services and organizations. “The county you live in and the political ideology of that county affects the tax burden of the community,” Dr. Nesbit said. “That in turn has an effect on charitable contributions. If you leave tax burden out of the equation, you’re not getting the full story.”
>Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.
>Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.
>“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”
Republicans are more charitable than democrats. That’s a fact. You can try and spin it anyway you want.
> Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.
>“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”
In summary, for rich republicans, charity is cheaper than realistic tax structure.
There's no spin to it though, it's all theories at this point until there's further supporting data, but closing yourself off to other possible explanations says a lot about the people who continuously spout this statement.
Why are people piling on the judge? The job is to interpret the law not make it. I’m not sure when the CDC became a governing body. It’s actually kinda scary to think a body of people who are not elected can pass rules that are considered law. We have truly become a populace of sheep. Land of the free and home of the brave no more.
Do you elect the FDA, your state medical licensing boards, the DOT, the USDA, or any other executive branch agency that issues rules with the force of law?
How are people up voting this nonsense? Federal regulatory bodies profligate emergency orders and regulations all the time. They are explicitly given this power by the acts under which they are created.
Our government would not function at all without such devolved power.
CDC is not a federal regulatory body. the FTC/FDA/FCC those are regulatory bodies. CDC is just a advisory body, they have no regulatory purview.
They specifically have this right under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act. You can read the actual order [here](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19654/temporary-halt-in-residential-evictions-to-prevent-the-further-spread-of-covid-19). They can do this as one of the bodies under the Department of Health & Human Services.
If you look at Title 42 USC 264 that is referenced in that link you provided as the basis for their order you would see that it doesn't have any legal backing for preventing evictions.
## Order Under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act ([42 U.S.C. 264](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/42/264?type=usc&year=mostrecent&link-type=html)) and [42 CFR 70.2](https://www.federalregister.gov/select-citation/2020/09/04/42-CFR-70.2)
## §264. Regulations to control communicable diseases
## (a) Promulgation and enforcement by Surgeon General
The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.
## (b) Apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals
Regulations prescribed under this section shall not provide for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals except for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, or spread of such communicable diseases as may be specified from time to time in Executive orders of the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General,(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap6A-subchapII-partG-sec264.htm#264_1_target).
## (c) Application of regulations to persons entering from foreign countries
Except as provided in subsection (d), regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.
## (d) Apprehension and examination of persons reasonably believed to be infected
(1) Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary. For purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes, in addition to the several States, only the District of Columbia.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term "qualifying stage", with respect to a communicable disease, means that such disease—
(A) is in a communicable stage; or
(B) is in a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals.
## (e) Preemption
Nothing in this section or section 266 of this title, or the regulations promulgated under such sections, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States), except to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal authority under this section or section 266 of this title.
(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §361, 58 Stat. 703; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 86–624, §29(c), July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 419; Pub. L. 94–317, title III, §301(b)(1), June 23, 1976, 90 Stat. 707; Pub. L. 107–188, title I, §142(a)(1), (2), (b)(1), (c), June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 626, 627.)
§ 70.2 Measures in the event of inadequate local control.
Whenever the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State or possession (including political subdivisions thereof) are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State or possession to any other State or possession, he/she may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.
No where in that regulation does it say the CDC or the HHS has the authority to stop evictions. In fact section (e) specficially says it can not superseded any provisions under State Laws.
So if the state allows evictions for non payment, regardless of the CDC order, the order has no standing. This is why CDC says it can not assist in any legal cases regarding eviction, because they would most likely be laughed out of court.
And 241K+ evictions while this order has been in 'effect' lends strong credence to the lack of standing that order has.
Do you think these guys are retarded? They aren't going to issue these orders without running them past the appropriate bodies. If you don't think it's legal, then go ahead and file suit on these grounds.
These came out under Trump's administration, so yes I think the people reviewing this moratorium are retarded. They could not find their own ass with their hands.
And its not me that seems to think this moratorium is BS, its the courts across the nation that seem to see it as a 'nice' idea. But again if it had any legal validity then there should not of been (and again I don't know why people can't click the link) 241K+ and growing evictions.
If this is true it seems like a huge oversight.
They are part of the Federal Department of Health & Human Services. They have the right to make official orders under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act.
I know the government is often incompetent, but I find it absolutely baffling that apparently at least 14 folks think a federal department either knowingly committed a crime or forgot that they couldn't do this.
section 361 only applies to the isolation, and quaratine to prevent the spread from foreign countries and between states.
Section 70 and 71 authorizes the CDC to detain, medically examine and release persons arriving into the and traveling between states.
None of this has to do with the legality of their eviction moratorium. All you need to know about how legal their order is to read the language of that order.
In it they clear state they can not help or assist in eviction process, nor is there any system to appeal the eviction. If they really thought that this 'moratorium' had any legal validity they would state that and what the appeal process was. But they defer it to the individuals to fight the eviction.
Again, as I have pointed out, over 241K evictions have happened since this CDC moratorium has been in effect. So clearly the courts do not see it as binding on them or legal hurdle to the eviction process.
We really need a nation wide civics class mandated in high school.
> a body of people who are not elected can pass rules that are considered law.
This is how the federal government works. There are multiple agencies that create thousands of rules that have the force of law.
The state of Georgia is the same way. Lots of state agencies making lots and lots of rules.
I think I’m not the dramatic one here. Get a grip!
lol you get a grip!!
As a landlord, the eviction moratorium is obviously bad for this side of the rental business. But I think it’s important that everyone plays by the same set of rules here. Otherwise, conflicting information, policy, and enforcement will end up getting everyone confused and angry. Couple that with people’s livelihoods and ability to plan around where they’re going to live can result in some pretty emotional and catastrophic consequences.
I pay my taxes and follow the laws. I may not be happy about it or always silent about it, but I do it as a responsible citizen and business owner. That being said, the rules of operation should be consistent so we (owners, operators, tenants, enforcement, judges, policymakers) are all on the same page and operate under the same expectations.
If the rule is eviction moratorium for X reason until Y date, then so be it. Just make it consistent and transparent.
Wait. I thought the last bill TCFP signed included an eviction moratorium that originally ended Jan 31?!
There was a loophole in PPP loans and Eidl where landlords were able to receive funding. That information is public. I would check their names against the database if you do find yourself facing eviction.
Not sure about any of the specific judges in the article, but keep in mind that to qualify to be a magistrate judge in Georgia you only have to have a high school diploma or GED. No college or law degree required.
Superior Court judges on the other hand must have practiced law for seven years to be eligible.
This was a Superior Court judge. Magistrates are rather limited in what they can do due to the ease with which you can become one.
The article refers to them as magistrate judges. And one of the limited roles of magistrate judges in Georgia is to issue judgements in dispossessory proceedings (aka eviction).
Should’ve double checked.
He is in fact the *Chief* Magistrate of Carroll County.
That then brings up the question as to why the article treats the decision like it’s final, as it can definitely be appealed to Superior Court (maybe State Court as well, but probably not).
The article states that for the ruling to be appealed, the tenant had to pay all overdue rent, which kind of defeats the purpose here.
That's fucking insane.
I would expect ANY JUDGE
TO have a law degree at least.
I highly doubt Georgia has any magistrate judges without law degrees
You'd be very surprised. Especially in more rural counties its somewhat common not to have a law degree.
Huh, if you know of any where that's actually the case I'd be interested to see. I guess I wouldn't be shocked I've just never heard of that being the case.
Stewart County is one that comes to mind. Two magistrate judges, but if you search for them at the State Bar website, you will not find them as members.
The reason is because any lawyer worth their weight makes significantly more money practicing law. The salary of a magistrate judge in these smaller counties is in the 40-50k range.
Oh my God. There are many magistrate judges without college degrees. I'm a lawyer and have had the misfortune of appearing in front of several of them.
This...seems like a problem, however I also see the cost of a law degree as also a problem.
$40k-$50k in those smaller counties is most likely a solid middle class income.
Obviously, which is significantly less than what a lawyer makes. Which is my point. What lawyer is going to take a middle class income full-time judge job when they can make lawyer money?
In some not-quite-as-small counties, being a magistrate judge doesn't seem to require 40 hours per week of work, so a lawyer can serve as a magistrate judge and also maintain a separate legal practice.
And there are a handful of small counties that don't have enough lawyers living within the county to fully staff a legal system. And like you said, $40-50k is not enough to motivate a lawyer from another county to make the drive.
Oh definitely, I was just giving a significant reason why the law requiring a degree to be a magistrate is based on the county population. I believe there are residency requirements as well.
You been to rural Georgia much?
In GA the 1% rule and the 99% drool. Sorry. The truth and nothing but the truth.
In Georgia, unlike other states it seems that the tenants rights statutes have not kept up with the times....
How about having some empathy?!
Can everyone think about the person that owns the property? They don't get paid either. Why is it fair to think they get to hold the burden?
Not all investments pay off. There's always risk.
Govt should have made a moratorium as well for loans on properties and told banks to ask their hedge fund friends to help out.
Correct there is always a risk, and if your buying rental properties you are aware of those risks.
You are also equally aware that they are measures you can take to deal with those risks.
Natural disaster? Great buy insurance
Pipe burst? This is why you should have an emergency fund
Tenant stops paying rent? Eviction
It should not be on the landlords to provide housing during a pandemic, that's not what the landlord signed up for.
That's the Govt job.
Now the Govt should be stepping in on those cases and paying the rent themselves. That way the landlord can pay his mortgage.
Rental properties always had a risk before covid. This moratorium is an unfair risk, and tenants take advantage of it.
Wait.. what? What risks fall on the landlord that they wouldn’t already have as residents?
If your sole source of income is renting property you are a social parasite. Do these people expect 100% returns regardless of what is going on in the world? Govt should have put it on banks instead, but tossing people out into the streets will make recovery take much longer.
"The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own. "
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.""
--Adam "Father of Capitalism" Smith, The Wealth of Nations
The majority of landlords are doing it as side thing. They buy a rental property, they rent it out, they have a day job. Its how my Grandpa did it, he started buyign properties, would rent them out, bought more properties.
Look being a landlord isn't being a social parasite. Its an investment. And being a landlord is proving a service.
What service may you ask?
Well lets look at my case
I'm in Korea right now, I won't be here forever right? Do I want to spend $300,000-$500,000 on an apartment? NO! Instead I'm renting...from a landlord. I pay them a sum of money, they give me a place to live. Simple.
If this didn't exist, I'd be fucked. I don't have $500,000 to buy a house and my credit sucks.
Landlords provide a service, its housing, they pay for the housing and they offer it on the market for people to rent. Its a service.
This is the key word.
But why does it matter if someone manages to make a career out of being a landlrod?
Have you considered that housing would be cheaper if people didn't buy it for the sole purpose of renting it out? The best majority of people make money by trading their labor, but a landlord doesn't do this. They live off of your labor.
I know of no one who has their sole source of income as rental income. In the Midwest that would be incredibly stupid since u make hardly any money from it....with too much risk.
this isn't the midwest
I used to do the books for a guy that rented some apartments as a side income. Most people are late in payments pre covid, and most people trash an apartment. Even then, I knew there was no way in hell I would ever own rental property. Most rental properties aren’t owned by these huge deep pockets companies like u think. U r just trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Also there was very little made after paying taxes
, repairs, and insurance.
Most people don't trash apartments unless the guy you know only rents to trashy people or does shitty stuff to his tenants to piss them off.
Your assumption is wrong. It was a nice restored old building and super nice guy. And, your other assumption was also wrong..most apartments are in major need of repair after someone moves out. You rarely have carpeting that can be used again....typically stained all over. Walls have to be repaired. Try renting apartments or houses, and let me know how it goes for u. It’s tough to make a living. It sounds like an easy way to make a buck, but it’s easier said than done.
The risk of Government interference will destroy the investment of real estate. The risk of Government is not good for capitalism.
The judge looks like he is eating “high off the hog” My guess is he owns some sort of rent property in this small town.
he's not worried about being evicted because he could last a decade on the streets with a little bit of water. wouldn't even need to beg for food
What a monster. Evict this judge.