Quantcast
Home / courts / Ducey tells court eviction ban is public health measure

Ducey tells court eviction ban is public health measure

rentdue

Gov. Doug Ducey wants to defend his right to block residential evictions from a lawsuit filed by landlords.

In legal papers filed with the Arizona Supreme Court, the governor’s legal team said he needs the ability to be able to ensure “that Arizona can continue to respond to and recover from COVID-19.” So he wants to be able to convince the justices that they should throw out the case.

“The fight against evictions is key in slowing the spread of the virus,” wrote Brett Johnson, the private attorney retained by the governor to defend him in all the litigation over the COVID-19 restrictions he has imposed. “The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned that homeless shelters are often crowded, making social distancing difficult, and that homeless can exacerbate and amplify the spread of COVID-19.”

He said that’s why federal agencies earlier this year temporarily suspended foreclosures and evictions for single-family mortgages they back.

Johnson said it was in that spirit that Ducey enacted his first anti-eviction order in March. It precludes throwing people out of their rental units if they meet certain conditions, including a diagnosis of COVID-19, having health conditions making them more at risk of catching the disease, or having suffered substantial loss of income due to the pandemic.

Doug Ducey

Doug Ducey

In July, Ducey extended that order through the end of October, adding a requirement for tenants to seek housing assistance and new mandates to communicate with their landlords.

All that, Johnson said, is legal. He said that during a declared emergency, Ducey is vested with “all police power” to “alleviate actual and threatened damage due to the emergency.”

But it remains to be seen whether Ducey and his legal team actually will get to make their case to the high court.

The lawsuit, filed after Ducey extended his anti-eviction order, seeks an order from the justices essentially telling justices of the peace and constables to ignore the governor’s executive order directing them to refuse to evict tenants who have not paid their rent. That is based on claims by attorney Tom Basile that Ducey’s directive exceeds his legal authority and unconstitutionally interferes with legitimate contracts.

More to the point, the lawsuit does not name the governor as a defendant. And, strictly speaking, that gives him no voice in the litigation.

That, according to Johnson, is unacceptable.

“If Gov. Ducey is not permitted to intervene, there is a significant risk that the governor’s ability to respond to major catastrophes … will be eroded,” Johnson wrote.

The lawsuit does name the state itself as “real party in interest” that might want to defend the governor’s authority.

But Attorney General Mark Brnovich, in his own legal filing, has no interest in doing that. In fact, Brnovich has asked the justices to dismiss the state from the lawsuit, saying they have no jurisdiction over the state, as a legal entity, in this case.

That would leave the JPs, the constables – and potentially, some tenants who are avoiding eviction because of the executive order – as the only defendants in the case.

Brett Johnson

Brett Johnson

Johnson said they may have an interest in keeping the governor’s executive order in place, particularly those who otherwise might wind up on the street.

But he told the justices they are not as concerned with defending Ducey’s authority. That, Johnson said, only the governor can do for himself.

In challenging the executive order, the lawsuit acknowledges that the governor can exercise certain powers in a public health emergency. But Basile contends that Ducey, in unilaterally barring landlords from enforcing the terms of lawful lease agreements, created “an indefinite economic welfare and redistribution program, rather than a public health measure to contain the COVID-19 contagion.”

Basile also warned the justices that if the governor’s order goes unchallenged, “then there is virtually no personal or commercial transaction or conduct that would lie outside his grasp.”

State lawmakers have granted the governor various emergency powers in times of an emergency, including a health emergency. That, according to Basile, is designed to protect public health.

But Basile, unlike the governor, does not see protecting tenants against eviction as a matter of public health, arguing it is “primarily an economic relief measure.”

Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus, president of the Arizona Multihousing Association, said that by the time Ducey’s current order expires at the end of October it will have been 221 days that landlords may have been without rent and without the ability to evict tenants and replace them with someone who can afford the fees.

2 comments

  1. First, “The lawsuit, filed after Ducey extended his anti-eviction order, seeks an order from the justices essentially telling justices of the peace and constables to ignore the governor’s executive order directing them to refuse to evict tenants who have not paid their rent.” He is actually telling government officials to violate the law, in this case an executive Order. Is Mr Basile going to pay for attorneys fees, lost salaries, and or go to jail for the officials he is encouraging to ignore the law?

    It doesn’t take a law degree to see that attorney Tom Basile’s argument is flawed. It is very easy to draw the line from evicting potentially thousands of families, through no fault of their own, to the public health risk these actions would bring about. The more people forced into shelters or living on the streets would put them at risk as well as the general public. Protecting these tenants are a matter of common decency.

    Landlords who only care about their own bottom lines should know that the business they are engaged in are very risky to say the least. As with any well run business finances should be available to cover at least one year of operating expenses in the event some major health crisis occurs. Their mismanagement of their own business, renting apartments, should not come at the expense of others, especially during such a dangerous public health crisis. Alas, they are only concerned about their own bottom line at the expense of others safety. Health concerns and personal safety must always take precedence over profits.

    What would these landlords be saying if their banks or financiers decided to call in the notes on their own properties to mitigate the bank’s financial risk due to the pandemic? They would be singing a different tune with the show being on the other foot.

    Perhaps Mr Basile would like to help those people evicted by having some of them live in his home and pitch tents in his yard. I think not.

  2. Greetings-
    I am homeless Vet back on storage rent. Does the law cover storage units, whom owners sometimes are in poorer conditions than those in dwelling units.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Legal Questions

GOP takes another bite at early ballot lawsuit losses

The Trump re-election committee is making a last-ditch effort to keep a new deadline for people to sign their mail-in ballots from taking effect this year.