Last November, Maria’s landlord told her she and her infant son would be evicted over sixty-six dollars’ worth of unpaid rent, which he claimed had accrued over the previous three months. She offered to pay him back, but he refused to accept the money, saying that he was moving forward with eviction proceedings. It wasn’t even worth her time to show up in court and defend herself, her landlord claimed; there was nothing she could do.
Prior to the eviction proceedings, Maria was already attempting to move. She is a survivor of domestic violence, and her abuser had been showing up at her apartment and harassing her. She wanted to move to get away from him, but she receives a housing subsidy as part of HUD’s Moderate Rehabilitation Program, which limits the locations she is permitted to rent from and makes it difficult to move on short notice. Participants in the program also lose their subsidies automatically if they are evicted from their subsidized rental unit, unlike participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. In other words, the stakes for avoiding eviction couldn’t have been much higher.
Fortunately, Maria didn’t take her landlord at his word when he told her not to bother speaking up for herself. She reached out for LAF for help and managed to win her eviction case, preserve her housing subsidy, and move herself and her son away from her abuser. But not without a fight.
Maria had missed her first court appearance thanks to the bogus advice her landlord and his representative offered her, and a default judgement had already been entered against her. This meant that Veena Gursahani of LAF’s Housing Practice group, the attorney assigned to Maria’s case, had only a few short weeks to have that judgement vacated. With only hours to spare, Veena filed a motion to vacate, which was eventually granted.
Veena began work on litigating the eviction while simultaneously advocating for CHA to find a new unit for Maria. When Veena was finally given the landlord’s current ledger, 6 weeks after discovery was served and less than a week before the scheduled trial, Veena learned that the $66 at issue had, in fact, been paid by CHA.
“The landlord’s attorney basically admitted that the landlord didn’t want any more incidents involving Maria’s abuser in the building, and he decided it would be easiest to just evict her for nonpayment of rent,” says Veena. “Little did he know we were going to fight him tooth and nail on it.”
Once she saw the ledger, Veena succeeded in gaining a summary judgement for Maria. She could stay where she was, because a city of Chicago ordinance specifically bars landlords from pursuing evictions after they’ve accepted payment of “rent due”.
Maria’s landlord had been pursuing an action for money it had already recouped, attempting to evict a subsidized tenant who was already trying to move. Ironically, right before the scheduled trial and summary judgment hearing, Maria was officially given permission to move into her new subsidized unit, so she could put some distance between herself, her abusive ex, and her dishonest landlord.
A case like Maria’s takes of lot of work, but it shows us just how severely disadvantaged we are when we face the legal system without the right help, and just how severe the consequences of that can be. So even if standing up for Maria involved a few late nights, it was well worth it. As Veena herself puts it, “It was a labor of love.”