Amid an influx of eviction filings and burgeoning debate on fairness in housing justice, the 36th District Court of Detroit has reinstated virtual hearings in eviction cases. However, this reinstatement is limited to the first hearings only, as declared in a Wednesday news release, with subsequent hearings continuing in person.
In an attempt to efficiently address an alarming rise in eviction filings, the court had earlier resumed in-person hearings, which immediately elicited sharp criticism from tenant advocates. The critics asserted that in-person hearings posed significant challenges for low-income tenants, impacting their ability to physically attend court and ultimately maintain their housing.
This return to virtual first hearings is set to commence on July 31. While this move signifies a compromise of sorts, it still leaves subsequent hearings in person, a decision that housing advocates argue could expose tenants to increased risk of default judgments. The decision also burdens attorneys tasked with providing free legal aid to low-income Detroit residents under city ordinances. The predicament for these attorneys is the risk of default judgments against their clients when the tenant is unable to attend a court date.
In the 36th District Court, if a tenant fails to appear for two hearings, the judge can issue a default judgment favoring the landlord. This decision to revert to virtual first hearings is stated to be predicated on “sufficient improvements” observed during a trial period of in-person hearings.
The court cited data that suggested improved appearance rates and no significant increase in the default rate. Specifically, the default rate for landlord-tenant cases stood at 23% in June, when in-person hearings were conducted, aligning with the default rate from January to May when virtual hearings were the norm.
Nonetheless, this juxtaposition of data has not quelled the concerns of housing advocates. They maintain that the increased risk for default judgments against tenants and the hindrance of legal aid support could lead to a surge in evictions at a time when housing stability is paramount.
However, the move remains contentious. Housing advocates maintain that it could exacerbate evictions by inhibiting access to legal aid and increasing risk of default judgments. Amid such turbulence, the court’s decision’s true impact on Detroit’s housing crisis remains to be seen.
About Post Author
