Here’s how my recent day in court challenging a COVID addendum went.
The day before the recording of this video, I appeared in court for a motion I filed to challenge a COVID addendum that essentially protects tenants from eviction until March 31. There are times when you can contest this addendum, and I felt like this was one of those times.
To give you a little background, we started the eviction process back in November (when we were still allowed to), but then in December we experienced a round of mediation that didn’t go well. A court date was set for January, but the governor extended the COVID eviction moratorium to its present date. Henderson then automatically issued a stay order for the evictions until mid-April.
During my communication with this tenant, I learned that he makes roughly $80,000 per year, which puts him under the income requirement for the COVID addendum. The addendum states that if you make less than $98,000 per year, you’re covered by the CDC COVID affidavit. The governor more or less piggybacked off that verbiage and made it part of the eviction moratorium for Nevada through the end of March.
Anyways, this tenant still has a job and can definitely pay the rent. He could even be making partial payments. Through our December email discussions, it became apparent that he was holding the rent hostage because he wanted a year’s lease signed. At that time, the property’s owner wasn’t able to make any long-term decisions. She has stage 3 lung cancer, but she doesn’t need a reason for not wanting to sign another year’s lease and instead wanting the tenant to revert to monthly payments.
I brought this documentation to court as a way of saying that this particular tenant isn’t affected by COVID. I understand that he makes less than $98,000 per year, but he didn’t lose his job, he doesn’t prove any medical expenses, and I had documentation saying that he wouldn’t pay his rent until he had a year-long lease promised. The judge flat-out said that anyone making less than $98,000 per year with a COVID addendum wouldn’t have their case heard until April. End of story.
I know the judge’s hands are tied and that the supreme court has made this blanket ruling. I understand that the CDC has made a one-size-fits-all ruling for the entire country. I also understand that making under $98,000 per year in, say, New York, Washington DC, or San Francisco can make things tight. However, people who make $80,000 per year in Nevada (or any state in the Midwest) aren’t struggling, so this one-size-fits-all approach to ensure people stay in their homes has created a segment of the population who want to take advantage of this situation. Furthermore, it takes away from the tenants who are really hurting.
I hope we can all speak to our legislators and explain to them that there needs to be more thought and creativity when it comes to this COVID addendum. This will allow the tenants who really do need help to get that help and prevent those who are just trying to take advantage of the situation from being protected.
As always, if you have questions or concerns about this topic, don’t hesitate to reach out to me. I’d love to speak with you.