Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9Q70q020847; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 03:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000201c15df3$aaca3820$35a6aec7@junasfam> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "CSRalls" <csralls@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:637] Extremely Long Story About the Wrongful Eviction of Mom and 4 Kids X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 17166 Lines: 301 Dear Lists: I am so sorry to post such a long story but, we need your help! And, I know this may be off topic but, where else can this type of poverty issue be discussed? This following post was sent to the administrative offices of our local legal aid in efforts to get them to reconsider representing my friend and her children in retaliatory eviction proceedings. I wish I could send you all the pictures of their apt because they speak for themselves. We have filed another court date which is tomorrow at 10:30 AM and will be asking for an extension of her move out date, 10-31. Please if you know anyone, anywhere that might be able to help her and her children, please let me know or forward them this post. I have lost many a night sleep like this one worrying about where these good people are going to sleep! We are in the Chicagoland area, if that helps any! Thanks and Blessings! Cynthia Dear Sir: Good Afternoon! I am a AmeriCorps*VISTA alumni. Also, I serve on two area non-profit Board of Directors and am very active within my community. I am writing to you today to ask for your help. Since the beginning of this year, I have been a volunteer for a non-profit community development agency and have assisted in efforts to help residents of a nearby federally subsidized apartment complex to establish a tenants' organization. The residents wanted to initiate some children's activities and programs such as, a tutoring/mentoring/reading club, and wanted to find a more effective and congenial manner in which to have their grievances addressed by the apt. office manager and the property owners. Initially, when meeting with the apt manager, she seemed to welcome our presence and programs but since, we believe, has stood in the way of every good thing we have tried to do, including installing new playground equipment. In fact, on Saturday, September 22nd, we were forced to take the group's "Neighborhood Festival" to the streets because the apt manager and owners, for whatever reason, would not give us permission to have it on the property. Nevertheless, the children had a wonderful time! On or about 3-12, I contacted a City Inspector to see when they would making their next inspection and whether or not they could put the apts of particular tenants on their inspection list in order to have their repair needs addressed. The inspector told me that, in fact, they would be doing their "rolling" inspection the next morning March 13th, 2001, at 9 AM. They instructed me to provide them with a list of apt. numbers and that they would include them in their inspection. They explained that they did a "rolling" inspection because they could not go into every apt. each inspection. So, I went to over to the apts. and obtained a partial list of tenants whose apts needed repairs and phoned the inspector with the list. One tenant had been having problems with her apt roof leaking when it rained or snowed for approx. 3 years yet, had not been able to get the necessary repairs performed. The tenant has there for almost 11 years and she has had a huge mold problem since she moved in. She has limited use of her 3 bedrooms and hasn't slept in her own bedroom for a long time. She is the single mother of 4 boys ages 7, 14, 16, the oldest being 17 or 18, who have all grown up there, and their apt being the only home the youngest has ever known. There are many other residents of the apts experiencing the same difficulties of not being able to get timely repairs, as well as, water damage and mold in their homes. As a result of that inspection, the tenant was cited for "housekeeping" violations was given 30 days to comply. She did and the inspector filed the apt as "cleared" 5-10-01. Yet, the apt owners were cited with many violations and given til 4-18 to comply. The new city inspector for the apts has been made aware that the problem still persists and has visited on at least one occasion and written a letter to the manager instructing them again to make the necessary repairs. But, as of Saturday morning, October 13th, when I visited the woman's apt and there was approx. 1 inch of water in the lid of a plastic container which was underneath the repairs and there are water stains coming through the repairs. The mold issue seems to have never been a priority nor to have been addressed by the City Inspections office or the apartment management. It appears they believe painting over it suffices. Since that initial inspection on March 13th, many things have happened. On Friday, July 20th, the woman lost her job of 6 years. The woman had recently received a 15 day notice from the apt manager in reference to her July rent stating that it would expire on Saturday, July 21st. Unfortunately, the apt manager does not live on-site, is unavailable on weekends and the office had already closed that Friday, 7-20, when the woman lost her job. She had to wait until Monday, July 23rd to speak with the manager about her job loss. When they spoke that day (7-23), The tenant and the apt manager verbally agreed that the woman would pay her July rent plus late charge on July 31st when she received her last paycheck. In response to the woman's loss of employment and in order to adjust her August rent, the apt manager had the woman sign an income verification release from which the manager then mailed to the woman's previous employer. When the woman received her final paycheck on Tuesday, 7-31, she bought two money orders in the amounts of $118.00 (the July rent) and $31.00 (the late charge) and slid them under the apt office manager's door because the office was closed. The next day, Wednesday, 8-1, the woman phoned the apt manager to confirm that she had received the money orders. At this time, the apt manager told the woman that "the owners had decided not to accept her rent and that the case had been filed in court." Indeed, the next day, 8-2, the woman received a court summons to appear in court on 8-21 for eviction proceedings which had been filed July 31st by owners attorney (their daughter, we believe) despite the agreement from 7-23 that stood between the woman and the apt manager, the owner's representative. On 8-21, the woman arrived late in court due to difficulty finding the courthouse having never been there. Upon her arrival, she found that a default judgment had been entered and eviction granted. That same day, the woman went home and phoned our local legal aid office, and was given instructions as to how to file a Motion to Vacate the Judgment. The woman filed that motion on 8-24 and was given a court date of 8-31. On 8-31, the judge granted the woman's Motion to Vacate and a trial date was set for 9-18-01 at 1 PM. I spoke with the owner's att. at that time and asked if they would drop the eviction proceedings considering how long the woman had been a tenant and given the obvious miscommunication between the apt manager and the owner's regarding the 7-23 agreement. The att said that she would talk with the apt manager about the 7-23 agreement and that "people have lived places for 20 years and been evicted." I gave her my phone number in hopes that she would call me and that whatever discord existed could be resolved. On September 9th, I did receive a phone call from the att during which she said that the apt manager denies ever having any kind of verbal agreement with the tenant regarding paying her past due July rent or late charges on July 31st. Yet, neither the apt manager nor the att can explain why the tenant would have come in on 7-23 and sign a loss of income verification form to have her August rent reduced and not discuss the late rent. Even if the tenant had not brought it up, I am sure as the owner's on-site agent, the apt manager surely would have brought up the subject, wouldn't she? The att said "that there were other issues regarding the woman's tenancy." She insisted that the woman's apt damage was due to tenant neglect, stating that "the holes in the walls were from body slams." When I pointed out to her that the woman had actually asked the city inspector to come to inspect her apt on 3-13, and asked her why the woman would ask for an inspection if she and her children had actually caused the damage? The att acted as if she was shocked and could not answer that question. She further stated that the city inspector "wanted to condemn the apt." and insinuated that it was because of tenant damage. I suspect, though I have not asked the city inspector directly, that it is was because of the water damage and mold which it appears to be a costly repair that the owners are not willing to undertake. In fact, just last evening I discovered there was a tenant who moved because of the horrible mold problem in her apt and that her children were continually ill. That particular apt remains vacant. And, another tenant's roof had actually collapsed onto her child! Regardless, the att said that the city inspector had made the owners perform repairs to damages caused by the woman and her children and that their approx total was $500 to $1,500 and that even if they were to drop the eviction action that they would expect the woman to pay for those repairs. But, if the woman would agree to move that she would extend her move out date and not give bad references to prospective landlords. I would like to add at this time that all persons evicted from federally subsidized housing are stamped with "DO NOT RENT TO ME" and are never able to qualify for assisted housing again. Furthermore, if the landlord wants to enforce it, persons evicted from federally subsidized housing are barred from those properties. The apt manager and the owners choose to enforce it. In the case of the woman and her children, this especially hurtful because they the other residents have become their family after living there for so many years. It is their home. I know of one other case of a mother and daughter who both had apts. there and when the daughter was evicted she was barred off the property. The mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was receiving chemotherapy and also suffered a mastectomy yet, her daughter remains on the apt manager's barred list even after the mother's doctors wrote letters asking she be allowed to visit and assist her mother while she battled the cancer and went through an extensive period of recovery. After 8-31 when the motion to vacate the judgment (which the the legal aid office had instructed the woman in obtaining) and was granted and a 9-18 trial date was set, the woman attempted to obtain further assistance from your legal aid office. Yet, she was told that the landlord was within his rights to proceed with the eviction because her 15 day notice had expired regardless of any agreement the woman may have had with the apt manager. After numerous phone calls from the woman, myself and, others, she was given an appointment with one of the atts there for 1 PM on Thursday, September 13th. Also, we had called the owner's att to set up an appt between the apt manager and the att and the woman and the comm dev agency's coordinator. The owner's att was only available she said on Monday, September 17th at 9:30 AM at the apts. office. I took the woman to her appt with the legal aid att but was asked by the att to wait in their lobby. When we left there, the woman related that att's and her conversation to me and was as follows: The att had said that on the woman's first court date 8-21, that she and the owner's att knew each other and they actually had discussed the woman's case after the woman left (to go home and call the legal aid office). After viewing the photos of the woman's apt., the att said that they would be her defense for late or nonpayment of rent. The att also told the woman that she would speak with her Executive Director about representing the woman and instructed her to call later that day. The woman was very encouraged by the meeting with the legal aid att. Yet, when the woman called that Thursday afternoon she was told that no one had left any information for her and was told to call the next day, Friday. On Friday when the woman called she was told there was still no messages for her from the att and to call back the next day, Saturday. And, again, on Saturday she was told there still were no messages. On Monday, 9-17, the woman and the comm dev coordinator went to the 9:30 AM appt with the apt manager and the owner's att. The comm dev coordinator says that they made an offer to the woman that: if she agreed to move by October 31st that they would not give her bad references or expect any payment of rent until her move out date (also offering to extend the move out date by a few days if necessary). The comm dev coordinator and the woman left there having made no agreement but, rather "we will think about and let you know tomorrow in court." >From there, the woman and the comm dev coord. went to file a Freedom of Information Act Request form with the City to obtain the city inspector's record of the 3-13 inspection of the woman's appt. They then went to the Comm Dev office and called the legal aid att. The att told the woman that she herself could not personally represent the woman the next day in court because of her case load and scheduling problems and that she would turn it over to another attorney. The woman was ecstatic when she got off the phone and told comm dev coord. that she would have representation in court the next day. Yet, when both the woman and the comm dev coord called later as they had been instructed they were directed to the legal aid's office Exec. Dir (who they assumed was the attorney who the other att had given the woman's case). The Exec Dir. that they had spoke with the owner's att via telephone and that she had said that during the meeting at the apts earlier that morning that woman had ACCEPTED their offer. Even though the woman and the comm dev coord. told Exec Dir.that that wasn't true, she insisted that their legal aid agency would not be able to assist the woman. In fact, the woman was told by the Exec Dir that it was a good deal and even when considering the conditions in which the woman and her children had lived for so long, the woman only had to pay $118.00 as if to say "you get what you pay for." Surely, the woman had misunderstood? All persons living in subsidized housing have a right to decent housing regardless the amount of their family contribution.. I think it safe to say that the Department of Urban Housing and Development (and Americans whose taxes pay for their programs) share that view. In fact, while the woman's portion of the rent was $118.00, the owner's received an additional $795.00 for the woman's 3 bedroom apartment. There is no way that any person (unless they were blind) would say that even the best of their 3 bedroom apartments comes close to being worth $803.00 a month. The owner's are receiving almost $90,000.00 a month in mostly federal monies for those apartments yet, are unwilling to invest anything back into the property. They would rather displace a struggling, poor single mother with four children than give her another apartment or make the necessary repairs to her dilapidated apartment. They should be ashamed of themselves and so should we if they are allowed to get away with it. The woman states that the apt manager had already told her that she "didn't want to get on her 'bad' list." The woman (along with a growing list of others) feel that by the woman's asking the city inspector to come and look at her apt., she got on that list. The Retaliatory Eviction Act prohibits persons from being evicted for contacting a housing inspector? Yet, that is exactly what has happened. Thus, on September 18th, the woman was forced to sign court papers agreeing to the "offer" that was made to her the previous day by the owner's representatives. With only 15 days to go until her 10-31 move out date, and though the woman has looked for work and another place to live for her family, as of this date, she has yet to find either. Yesterday, I spent the entire day with the woman. She and I went to the County's State's Attorney's Office, to the local Human Relations Committee, and to our Congressman's office (we will be seeing one of his staff tomorrow, 10-16). All of them have encouraged us to contact your offices and ask that you, please, reconsider representing the woman and file an appeal on behalf of her and her children. The State's Att's told the woman and I that any appeal would need to be filed within 30 days of the 9-18 court which would be no later than this Thursday, 10-18. If there is anything that you personally could do, all of us here .....the woman and her boys, and all of the apt who may someday face similar issues....would so greatly appreciate it! Please contact us as soon as possible to let us know your position, suggestions and, more importantly, whether or not your agency will be able to help this woman and her children. Thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Cynthia csralls@earthlink.net .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:09 EST