A Racine County judge wrongly failed to allow a defendant in an eviction proceeding to present evidence and make her argument before ruling against her, the state Court of Appeals said last week.
In a rare win for a pro se litigant, District II Appellate Judge Maria Lazar reversed a ruling by Circuit Judge David Paulson and sent the case back to Racine County for further proceedings.
Mount Pleasant Manor Senior Housing Limited Partnership filed an eviction complaint against tenant Mary Mack in October, 2023, alleging that Mack was $948 in arrears in rent.
Paulson held a hearing in November and allowed the eviction to proceed.
State law, Lazar wrote, says that all small claims hearings should be informal, "allowing each party to present arguments and proofs and to examine witnesses to the extent reasonably required for full and true disclosure of the facts.”
"In this case, the transcript of the circuit court’s hearing — which spans less than three pages— shows that the court did not arguably do this," she said.
Lazar including a significant portion of the transcript in her decision. The relevant part is below.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Mack, this is an action to have you evicted from the property. Are you planning to leave or what’s the situation? Do you still owe rent?
THE DEFENDANT: They refused my rent. And I have the paperwork . ...
THE COURT: So there’s still rent due?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. They will not receive any rental assistance or accept my rent. I have the sticky note and the original envelope that she sent it back to me.
THE COURT: So are you planning to move?
THE DEFENDANT: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Are you planning to move?
THE DEFENDANT: Well, I wanted to stay, but they refuse to take my rent.
THE COURT: Yeah, and they can do that if they do that after the notice is issued. They don’t have to —
THE DEFENDANT: They refused to take it before they gave me a notice and they tried to evict me via video. And I have a building code where they’re violating where they got a violation on my apartment back in March.
THE COURT: So rent is due for several months?
[MOUNT PLEASANT’S ATTORNEY]: That is correct, your Honor. And Housing Authority terminated the assistance. So now as of September 1st rent is the full market rent, not just the subsidized portion.
THE COURT: I will sign the writ…. The rent hasn’t been paid and they’re entitled to have you evicted at that point.
Paulson, Lazar wrote, acted without reviewing or admitting evidence when he "ignored Mack’s contention that Mount Pleasant refused her payment of rent before providing her with any notice of breach or nonpayment and ignored her additional contention that she had proof of Mount Pleasant’s violation of a building code. ..."
Lazar rejected Mount Pleasant's argument that the issue was moot because the eviction was already completed. The issue of a tenant being unable to fully contest an eviction before it is completed is likely to arise again, she said.
"Moreover, a judgment of eviction may adversely affect an individual’s credit history and ability to obtain housing in the future and, pursuant to statute, is not to be ordered or entered without the tenant having the opportunity to be heard by the court," she wrote.
"To be fair, the circuit court’s failure to conduct a hearing in which the issues were aired to allow a full and true disclosure of the facts was a disservice to both parties," Lazar said. "It is not Mount Pleasant’s fault that the facts and legal issues were not fully developed six months ago."
Mount Pleasant was represented by attorneys David McClurg, Tristan Pettit, Gary Koch, Jennifer Hayden, and David Espin of the Petrie + Pettit law firm.
The full decision in Mount Pleasant Manor Senior Housing Limited Partnership v. Mary Mack is here.
Comments