Justice for Landlords?

One of my clients brought up a great point concerning our Connecticut legal system in regard to an appeal from a Summary Process (eviction) judgment she had brought against one of her tenants.

The tenant lost at trial – had no defense whatsoever, had not paid any use and occupancy. He filed a motion to reopen the judgment seeking to introduce the same matters that the trial judge had disallowed, to wit, records purporting to show appeals filed in previous actions that would somehow prevent the judge from ruling on the Summary Process action. The judge denied that motion to reopen.

The defendant tenant immediately filed an appeal of the denial of the Motion to Reopen to the Appellate Court. He did so without posting a bond in the amount of the use and occupancy due during the pendency of the appeal – an express requirement of the statute, C.G.S. §47a-35. I explained to the client how I would be filing a Motion to Terminate the Automatic Stay on the grounds of, inter alia, the defendant’s failure to post this use and occupancy bond. She interjected at that point with a very pertinent question: If he (the defendant tenant) was supposed to post a bond in order to file an appeal, why was he allowed to file the appeal and why is it her burden to pay me to eliminate the automatic stay? A very good question. Why didn’t the court clerk turn him down? The clerk would be quick to reject my filing in similar circumstances.

The answer is that the defendant-tenant was a tenant and pro se. Despite pronouncements to the contrary, our court will bend and break the law and their own rules to accommodate a pro se party and tenants.

Mortgage Refinancing in the Public Good

The next time you refinance your mortgage(s) or even take out a home equity loan, as a public service and for your own self-interest, tell the lender that you insist on having your own attorney at the closing. Yes, that is correct, your own attorney.

Attorneys have traditionally handled real estate transactions in Connecticut. Real estate transactions include refinances. Attorneys have the training and expertise to handle real estate transactions.

For some time now, however, many lenders are offering to "handle" the entire refinance in their branch office. The lenders suggest that having an attorney handle the transaction is obsolete, expensive and unnecessary. They offer a package that includes all of the items you need in connection with a mortgage transaction including title insurance; one stop shopping and big savings. And no shady attorneys who might advise the borrower not to close.
The only problem is that there are no savings -- you’re paying the same amount without the attorney – and there are mistakes being made by the lender and your getting shoddy service and bad loan deals.

Also – here’s where the public service aspect comes in – the lenders use inexperienced non-lawyers to carry out these transactions. In this day and age of globalization, the loan will be processed from an out-of-state service center, some other outsource will carry out recording and other aspects of the closing. The result is often flawed loan documents, incorrect loan figures, no one who can objectively answer questions about the transaction or offer advise. I often see the damage on the Land Records: improperly executed mortgages, unreleased mortgages, documents that should not have been recorded and documents recorded in the wrong order.

Attorneys are charging fees for real estate transactions that have not changed since the 1970's. We are held to high ethical standards and legal standards. We are very much the guardians of our underappreciated system of land records.

The next time, hire an attorney. I thank you and the public will thank you.

Bail System Breakdown

Okay, the New Haven police officers arrested yesterday should have been looking for fugitives without payment from the bail bondsman. And, they should have been focused on performing their duties instead of looking for "business" from the bail bondsman. But at least the bail-jumpers were removed from the streets very expeditiously. The New Haven police officers could find the bail-jumpers rather promptly, even going out of their jurisdiction to places like Waterbury. Although the FBI was helping to find them too.

And what does this say about bounty hunters in this area? So much for the aggressive and resourceful image projected in the media. I suppose, though, that they were not getting any cooperation from certain members of the New Haven Police Department– who were apparently attempting to keep all of the bail-jumper recapture business for themselves. Then what were the bondsman supposed to do? Some of bail amounts being threatened with forfeiture were over five hundred thousand dollars. Maybe one of those forfeitures would be enough to put the bail bondsman out of business?

As I understand the criminal justice system, an accused has a right to a reasonable bail. Bail bondsman, for a cash fee equal to a small percentage of the total bail amount, perform the function of being the sureties or responsible parties for the full amount of the bail ordered by the court by signing a surety bond. Without the bondsman, criminal defendants could not afford the bail and would stay in prison; our prisons would not be able to hold all of those arrested in such a case. If the criminal defendant fails to appear for his court appearance and becomes a bail-jumper, the court can order forfeiture of the full bond amount, unless the bail bondsman can produce the defendant in court by a certain date. Thus the role of the famed bounty hunter, who the bail bondsman will pay to track down the bail-jumper.

The bail bondsman perform a vital role in our system. They need to be able to track down the occasional missing criminal defendant. The ability of using a bounty hunter apparently broke down somehow. How about forming a police fugitive squad that the bail bondsman could legally pay to track down these bail-jumpers? This police squad could keep some amount for expenses and the rest could go to charity.