What the CDC Eviction Moratorium ACTUALLY Says - You CAN Evict IF

Question

It's important to read what it covers and what it DOESN'T cover:

• The person has to prove they can’t pay the full amount because of loss of work RELATING TO COVID-19
• The person has to make every attempt to pay rent on time
• The person has to APPLY under Oath, under penalty of perjury
• It is not automatically granted
• If the renter has some other place to move to, they can be evicted
• The renter STILL OWES all rents, they have to be paid at some point
• This does not include foreclosure on a home mortgage
• They can still be evicted for violating OTHER TERMS on the lease agreement

Here is the Actual Wording:

“Covered person” means any tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property who provides to their landlord, the owner of the residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or a possessory action,

a declaration under penalty of perjury indicating that:

1) The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;

2) The individual either

(i) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2020 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return),

(ii) was not required to report any income in 2019 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or

(iii) received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check) pursuant to Section 2201 of the CARES Act;

3) the individual is unable to pay the full rent or make a full housing payment

due to substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses;

4) the individual is using best efforts to make timely partial payments that are as close to the full payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit, taking into account other nondiscretionary expenses; and

5) eviction would likely render the individual homeless—or force the individual to move into and live in close quarters in a new congregate or shared living setting—because the individual has no other available housing options.

“Evict” and “Eviction” means any action by a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or a possessory action, to remove or cause the removal of a covered person from a residential property.

This does not include foreclosure on a home mortgage.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ORDER:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-19654.pdf

Mike Cumbie · Answer

Account Closed

"Perhaps you aren't aware that in law""You seem to be a "black and white" type of guy, which is fine, however law is not "black and white". It's also very important to read it "as it is". It does NOT say you can't ask for proof, therefore, following the law, you ask."

My feelings "Just my opinion of course" but as these cases start to hit the court system, you are going to see agencies do a whole lot of backpedaling. All their tough talk is going to turn into "It was a guideline", "We strongly recommended that" as they try and disavow all responsibility for their policies.

Kyle J. · Answer

Account Closed I've noticed you cut & paste this same thing on a number of different threads, and I'm curious as to the origin of it? Are these your words or taken from some other source?

The reason I ask is, as best I can tell, there's quite a bit of misinformation being posted (and re-posted). I have actually read the order (all 37 pages), various news stories and summaries of it, and I have yet to read anything that states what you are stating.

I'll give you just a few examples of what I'm talking about. You state "The person has to APPLY under Oath, under penalty of perjury". No where in the order does it state the person has to "apply" for anything. In my mind, to apply for something means someone submits something, it's evaluated, and a decision is then made approving or denying that thing. Like with a job application, mortgage application, rental application, or most any other type of application. However, this order simply states the tenant has to "provide a copy" of the declaration to their landlord. Provide it. That's it.

You also state "It is not automatically granted". Where does that come from? It doesn't say that in the order. In fact, immediately after the tenant is directed to "provide" the declaration to their landlord, it states "Unless the CDC order is extended, changed, or ended, the order prevents you from being evicted or removed from where you are livingthrough December 31, 2020." Sounds to me like it IS automatically granted once they provide the declaration to the landlord.

And as far as your statement that "The person has to prove they can’t pay the full amount because of loss of work RELATING TO COVID-19", did you know that the word "prove" isn't listed anywhere in the 37 page order? I didn't read where they're required to "prove" anything. (As a side note, they aren't even required to have a "loss of work" according to the order, regardless of the proof aspect. They could have NO change in work and just have increased medical expenses, and they'd still qualify for this. Again, it doesn't say anything about showing proof for that either though.)

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. I'm all for reading things before jumping to conclusions about something, whether it's a new law or whatever. (And I think that was your point.) But it just seems that a lot of inaccurate information was being posted. If, on the other hand, it's me that has it wrong, feel free to correct me as I'm always willing to learn.

Mike Cumbie · Answer

Personally I don't care what the CDC says. The CDC says a lot of things and has over the years. You can read all about their findings on suicides, highway speeds and a host of other things. This notion that "The CDC\Executives now create laws and if you don't follow them, police will come and throw you in jail" is pretty much a joke. Any statement by any of them without any teeth is just chest pounding. When deciding cases the Judiciary branch makes the determination. Stand in front of a judge and say "Well your honor, your decision doesn't really matter because a different branch of government unilaterally decided you were irrelevant and this is the way it is".

Judges decide cases based on law. In order to become a law it has to go through the Legislative branch. Until that piece of it happens, it's "a suggestion".

Account Closed · Answer

Thank you for keeping things civil. ;-)

Perhaps you aren't aware that in law, anything that isn't expressly prohibited, is assumed to be permitted, until decided by a finder of fact ( a judge, a jury).

In this case as you state: "Nowhere in the order does it lay out a process (or even mention) that the landlord can challenge the declaration that tenant submits. Nowhere in the order does it state the tenant must "prove" anything."

Two issues with your statement, perhaps you can answer for me:

1. Did you initially ask the CDC if you could rent to the person who is now you're tenant? Of course not. The CDC is not taking away the power you have to "ongoing" qualify your tenants. That is a very important concept here. The CDC IS putting restrictions on evictions IF the tenant meets CERTAIN criteria that the CDC is leaving for YOU to decide and enforce. The CDC is not arbiter of landlord/tenant disputes. They have set guidelines and assume that you as the landlord can make determination if your tenant fits those guidelines. If you have reason to believe the tenant doesn't fit the guidelines, then it is your duty and responsibility to evict them if you so choose. You may choose not to, but you may evict if they don't meet the very specific criteria. And, if they can't prove it to you a "Declaration" is void.(unless there is punishment (perjury charge).

2. Which brings us to number 2. Your Comments:

a. "And the whole "under penalty of perjury" in the context of this form is a joke.

Is it your belief that the Dept of Justice has a sense of humor? As Agent "K" says in "Men in Black" "No ma'am, we at the FBI do not have a sense of humor that we're aware of".

1. DOJ uses that as a "trigger" for an investigation. They see something they don't like and that puts you into the system

2. You never get out of the system. You waste time, money and opportunity.

3. While in the system, they look at "Everything else" you have done and are doing.

4. They then charge you on what they can prove. It may end up being Perjury (ask General Flynn) or it may be something worse.

b. " Most of the things they're attesting to are subjective."

1. Are you saying that since some of the things are subjective then ALL of the things are subjective?

2. Even if some of the things are subjective, the ones that aren't subjective are actionable. It is NOT an "all or nothing"

This is not meant to be denigrating in any way, just an observation. You seem to be a "black and white" type of guy, which is fine, however law is not "black and white". It's also very important to read it "as it is". It does NOT say you can't ask for proof, therefore, following the law, you ask.

That's my wooden nickle for you.

Account Closed · Answer

The order is a complete confusing mess because the president ordered the Centers for Disease Control to figure out how to stop residential evictions, and this is what they came up with.

If he had ordered the Department of Transportation to fix overdose deaths we'd get something equally as baffling. Nobody has any idea what this thing will do because a completely inappropriate federal agency was tasked with doing it.

The courts are going to have to unravel this. Until it gets figured out or thrown out, we will be the hostages of this madness.

Kyle J. · Answer

Account Closed In fairness, and with all due respect, you're still writing things that aren't written in the order.

Nowhere in the order does it lay out a process (or even mention) that the landlord can challenge the declaration that tenant submits. Nowhere in the order does it state the tenant must "prove" anything.

And the whole "under penalty of perjury" in the context of this form is a joke. Most of the things they're attesting to are subjective. For example, "I have used best efforts..." PLEASE tell me how a landlord would disprove that? Was it their best effort? Second best? Worst effort?

Or I like this one too: "If evicted I would likely become homeless, need to move into a homeless shelter, or need to move into a new residence shared by other people who live in close quarters because I have no other available housing options." It doesn't say these are things that have already happened, or even definitely would happen. Just things that would "likely" happen. How the heck are landlords supposed to prove or disprove what's "likely" to happen?

I don't see how anyone could possibly be prosecuted for perjury by signing this, but I have a prediction how many will be. Zero.

Again, I'm all for learning if I'm the one that's wrong here. But otherwise, I'd encourage you to just post the order (minus the commentary) and let people read it for themselves as it seems as if you're misunderstanding/misquoting it and many people may not actually read it for themselves to see what it actually says.

Just my two cents.

Kyle J. · Answer

Account Closed How about we just agree to disagree on this? After all, all of my tenants are paying and have been since this whole thing started. So I don't even have anyone I need to evict. You probably don't either. So in the end we're just two guys arguing about something that won't matter for either of us. Lol. All the best.

Account Closed · Answer

Sure,

the post is directly copied from the BILLING CODE: 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and PreventionTemporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19

https://s3.amazonaws.com/publi...

1. Page 9 - "a declaration under penalty of perjury indicating that:"

It isn't automatically granted. The Landlord can challenge their Declaration. The tenant has to make the declaration and prove: Keep in mind, the statement provided by the CDC Order indicates that ALL conditions must be true. It doesn't allow for an "if/or" scenario.

1) The individual has used best efforts . . .
2) The individual either (i) expects . . .
3) the individual is unable to pay the full rent . . .
4) the individual is using best efforts to make timely partial payments . . .
5) eviction would likely render the individual homeless . . .

The only reason "under penalty of perjury" is put in there is because the possibility exists that someone will not be truthful. The only way to show whether someone is truthful is by evidence. If the evidence shows that the person was not truthful then they are subject to a perjury charge.

It would be meaningless to include "under penalty of perjury" if ALL renters were included and if ALL people were always truthful.Take #3 for instance on Page 9 of CDC Order BILLING CODE: 4163-18-P3) the individual is unable to pay the full rent or make a full housing payment due to substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses;

Are you assuming that someone who says they don't have the money is telling you the truth?Why do you assume that?

Tenants lie.

Do you know how many tenants don't pay their December rent so they can take a trip for Christmas. I had that happen to me last December. They didn't pay December, inadvertently told me about the trip and felt justified when I raised it as an issue.

It's Okay to get a proof of employment and proof of income and bank statements and pay stubs from a tenant anytime you have a question about their ability to continue making payments.

You are running a business and they are consuming your product. If they can pay but won't, then they don't qualify under Section 3 of the Order.

Josh Nigh · Answer

Since when is the CDC a legislative branch?

Chris Martin · Answer

We are all layering up. The apartment associations should be doing more, but they aren't. My 'test case' is Monday, and I'm not sure I'll convey the outcome because I don't want my company sued. Tenant Perjury is the main deterrent since tenant need to swear (CDC affidavit form) that what they claim is true. Someone with more $ than me can be the guinea pig. Layers will be in the peanut gallery. But Monday we'll see if we can cross examine the defendant. Not clear how this plays out. Also not clear that judges are on top of this, hence the NECESSITY of legal counsel (or seasoned PM) in the court room.

My 2 cents.

What the CDC Eviction Moratorium ACTUALLY Says - You CAN Evict IF

What the CDC Eviction Moratorium ACTUALLY Says - You CAN Evict IF

Most Popular Reply

17 Replies