CR2A Stipulation / Eviction

[TurnThePage]

Can Bankruptcy void a pre-petition CR2A Agreement / Stipulation where I agree with the Landlord on a set vacate date, or they can go to Court to receive a Writ of Restitution? As Bankruptcy can stop an Unlawful Detainer action, can it also stop a Stipulation?

[justbroke]

Generally, bankruptcy stops all processes and suits.

Are you being evicted for non-payment or for some other violation of the terms of the lease? While a bankruptcy will stop all eviction proceedings, there are things that you must do if you want to stay in the place. A smart landlord is going to file a motion for relief from the automatic stay as soon as they read about this bankruptcy filing. Are you just trying to delay or are you trying to cure? What are Washington State's rules on curing rent arrears and are you attempting to do just that?

That's the extent of what I know on bankruptcy and evictions. I'm assuming that you're wondering if you'll be held to the stipulation. In the hearing for relief from the automatic stay, I'm sure the landlord's attorney will bring that up. The question will still be are you going to cure or will the bankruptcy court just send it back to the state non-bankruptcy court.

[TurnThePage]

Long story short, I'm getting evicted for refusing to allow my mother to move in -- Landlord (my parents) sent a 90 day notice "with intent to occupy the premises." The rental arrears were paid in full due to my application for a Covid-19 "emergency rental assistance" program. It's like they're literally getting paid to proceed with this retaliatory eviction.

I'm just wondering if the CR2A / Stipulation is enforceable even with the automatic stay of Bankruptcy, i.e. if they can just obtain the Judge or Court Commissioner's signature on a Writ of Restitution (without a motion or court hearing).

[justbroke]

The bankruptcy stops all actions. They would need to wait for the automatic stay to be lifted or motion the court to have it lifted before proceeding.

[TurnThePage]

Intriguing -- thanks, JB. So I might get another month or so before they can lift the automatic stay.

[justbroke]

There are special rules if there was already a judgment of eviction prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. Without that, they are in the same place as any other creditor with a pending lawsuit. They cannot continue the process. As you may know, a debtor can stop a post-judgment eviction with a bankruptcy, but there are special procedures (see form 101A) in order to get the protection of the bankruptcy court. In either case, the debtor will need to pay quickly (30 days?) or be subject to a motion for relief from stay (RFS). The RFS would allow the creditor to continue their action in the State non-bankruptcy court.

At least that's how I understand it here where I live. Washington State may have better tenant protections than we have here in Florida. I am just saying that eventually the eviction will proceed. How quickly the creditor reviews your petition, looks at what your Statement of Intention (SOI) reflects, and then proceeds based on that review is difficult to predict. If you say in your SOI that you reject the lease, the creditor should pounce on that. You may not even have a lease. I don't know what that would mean, but I'd gather that a smart creditor should look to see if you're trying to cure (did you file Chapter 7 or Chapter 13) and if not, seek an emergency hearing for an RFS.

I just don't know, but surely the automatic stay has come into effect unless there is already a judgment of eviction. If the latter is true, then Form 101A applies and the debtor must follow the procedures if they choose to cure.

[TurnThePage]

Ok, so here's a question for JB and any other Attorney(s) that may wish to jump in:

Assuming the Landlord has obtained an Eviction Judgment against you, plus attorney fees, Form 101A and 101B applies. What happens if this pertains to a holdover tenant, a tenant with no lease, and a tenant who was issued a 90 day notice *with Landlord's intent to occupy the premises* Does the automatic stay apply even if the tenant does not owe any arrears?

The forms require that you sign under penalty of perjury, "Under the state or other nonbankruptcy law that applies to the judgment for possession (eviction judgment), I have the right to stay in my residence by paying my landlord the entire delinquent amount." If no delinquent amount is owing -- and assuming the Landlord has not been granted RFS -- does the tenant have the right to stay if they deposit monthly rent payments to the Court?

[justbroke]

I can't give you a good legal answer, but for Florida the landlord should file an emergency petition with the court for relief form the automatic stay (RFS). The landlord would then no longer be restrained from having the Sheriff execute the writ of possession.

In any event, I don't think a court will allow a squatter to not pay to stay. The wording reads to me as though the "right to stay" only pertains to someone who has (a) an otherwise enforceable lease, and (b) the State statute allows a cure of the delinquent rents prior to the execution of the writ. To me, that means a holdover could not satisfy the requirements of 101A because they have no "right to cure/stay." A holdover, to me, would not have such a "right" to stay.

I've never had to personally deal with this. However, I did research this for Florida due to my situation at the time (I had moved out of my investment property and rented another home just before filing). Everything I wrote pertains to Florida law. Your State, Washington, may have laws that are more tenant friendly, but I think the bankruptcy court is trying to stay out of this state-law issue.

This is not legal advice and you'd need a competent attorney practicing in Washington, and likely a bankruptcy attorney, to pick that apart for you. My gut is that the form is clear. If you have no "right to stay" or cure then you can't stop the execution of the writ of eviction once if, and only if, that writ was signed before the bankruptcy was filed.