1.0 Edward
W. Brooke Courthouse
1.0 Information and Tour
- Meeting in atrium space to discuss overall use and design of the courthouse as a whole, with particular emphasis on entry and atrium space
- Information desk mandated by DCAM, but the court does not have enough staff or money to keep running – attempted to staff volunteers, but, again, not enough people
- When people come to court for the first time, they want to talk to a real person, rather than look at a screen to figure out where they’re going
. Use- Lawyer of the Day Program: attorney assistants for both landlords and tenants, working at every level to provide service from a brief meeting to actually attending the trial; program set up in almost every courthouse and is run either by the municipality or a local association
- Recently (within the past few years) redesigned use to accommodate the addition of Boston Municipal Court (BMC) to the building, in addition to housing court, arraignment court, criminal court, juvenile court, and probate/family court
Design
- Three information screens show where each hearing takes place in the building and at what time – with 13 pages each, it can take up to five minutes to find out where you have to go
- Atrium design allows for an abundance of natural light, however, also wastes a lot of potentially usable space – leaking ceiling gives way to poor construction (or possibly design)
- Benches built into wall along every courtroom allows for variety of uses: discussing, waiting for specialists, waiting for the trial to begin, waiting for the attorney to arrive, making phone calls, etc.
The Big Take-Away from the tour would be that
everything has been designed for the user and making the best experience for
them as possible, but due to budget constraints and the non-realistic nature of
large architectural moves, the court has innovated to make do with what they
have.
2.0 Housing
Hearings
Case One
- Self-representing tenant versus BNY Mellon attorney
- Agreement to pay on or before February 1 to move out by February 28
Case Two
- Self-representing tenant versus self-representing landlord
- Tenant has not paid rent since October 12, when she had a balance of $0
- Tenant lacking necessary documentation of mother’s funeral costs, life insurance payout, and social security income, to support claims
- Motion denied, judge chose to continue with eviction
Case Three
- Self-representing tenant versus landlord’s attorney
- No Cantonese interpreter available, therefore, hearing cannot continue
- Moved to later date
Case Four
- Self-representing tenant versus landlord’s attorney
- Private medical situation, making hearing private
- White noise comes on so that private information not shared with public
The Big Take-Away from these hearings would be that
the judge was reasonable and tried working with the tenants and landlords as
much as possible. The judge would ask many times “Did you bring any money with
you today?” so that the tenant would make some payment and agreement with the
landlord to prevent eviction. The judge, and court as a whole, put in more
effort to prevent evictions than anticipated.
3.0 Housing Trials
Case One
- Property manager with attorney (plaintiff) versus self-representing tenant (defendant)
- Outstanding balance of $2871.69
- Tenant diagnosed with diabetes, lost job, became Uber driver, and must support non-working wife and daughter
- Leniency from property manager, but not enough effort from tenant, who is receiving no support from assistance organizations because his case is “not urgent”
- Decision in the mail in a few days
Case Two
- Self-representing landlord versus self-representing tenant
- Tenant has resided in location for over 8 years, currently has an outstanding balance of $2500
- If evicted, tenant will lose section 8
- Having 7 children to support, tenant is beginning full-time work again, and is willing to create written agreement
- Tenant and landlord will sit down with mediator to create payment agreement, allowing the tenant 6 weeks to pay overdue balance
Case Three
- Self-Representing landlord versus self-representing tenant
- Landlord sent first Notice to Quit on October 21, 2016, and second Notice to Quit on March 30, 2017, after which she continued to accept rent payments
- Tenant confirms receiving of first Notice, but denies ever receiving second Notice to Quit
- Landlord and tenant not on speaking-terms, creating communication issues and forcing roommate to play mediator
- Tenant planning to move out due to inhabitable living conditions (i.e. frozen pipes for over two weeks in December 2017)
- Miscommunication between tenant and landlord, as well as misunderstanding of eviction and law processes
- Final options: discuss with Lawyer of the Day or wait a few days for judge’s decision in the mail
The Big Take-Away from these trials would be
that there is great miscommunication between tenants and landlords when it
comes to payment and agreements. The landlords from these specific trials seem
to want their tenants to succeed and are willing to be flexible, but do have
limits. I was surprised by the landlord’s lack of pure greed and genuine desire
to work with their tenants in terms of rent payments. This shifted my
perspective of eviction court, but I feel that this will be different with
development groups and more than one building landlords. However, after reading
Evicted, my idea of housing court was
humanized after this experience.