Hubbry Logo
EvictionEvictionMain
Open search
Eviction
Community hub
Eviction
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Eviction
Eviction
Eviction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Property law
Part of the common law series
Types
Acquisition
Estates in land
Conveyancing
Future use control
Nonpossessory interest
Related topics
Other common law areas
Higher category: Law and Common law
Erik Henningsen's painting Eviction held by the National Gallery of Denmark.1892
RIC and Hussars at an eviction-Ireland 1888
Two men with children, being evicted, stand with their possessions on the sidewalk, circa 1910, on the Lower East Side of New York City.

Eviction is the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord. In some jurisdictions it may also involve the removal of persons from premises that were foreclosed by a mortgagee (often, the prior owners who defaulted on a mortgage).

Depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, eviction may also be known as unlawful detainer, summary possession, summary dispossess, summary process, forcible detainer, ejectment, and repossession, among other terms. Nevertheless, the term eviction is the most commonly used in communications between the landlord and tenant. Depending on the jurisdiction involved, before a tenant can be evicted, a landlord must win an eviction lawsuit or prevail in another step in the legal process. It should be borne in mind that eviction, as with ejectment and certain other related terms, has precise meanings only in certain historical contexts (e.g., under the English common law of past centuries), or with respect to specific jurisdictions. In present-day practice and procedure, there has come to be a wide variation in the content of these terms from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.[citation needed]

The legal aspects, procedures, and provisions for eviction, by whatever name, vary even between countries or states with similar legal structures.

The eviction process

[edit]
Flow Diagram of the Eviction Process in British Columbia, Canada

Most jurisdictions do not permit the landlord to evict a tenant without first taking legal action to do so (commonly referred to as a "self-help" eviction; such actions include changing locks, removing items from the premises, or terminating utility services). Such evictions are generally illegal at any time during the process (including after a landlord wins an eviction suit); a tenant facing such measures may sue the landlord. However, self-help evictions may be permitted in some jurisdictions when commercial tenants are involved, as opposed to residential tenants.[1][2]

Notice

[edit]

Prior to filing a suit in court for eviction, generally the landlord must provide written notice to the tenant (commonly called a notice to quit or notice to vacate).[3] The residential and commercial ordinances created jurisdictions preventing landlords from taking any action that may force a tenant out of their premises. These actions include, but are not limited to, force and threats, removing essential services, demolishing the property, or interfering with entrance locks.[4][5]

Lawsuit and trial

[edit]

If the tenant remains in possession of the property after the notice to vacate has expired, the landlord can then serve the tenant with a lawsuit.[citation needed]

Depending on the jurisdiction, the tenant may be required to submit a written response by a specified date, after which time another date is set for the trial. Other jurisdictions may simply require the tenant to appear in court on a specified date. Eviction cases are often expedited since the issue is time-sensitive (the landlord loses rental income while the tenant remains in possession). A jury trial may be requested by either party; however, until the late 2000s that was very uncommon.[6]

Many of the defendants in eviction case do not show up for court. In many major cities, including Milwaukee, as many as 70% of defendants are no-shows.[7] In the courts in some urban areas only 10% of defendants showed up.[8]

Removal from the property

[edit]

As mentioned above, most jurisdictions do not allow a landlord to evict a tenant without legal action being taken first, even if the landlord is successful in court.

Instead, the landlord would have to obtain a writ of possession or warrant of removal from the court and present it to the appropriate law enforcement officer. The officer then posts a notice for the tenant on the property that the officer will remove the tenant and any other people on the property, though some jurisdictions will not enforce the writ if, on that day, inclement weather is taking place.[9]

With the removal of the tenant also comes the removal of their personal belongings. If the tenant leaves behind anything of value, there is a custom (but no law in some jurisdictions) for the landlord to hold onto their left-behind belongings for 30 days. After these 30 days the landlord is able to sell the left-behind property, usually in an auction, to satisfy any overdue rent arrears.[10]

No-fault evictions

[edit]

A no-fault eviction occurs when a landlord seeks to regain possession of a rented property under laws that do not require him to allege any fault on the part of the tenant such as failure to pay rent, disturbance to neighbors or other tenants in the building, or violation of lease terms.[citation needed] In many jurisdictions, a tenancy at will, as opposed to a term lease tenancy, may be ended at any time with a minimum of thirty days' notice to tenant, although some jurisdictions require longer notice periods.[citation needed]

As gentrification and the re-population of urban centers by wealthier residents takes place, no-fault evictions are used as a tool to displace tenants in cities with rent control. In California, for example, the Ellis Act allows eviction of rent-controlled tenants if the landlord intends to no longer rent any portion of an apartment building (i.e., landlords cannot be compelled to rent). The Ellis Act has been applied to rentals in San Francisco,[11][12] Santa Monica and Los Angeles.[citation needed]

Just-cause evictions

[edit]
Main article: Just cause eviction

Just cause eviction, also known as good cause eviction, describes laws that aim to provide tenants protection from unreasonable evictions, rent hikes, and non-renewal of lease agreements. These laws allow tenants to challenge evictions in court when they are not considered to be legitimate evictions.[13] Generally, landlords oppose just-cause eviction laws due to concerns over profit, housing stock,[14] and court cases.[15]

Renoviction

[edit]

Renoviction is a term used when a tenant is evicted to renovate a property.[16] A landlord may perform a renoviction to raise the cost of rent for other prospective tenants.[17] In some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, evicted tenants have the right of first refusal.[18]

Retaliatory eviction

[edit]

Retaliatory eviction occurs when a landlord seeks to evict a tenant in response to the tenant's exercise of legal rights, such as reporting housing code violations, withholding rent for habitability issues, or organizing with other tenants. Most jurisdictions provide statutory protections that create a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if an eviction occurs within a specified period (typically 90 days to one year) after protected tenant activity. Under these laws, the burden shifts to the landlord to prove the eviction is based on legitimate grounds unrelated to the tenant's protected conduct, such as nonpayment of rent or substantial lease violations.[19]

Real estate mobbing

[edit]

Real estate mobbing, also known as property mobbing, is the use of mobbing (group bullying) techniques by real estate speculators to constructively or forcibly evict a resident from their dwelling. The United Nations has recognized real estate mobbing as a worldwide cause of forced eviction.[20] Real estate mobbing is acknowledged as a problem in Europe and particularly in Spain.[21]

Countries

[edit]

United States

[edit]
Main article: Eviction in the United States

In the United States of America, rules for evictions and the eviction process are determined by state, county, and city rules.

Australia

[edit]

If the tenant is on a fixed term tenancy and their lease is coming to an end, a landlord will be required to give them a valid notice to vacate. The period of this notice varies from state to state. If the tenant will not cooperate with the parameters of an eviction notice, application is made to the Tenancy Tribunal for possession of the property.

A landlord cannot legally evict a tenant without obtaining a Possession Order and a Warrant of Possession. A Warrant of Possession directs the police to evict a tenant from the property. The police then contact the agent to arrange a time to go to the property, see the tenants off the premises, change the locks and formally take possession. The eviction must always be carried out by the police; the landlord cannot evict tenants themselves. Taking the law into own hands and failing to act according to the relevant legislation in jurisdiction will carry penalties for a landlord.[22]

On March 29, 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison revealed that state and territories governments will be moving to put a moratorium on evictions of persons as a result of financial distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The government said these measures were set to last for at least six months.[23]

Cambodia

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Human rights in Cambodia § Forced evictions.[edit]
Human rights activists are increasingly worried that forced evictions in Cambodia are spiralling out of control. An Amnesty International report shows how,[24] contrary to Cambodia's obligations under international human rights law, those affected by evictions have had no opportunity for genuine participation and consultation beforehand. Information on planned evictions and on resettlement packages has been incomplete and inaccurate, undermining the rights of those affected to information, and to participate in decisions which affect the exercise of their human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing. The lack of legal protection from forced eviction, and lack of regulation of existing standards has left an accountability gap which increases the vulnerability of marginalized people, particularly those living in poverty, to human rights abuses including forced evictions.

China

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Forced evictions in China.[edit]

Forced eviction in the People's Republic of China refers to the practice of involuntary land requisitions from the citizenry or resident, typically in order to make room for development projects. In some instances, government authorities work with private developers to seize land from villagers, with compensation below the market price. In many cases, they are also offered alternative housing instead of or on top of monetary compensation. Forced evictions are particularly common in rural areas, and are a major source of unrest and public protest.[25] By some estimates, up to 65 percent of the 180,000 annual mass conflicts in China stem from grievances over forced evictions.[26][27] Some citizens who resist or protest the evictions have reportedly been subjected to harassment, beatings, or detention.[28]

The rate of forced evictions has grown significantly since the 1990s, as city and county-level governments have increasingly come to rely on land sales as an important source of revenue. In 2011, the Financial Times reported that 40 percent of local government revenue comes from land sales.[29] Guan Qingyou, a professor at Tsinghua University, estimated that land sales accounted for 74 percent of local government income in 2010.[30]

Indonesia

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Homelessness in Indonesia § Forced evictions.[edit]
One cause of homelessness in Indonesia is forced evictions. According to researchers, between the years 2000 and 2005 over 92,000 people were forcefully evicted from their homes.[31]

Nigeria

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Human rights in Nigeria § Forced evictions.[edit]

Forced evictions are an integral aspect of human rights violation. They comprise the forceful removal of persons without their assent and against their will on a temporary or permanent basis from their homeland, normal place of abode without clear preparations for adequate compensation and relocation.[32] This increases the problems of displacement of individuals and homelessness in countries.[33] Governments at different levels continue to forcefully evict people without adequate compensation in some African countries including Nigeria[34] which is estimated to have the largest urban slum population in sub Saharan Africa in terms of size and percentage of the total population.[citation needed] Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) has labelled Nigeria as a consistent violator of housing rights.[35]

The Nigerian government forcefully evicted over 2 million people between 2000 and 2009.[36] In Lagos State alone, between 2003 and 2015, communities in Makoko Yaba, Ijora East, Ijora Badiya, PURA-NPA Bar Beach, Ikota Housing Estate, Ogudu Ori-Oke, Mosafejo in Oshodi, Agric-Owutu, Ageologo-Mile 12, and Mile 2 Okokomaiko have been forcefully evicted under the guise of development.[37][38] Between July and September 2000, at least 50,000 people in Abuja were evicted without prior notices or adequate alternative accommodation. The evictions were done to move communities/settlements who government claimed had distorted the Abuja Development Master Plan.[39]

In Lagos State, Nigeria, the forced evictions are done with the major purpose of reclaiming the land and building luxury apartments as the population of the country continue to soar creating housing deficits.[40][41][42] However, this breeds discrimination and inequality as the new buildings do not fulfill any housing need for the general populace.[43] In July 2016, the Lagos State Ministry of Waterfront Infrastructure Development after a notice of 72hrs forcefully evicted residents of Makoko, a waterfront community made up of six villages - Oko Agbon, Adogbo, Migbewhe, Yanshiwhe, Sogunro and Apollo without a court order.[44] This rendered an estimated 30,000 people homeless.[45][46][47] Makoko is one of the nine communities targeted in the $200 Million World Bank-funded Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project (LMDGP) of the Lagos State government for urbanization, waste management, drainage and water supply.[48][49] The community which has been in existent for more than 100yrs is said to have started as a settlement of fishermen from Togo and the Republic of Benin.[50]

At least 266 structures in Badia East community, Lagos State which were being used as homes and businesses were pulled down in February 2013, by the State government. The Resettlement Action Plan which was agreed to in April 2013 did not have clear-cut remedies for adequate resettlement of the displaced persons.[51] Badia is one of the communities slated for urbanization through upgrading from being a slum in the $200 million World Bank-funded Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project (LMDGP). The project specifies minimal involuntary resettlement and where absolutely necessary such must have been discussed and agreed on with the residents including adequate notice, compensation and well spelt-out resettlement plans.[52]

Between 2016 and 2017, Otodo-Gbame an ancestral fishing community and Ilubrin community were forcefully sacked from their homes with fatalities after 12 days of written eviction notice.[53][54] On 17 March 2017, despite a January 2017 court injunction, Itedo, a waterfront community of more than 35,000 persons was forcefully evicted early in the morning while some were still asleep.[55] In 2019, a UN Special Rapporteur on right to adequate housing asked that Nigerian government declares a nationwide moratorium on forced evictions.[56]

On 20 January 2020 residents of Tarkwa Bay, a waterfront community was forcefully evicted by security personnel in what has been termed a gross violation of human rights.[57][58] Oil theft through the pipelines along the beach is the reason given by government authorities for the forced evictions.[59]

Impacts on those being evicted

[edit]

Eviction record

[edit]

Evictions can remain on a tenant's record for up to seven years in the United States,[60] and landlords are typically allowed to reject tenants due to previous evictions.[61] Public eviction records can be a barrier to entry to housing, leading tenants into emergency shelters after failing tenant screening at multiple apartments.[62]

Some American jurisdictions have sealed eviction records to prevent blanket denial of tenants with an eviction history.[62][63]

Mental health

[edit]

There are sometimes communication problems for when the actual eviction date is decided upon, leaving some evictees thoroughly underprepared with nothing packed when the sheriff comes.[64] This can lead to a Skinner box–like experience as evictees sometimes try "riding" the eviction out.[64] (This is sometimes caused by denial.)[64]

Evictees[65] experience higher rates of: depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and even suicide.[66][67][68] The process of eviction can take a long time (potentially months) and this can leave the evictee in a heightened state of stress, which makes them more susceptible to stress illnesses.[64][66] Even after years have passed, studies show that evictees are less happy, optimistic and energetic than those who have not been evicted.[69]

Economic effects

[edit]

Being evicted can increase rates of job loss.[64] A person is 15% more likely to be laid off after experiencing eviction.[70] This can lead to a cycle where the eviction makes it difficult to work but not working can lead to eviction. Evictions are a leading cause of homelessness.[71][72]

Evictees often end up moving into poorer quality housing, like overcrowded homes.[67][64] A study that looked at Milwaukee, Wisconsin found that renters who had been involuntarily moved from a prior residence were 25% more likely to experience long-term housing problems than their peers who had only moved voluntarily.[73]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Eviction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Eviction is the by which a recovers possession of leased from a tenant who refuses to vacate after breaching the agreement, most often due to nonpayment of rent or other violations such as or unauthorized subletting. The procedure, which varies by but follows a common structure in common- systems, commences with the delivering a formal to the tenant—typically a "notice to quit" or "pay or quit" demand—affording a statutory period, often 3 to 30 days, to cure the default or surrender the premises. If the tenant does not comply, the initiates a summary proceeding, such as an unlawful detainer action, where the burden lies on proving the breach; a favorable yields a of possession enforced by or to physically remove the tenant and restore control to the owner. This mechanism underpins the operational integrity of rental markets by enforcing contractual obligations, as unchecked nonpayment would impose unsustainable losses on landlords, discouraging property investment and contracting housing supply—a dynamic evidenced in empirical analyses showing that elevated eviction barriers correlate with reduced rental availability and heightened market tightness. While evictions can precipitate tenant displacement and associated socioeconomic costs like temporary homelessness, they represent a causal necessity for balancing property rights against occupancy privileges, with data from high-volume markets revealing that nonpayment filings far outpace actual removals due to landlord selectivity and tenant remediation. Jurisdictional differences, such as mandatory mediation in some U.S. states or no-fault provisions for lease non-renewal, modulate the process, yet core principles prioritize swift resolution to minimize economic distortion from prolonged disputes.

Definition and Fundamentals

Eviction constitutes the through which a reclaims possession of leased from a tenant who refuses to vacate, generally initiated via a action such as an unlawful detainer suit upon breach of the tenancy agreement. This mechanism enforces the landlord's superior interest after the tenant's default, distinguishing it from voluntary surrender or abandonment of the premises. A cornerstone principle prohibits remedies, barring landlords from independently ousting tenants—such as by altering locks, shutting off utilities, or seizing belongings—without judicial authorization, as these tactics risk breaching the and invite civil or criminal penalties. This rule preserves public order and channels disputes into the courts, where can be adjudicated formally rather than through potentially violent confrontations. Eviction proceedings adhere to mandates, requiring landlords to deliver written notice detailing the violation (e.g., nonpayment or breach) and, in many cases, a cure period—typically three to fourteen days depending on —before filing suit. Tenants then receive to contest the claim in a hearing, where the landlord must prove grounds for termination and the tenant's failure to remedy, culminating in a judgment for possession if successful, enforceable via a directing to restore the property. These steps balance the landlord's contractual remedies with the tenant's possessory rights, rooted in traditions of forcible entry prohibitions and modern statutory safeguards against arbitrary dispossession.

Historical Development

The concept of eviction traces its roots to English during the feudal era, where leases primarily concerned land rather than structures, and tenants held possessory interests with an absolute obligation to pay rent irrespective of property conditions. Landlords initially relied on remedies to regain possession, but medieval statutes curtailed forcible entries to maintain public peace; for instance, the Forcible Entry Act of 1381 under Richard II criminalized violent re-entry while permitting reasonable non-violent force. Subsequent laws, such as those in 1391 and 1429, extended prohibitions to forcible detainer, emphasizing judicial processes over brute force to resolve disputes. In the American colonies and early republic, English principles were adopted, allowing landlords broad options but prompting states to enact forcible entry and detainer statutes modeled on English precedents to deter breaches of peace. These statutes transformed evictions from criminal matters into civil summary proceedings, enabling rapid possession recovery while limiting tenant defenses primarily to payment disputes or terms. By the 19th century, jurisdictions like New York reformed actions—traditionally protracted affairs involving fictional pleadings—into expedited statutory mechanisms, reflecting urbanization's demand for efficient landlord remedies amid rising tenancy. At the turn of the , U.S. eviction law amalgamated ejectment with statutory innovations, prioritizing rights in urban tenement contexts where courts processed evictions swiftly, often within weeks, with scant regard for defenses unless invoking nascent constructive eviction doctrines. Progressive-era housing codes, such as New York's Tenement House Act of 1901, began imposing minimal standards but exerted limited influence on eviction outcomes, as summary courts focused narrowly on contractual breaches. Over the mid-, doctrines like implied warranties of emerged, challenging absolute rent obligations and mandating judicial oversight, though persisted in some forms under varying state rules.

Grounds for Eviction

For-Cause Grounds

For-cause grounds for eviction, also termed at-fault or just cause evictions, permit landlords to terminate tenancies due to specific tenant violations of agreements or applicable s, distinguishing them from no-fault terminations unrelated to tenant conduct. These grounds aim to protect while requiring evidence of breach, often necessitating prior and opportunities for where statutes allow. Common statutory frameworks enumerate such grounds to prevent arbitrary actions, with variations by but consistent emphasis on material faults.
  • Non-payment of rent: This constitutes the primary for-cause ground, occurring when tenants fail to remit rent by the , typically triggering a pay-or-quit after a of 3 to 10 days depending on local rules. In 2023, non-payment accounted for approximately 70-80% of eviction filings in U.S. jurisdictions with available data, underscoring its prevalence amid economic pressures.
  • Breach of lease terms: Tenants may be for violating material provisions, such as unauthorized subletting, exceeding occupancy limits, or keeping prohibited pets, after receiving a to or quit within 3 to 30 days. Failure to remedy the breach sustains the eviction basis, ensuring of contractual obligations without requiring judicial intent review beyond the violation itself.
  • Property damage or waste: Intentional or negligent damage beyond normal , including failure to maintain cleanliness or repairs as required, provides grounds if not rectified post-notice, protecting investments in fixtures and structures. Courts typically assess materiality, excluding minor issues like cosmetic scuffs.
  • Nuisance or disturbances: Repeated or substantial disturbances, such as excessive noise, of neighbors, or threats to safety, justify eviction when documented complaints or police reports substantiate interference with others' quiet enjoyment. This ground addresses communal impacts, with some statutes requiring multiple warnings before termination.
  • Unlawful or illegal use: Using the premises for prohibited activities, including drug-related crimes, operations, or other statutory violations, serves as grounds, often expedited due to risks and minimal cure periods. Evidence like convictions or arrests bolsters claims, prioritizing legal compliance over tenant defenses.
These grounds require landlords to demonstrate fault through documentation, with tenants afforded defenses like improper notice or retaliatory motive, though success rates for such challenges remain low in uncontested cases.

No-Fault Grounds

No-fault grounds for eviction permit landlords to terminate tenancies without evidence of tenant wrongdoing, typically to accommodate the owner's personal use of the property, economic decisions, or structural changes requiring vacancy. These grounds prioritize the landlord's property rights while imposing procedural safeguards, such as advance and, in some cases, relocation payments, to mitigate tenant displacement. Unlike for-cause evictions, which address breaches like nonpayment or damage, no-fault actions stem from external factors unrelated to tenant behavior, enabling owners to repurpose assets amid market shifts or life events. Common no-fault grounds include the landlord or a close relative intending to occupy the unit as , often requiring proof of genuine intent and a minimum period post-eviction to prevent . For instance, in jurisdictions like , landlords must file a Declaration of Intent to Evict specifying personal or family use, with the relative qualifying as a , , , or . Another prevalent ground involves substantial renovations or that render the unit uninhabitable during work, necessitating full vacancy to comply with building codes or safety standards; this is codified in places like , where such evictions account for a significant portion of tenant displacements despite regulatory oversight. Additional grounds encompass withdrawing the property from the rental market entirely, as under California's , which allows owners to exit leasing amid unprofitable conditions without tenant fault, or selling to a buyer , where the purchaser must intend personal use for at least one year. In jurisdictions without blanket just-cause protections, non-renewal at lease term's end functions as a no-fault mechanism, though recent reforms in states like mandate 90-day notices and limit such actions to verifiable reasons, reflecting efforts to balance flexibility with tenant stability amid shortages. These grounds vary by locale—England and Wales, for example, restricted Section 21 no-fault notices via the Renters' Rights Bill effective 2025, requiring cause for terminations—but universally demand documentation to curb pretextual evictions.

Eviction Procedures

Pre-legal notices, also known as notices to quit, pay, or cure, are written documents served by landlords to tenants as the first step in the eviction process, requiring the tenant to either remedy a lease violation or vacate the premises within a specified timeframe. These notices are mandated by statute in most jurisdictions to provide tenants due process and an opportunity to comply before a landlord may file a lawsuit for possession. Failure to issue a proper pre-legal notice typically renders subsequent eviction actions invalid, as courts require proof of notice compliance. The content of a valid notice must include the tenant's name, the rental property's , a clear statement of the reason for termination (such as nonpayment of rent or material breach), the exact amount owed if applicable, the deadline for compliance, and the landlord's and contact information. For nonpayment of rent, notices often demand full payment of plus any late fees, with cure periods ranging from 3 to 10 days depending on local ; partial payment usually does not satisfy the notice unless the landlord explicitly agrees otherwise. violation notices require the tenant to "perform covenants" by correcting the issue, such as repairing damage or ceasing unauthorized subletting, within a similar short . No-fault notices, used for periodic tenancies or month-to-month agreements, typically provide 30 to 60 days' without requiring cause, though some jurisdictions impose longer periods for long-term tenants. Service methods for notices vary but must ensure the tenant receives actual or constructive knowledge; common approaches include personal delivery to the tenant or a responsible adult at the premises, substituted service (leaving with a suitable person followed by mailing), or posting on the door with mailing if personal service fails. Electronic service may be permitted if specified in the or by , but landlords must retain proof of service, such as affidavits or certified mail receipts, to present in . Jurisdictions like mandate specific forms or language to avoid defects, while others, such as , require at least 7 days for nonpayment notices served via mail adding extra time for delivery. If the tenant cures the default within the —by paying rent in full or fixing the violation—the tenancy continues, and the landlord waives the right to evict on that ground absent new issues. Noncompliance allows the landlord to proceed to filing an unlawful detainer complaint, but tenants may challenge improper notices in court, potentially delaying or dismissing proceedings. These requirements stem from state landlord-tenant statutes aimed at balancing property rights with tenant protections, though enforcement rigor varies, with urban courts often scrutinizing notices more closely due to higher caseloads.

Judicial Processes

Judicial eviction processes commence after pre-legal notices when landlords file a formal or for possession in a civil , often designated as a summary proceeding to expedite resolution compared to standard civil litigation. In such proceedings, the landlord must demonstrate compliance with notice requirements and valid grounds for termination, while courts prioritize restoring property possession to owners over monetary disputes. These processes are governed by state statutes in the United States, with federal overlays in cases, ensuring protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon filing, the issues a summons or notice of hearing, which must be served on the tenant by a process server, , or , typically within a short timeframe such as 3 to 10 days depending on . Tenants generally have 5 to 15 days to file a response or answer, contesting the eviction on procedural grounds, payment disputes, or affirmative defenses like retaliation or uninhabitable conditions. Failure to respond may result in a for the landlord. Court hearings involve presentation of , , and arguments before a , without juries in most eviction cases. Judges evaluate terms, notice validity, and tenant compliance; if the landlord prevails, a judgment for possession is entered, often with a stay period of 2 to 14 days for voluntary vacatur. For nonpayment cases, tenants may cure during or post-hearing in some states, averting eviction if full payment is made. Post-judgment, landlords apply for a of restitution, possession, or eviction warrant, authorizing to remove tenants and restore property. Execution occurs during , with sheriffs or marshals posting notices and, if necessary, physically evicting occupants and securing the . Appeals are possible but require bonds or stays, and self-help measures like lockouts remain unlawful, exposing landlords to . Processing times vary, averaging 20-60 days nationally, influenced by court backlogs and local rules.

Enforcement Mechanisms

In jurisdictions across the , enforcement of eviction judgments occurs through court-issued of possession or restitution, which authorize —typically county , constables, or city marshals—to physically remove tenants and restore property to landlords. Landlords must file the writ with the relevant office and pay associated fees, often ranging from $50 to $150 depending on the locality. This step ensures , as self-help actions by landlords—such as lock changes, utility shutoffs, or forcible entry—are illegal in all states and can result in tenant lawsuits for actual damages, statutory penalties (e.g., up to $100 per day in ), attorney's fees, and potential criminal charges like . Upon receiving the writ, law enforcement serves it on the tenant by personal delivery or posting on the property door, typically allowing 3 to 5 days for voluntary vacatur to minimize confrontation. If the tenant fails to leave, officers return to the premises with the landlord or agent, escort the tenant out, and remove personal belongings, placing them curbside or in a designated area as required by local rules. Landlords bear responsibility for any mandated storage of removed items, with failure to do so potentially exposing them to liability for loss or damage. Officers may change locks during enforcement but cannot assist in inventorying or transporting goods beyond the property line. Enforcement timelines vary by jurisdiction; for instance, allows writ issuance five days post-judgment, while stays or appeals can delay execution up to 10 days or more. Sheriffs exercise limited in scheduling, sometimes prioritizing based on workload or public safety, though federal moratoriums during events like the (2020–2021) temporarily halted many executions. This structured process prioritizes neutral third-party intervention to prevent actions, reflecting common-law principles against private force in property disputes. Outside the U.S., mechanisms differ; for example, in , similar sheriff-led processes apply but with provincial variations in notice periods.

Jurisdictional Variations

United States Practices

Eviction practices in the are governed predominantly by state statutes and local ordinances, reflecting the federalist structure where landlord-tenant relations fall under state jurisdiction absent . No uniform dictates eviction procedures for private market rentals, though federal regulations apply to government-assisted housing programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Landlords are prohibited from measures, such as forcible removal or utility shutoffs, and must pursue judicial processes to regain possession. The standard eviction sequence begins with the landlord serving a written notice to the tenant, specifying the grounds and period, which varies widely: typically 3 to 5 days for nonpayment of rent in most states, but up to 30 days for violations or month-to-month terminations in tenant-friendly jurisdictions like and New York. If unresolved, the landlord files a summary eviction action—often called unlawful detainer—in state housing or civil court, where tenants receive summons and may raise defenses like payment disputes or issues. Court timelines differ; some states, such as , permit expedited hearings within days, while others mandate or delays for low-income tenants. Upon obtaining a judgment for possession, courts issue a enforced by or , typically allowing 3 to 7 days for voluntary vacatur before physical removal. Variations include right-to-counsel mandates in states like New York (effective 2024 for nonpayment cases in NYC) and local bans on source-of-income discrimination in housing vouchers. In HUD-assisted properties, including and Section 8, owners must provide at least 14 days' for material lease violations and a 30-day for nonpayment under a 2024 final rule, alongside opportunities for hearings. State differences extend to procedural safeguards: as of 2021, only select jurisdictions required landlords to offer rental assistance information pre-filing, and fewer mandated trials for eviction disputes. Landlord-friendly states like allow shorter notices and limited tenant appeals, contrasting with protections in , where post-2019 reforms impose just-cause requirements and fee shifting to deter frivolous filings. Empirical data from analyses highlight how these variations influence outcomes, with weaker procedural rights correlating to higher eviction filing rates in Southern states. Federal interventions, such as the CARES Act's 2020 eviction halt for covered properties, were temporary and lapsed by August 2021, reverting to state norms.

International Comparisons

In most OECD countries, eviction from rental housing requires a or administrative order following to the tenant, distinguishing these processes from rarer self-help evictions and emphasizing judicial oversight to balance landlord rights with tenant security of tenure. Procedures typically unfold in stages: initial for cause (such as rent arrears or ), opportunities for or defense, judicial , and enforcement by bailiffs or sheriffs. International human rights standards, including those under the and UN covenants, mandate reasonable , consultation with affected parties, and provision of alternatives like relocation assistance to mitigate risks. European jurisdictions often impose stricter "good cause" requirements, limiting evictions to verifiable tenant faults (e.g., non-payment after grace periods, illegal activity, or serious damage) or compelling needs (e.g., personal use or major renovations), with no-fault terminations prohibited in countries like , , , , and . Notice periods for termination typically range from 1 to 6 months, extendable by court delays, and many nations enforce seasonal moratoriums; , for instance, bans evictions from November 1 to March 31 to protect against winter hardship. In , tenants in long-term leases enjoy indefinite security absent cause, with courts scrutinizing claims rigorously, contributing to lower eviction initiation rates compared to less regulated systems. These protections correlate with eviction volumes varying by up to tenfold across , influenced by data collection inconsistencies and policy stringency. In contrast, common-law influenced nations like the United Kingdom permit no-fault evictions under Section 21 notices for assured shorthold tenancies, requiring only two months' notice without cause, though proposed 2024 reforms aim to eliminate this mechanism amid tenant advocacy. Canada operates provincially, mandating good cause in most areas—such as Ontario's 14-day notice for rent arrears or 60 days for landlord occupancy—with tribunals handling disputes rather than courts in some provinces like British Columbia, leading to processes lasting 1-6 months depending on hearings. Overall, OECD data indicate the United States files the highest per capita eviction proceedings—approximately 3.6 million annually—exceeding European averages due to broader no-fault allowances and shorter timelines in many states.

Empirical Impacts

Effects on Tenants

Eviction disrupts tenants' , often leading to reduced scores by an average of 16.5 points and diminished access to , with effects persisting beyond the initial two-year period, particularly among female and renters. Quasi-experimental analyses indicate small causal impacts on overall financial health but larger reductions in utilization, challenging stronger correlational claims of eviction directly causing entrenched . Housing instability intensifies as evictions increase residential mobility and short-term homelessness risks, complicating future rental applications due to of eviction filings. Tenants face heightened barriers to securing new accommodations, exacerbating cycles of frequent moves and potential doubling up with family or friends. Health outcomes deteriorate following eviction, with causal evidence showing increased visits by 0.19 per person (a 29% rise relative to non-evicted means) and mental -related visits by 0.05. Longitudinal data link eviction to elevated depressive symptoms and poorer self-reported physical , including higher , though bidirectional —where poor health precedes eviction—may contribute. For families with children, eviction correlates with adverse outcomes such as increased food insecurity, adverse birth effects, and elevated child maltreatment reports leading to involvement, with home eviction rates showing the strongest associations for white and Black children. Children experience heightened risks of , school changes, missed days, and reduced high school graduation rates—effects more pronounced for boys—potentially through disrupted environments rather than direct financial channels. Early childhood exposure also ties to neurodevelopmental harms and fair or poor overall health.

Effects on Landlords

Evictions impose substantial financial burdens on landlords, encompassing direct expenses such as filing fees, attorney costs, and enforcement fees, as well as indirect losses from unpaid rent during the process and vacancy periods thereafter. In the United States, the total cost of an eviction typically equates to 2-3 months of rent, prompting landlords to delay filings until tenants accumulate significant to justify the expenditure. Empirical analyses indicate average ranging from $3,500 to $5,000 per case, including legal representation and procedural fees that vary by but often exceed $1,000 even in uncontested proceedings. Beyond immediate outlays, landlords frequently recover only a fraction of owed back rent, with studies showing that eviction proceedings seldom yield full reimbursement and instead prolong disruptions through extended timelines averaging 2-4 months. , cleaning, and re-leasing expenses further compound losses, particularly when tenants vacate abruptly or leave units in disrepair, adding hundreds to thousands in remediation costs. For small-scale landlords—who comprise the majority of U.S. rental property owners and often depend on single units for —these costs represent a disproportionate to viability, exacerbating strains and discouraging maintenance investments or property acquisitions. The administrative and opportunity burdens of eviction processes also deter proactive property management, as landlords must navigate complex judicial requirements, potential tenant defenses, and appeals that extend resolution times. Data from rental ledgers reveal that non-evicted nonpayers account for about one-third of total delinquency losses, underscoring how procedural hurdles incentivize tolerance of partial payments over swift enforcement. Larger institutional landlords mitigate these effects through and dedicated legal teams, but small owners face heightened risks of financial distress, contributing to market exits or stricter tenant screening that reduces housing access for higher-risk renters.

Market and Societal Consequences

Evictions in the market serve as a mechanism for reallocating scarce resources from non-paying tenants to those able to meet contractual obligations, thereby supporting incentives to maintain and expand supply. In typical years, eviction filings for nonpayment affect 5-6% of U.S. renter households, with often forbearing initial defaults but pursuing formal action when repayment prospects dim, which helps enforce discipline and prevents widespread defaults that could deter . Stricter eviction regulations, such as higher procedural costs, reduce filing rates but can tighten market conditions by increasing the ratio of rent-seekers to vacant units, potentially exacerbating rent affordability challenges without proportionally lowering rents. On the supply side, barriers to eviction risk prompting landlords to raise rents preemptively, reduce maintenance investments, or exit the rental market altogether, which from analogous rent controls links to diminished housing quality and negative externalities on surrounding properties. During the eviction moratoria (2020-2021), formal filings dropped significantly—by up to 51% relative to pre-policy baselines—but this coincided with informal displacement tactics and did not demonstrably alleviate broader supply shortages, as home price inflation persisted amid low vacancy rates. Societally, eviction orders elevate risks of and residential instability, with affected households experiencing heightened mobility and shelter use in the short term, alongside increased emergency room visits that impose costs. These outcomes perpetuate cycles by eroding earnings—through job disruptions—and restricting access, with evicted individuals facing persistent declines in financial and durable goods consumption for up to two years post-order. Disproportionate impacts fall on low-income groups, including African American women and families with children, amplifying inequality and contributing to downstream issues like food insecurity and strain, though moratoria temporarily mitigated some distress by preserving household resources for essentials. Overall, while evictions enforce market discipline, their prevalence signals underlying economic pressures, with unchecked rises straining and public budgets through elevated and healthcare demands.

Debates and Reforms

Tenant Protections and Their Critiques

Tenant protections encompass a range of legal measures designed to shield renters from arbitrary eviction and excessive rent increases, including just-cause eviction requirements, minimum notice periods, rent stabilization or control caps, and temporary moratoriums during crises. Just-cause laws, implemented in jurisdictions like and New York, mandate specific grounds such as nonpayment or lease violations for eviction, often requiring court oversight. Rent control, as seen in San Francisco's program expanded in 1994, limits annual increases to inflation-linked percentages, aiming to preserve affordability for existing tenants. These policies have demonstrably lowered eviction rates in protected units; for instance, San Francisco's rent control reduced evictions by restricting discretion. Critics argue that such protections distort housing markets by interfering with price signals and property rights, leading to reduced supply and inefficient allocation. Economic theory posits that capping rents below market levels discourages new construction and maintenance, as landlords face lower returns on investment; supports this, with studies showing rent control in prompted a 15% decline in rental units as owners converted properties to condominiums. Just-cause eviction laws similarly raise barriers to removing problematic tenants, increasing operational risks for landlords and shifting costs to future renters through higher baseline rents. A analysis found stringent eviction regulations correlated with inflated housing prices, as reduced rental turnover tightens supply and incentivizes owners to sell rather than rent. Eviction moratoriums, such as those enacted during the under the from March 2020 to August 2021, exemplify short-term protections that impose asymmetric burdens, particularly on small who rely on rental income without institutional buffers. These policies prevented millions of evictions but led to unpaid rents accumulating to billions, eroding liquidity and prompting withdrawals from the market; smaller owners, comprising 80% of U.S. rental , faced disproportionate losses without rental assistance offsets. Empirical reviews indicate broader negative externalities, including deferred and reduced housing quality in controlled units, as landlords conserve costs amid capped revenues. While proponents cite reduced displacement for incumbents, the consensus among economists—spanning institutions like Brookings and the —highlights that protections often exacerbate shortages for new entrants, particularly low-income households ineligible for grandfathered benefits, by locking in subsidies for long-term tenants and deterring supply growth. This dynamic fosters misallocation, where units are underutilized by stable occupants while demand surges unmet, ultimately inflating uncontrolled rents and perpetuating affordability crises. Sources advocating strong protections frequently originate from advocacy-aligned academia, potentially overlooking these supply-side disincentives in favor of visible short-term gains.

Eviction Moratoria Outcomes

Eviction moratoria, implemented widely during the , temporarily halted formal eviction processes for nonpayment of rent, primarily in the United States from March 2020 to August 2021 at the federal level, with extensions in some jurisdictions. Empirical analyses indicate these policies reduced eviction filings by approximately 51% nationwide compared to pre-pandemic baselines before the federal moratorium expired, averting an estimated 1.55 million filings in the early pandemic period. However, this reduction primarily delayed rather than eliminated underlying rental arrears, with many tenants accruing unpaid rent averaging 3-6 months by mid-2021. Post-moratorium outcomes revealed a rebound in eviction activity, with filings in some cities reaching or exceeding historical averages by late 2021, compounded by the uneven rollout of emergency assistance programs. Studies document that expiration correlated with doubled incidence and fivefold increases in mortality in affected areas, attributed to heightened mobility and from delayed displacements. For tenants, short-term benefits included redirected resources toward , reducing insecurity and mental stress—effects most pronounced among African American renters—but these gains dissipated as arrears mounted, leading to heightened instability risks without addressing root financial distress. Landlords, particularly small-scale owners comprising 80% of the U.S. market, faced significant losses from uncollected rent totaling over $50 billion by 2021, prompting exits from the market, informal eviction tactics like cash-for-keys or shutoffs, and strained tenant relations that reduced future rent payments even after policy end. Broader market consequences included supply constraints, as moratorium-induced vacancies and foreclosures contributed to rental shortages and rent hikes exceeding 10% in major metros by 2022, exacerbating affordability crises without proportionally mitigating rates, which rose 12% nationally post-2021 despite interventions. Peer-reviewed modeling underscores that while moratoria curbed transmission risks by stabilizing , their extension without fiscal backstops amplified insolvency and informal displacements, yielding mixed net effects on societal outcomes. These findings highlight causal trade-offs: tenant relief deferred evictions but incentivized nonpayment behaviors and eroded property incentives, with limited evidence of sustained alleviation.

Balancing Property Rights and Social Policy

The tension between property rights and in eviction contexts arises from the need to enforce contracts—allowing to recover possession from non-paying or disruptive tenants—while addressing housing insecurity and potential among renters. Property rights underpin the incentive for individuals and investors to supply housing, as assured enforceability reduces the risk of prolonged occupancy without compensation, thereby encouraging maintenance and new construction. Weak enforcement, conversely, can lead to , where tenants delay payments expecting leniency, straining landlord finances and prompting reduced investment in stock. Empirical analyses reveal that stringent eviction protections, such as "just cause" requirements or extended notice periods, lower eviction rates but often at the cost of diminished supply and elevated rents. A study constructing a Tenant Index (TRI) from 1997 to 2016 across U.S. metropolitan areas found that higher TRI scores—reflecting stronger protections—correlated with 5-10% reductions in evictions but also with increased rental vacancy costs and house prices, signaling tighter markets and reduced participation. Similarly, rent control policies, which limit eviction grounds and cap increases, have been shown to shrink rental inventories by up to 15% in affected areas, as owners convert units to owner-occupied or short-term rentals to evade restrictions, ultimately exacerbating shortages for low-income households. Eviction moratoria, implemented widely during the , illustrate short-term social relief yielding longer-term market distortions. Federal and state bans from 2020 to 2021 delayed millions of filings but failed to avert most evictions, with post-expiration surges reaching 20% above pre-moratorium levels in some regions; landlords absorbed nonpayment averaging 5-6% of rents but responded by tightening screening, raising security deposits, or exiting the market, particularly smaller operators. These interventions reduced immediate displacement but increased financial distress for landlords, with indicating only marginal prevention of evictions overall, as policies delayed rather than resolved underlying nonpayment issues. Proposed reforms seek equilibrium through targeted mechanisms over broad restrictions, such as rental s or emergency assistance funds, which preserve rights while subsidizing tenants directly without distorting supply incentives. Economic reasoning suggests that such approaches minimize deadweight losses compared to mandates, as they avoid the supply-side deterrence observed in regulated markets; for instance, jurisdictions with programs exhibit higher rental availability without the rent inflation tied to eviction barriers. Policymakers must weigh these trade-offs causally: robust property enforcement sustains housing provision, while unchecked protections risk entrenching , disproportionately burdening the vulnerable they aim to aid.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eviction
  2. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=670
  3. https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-tenant
  4. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/tenants-guide-to-eviction
  5. https://www.nccourts.gov/help-topics/housing/landlordtenant-issues
  6. https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/hm014.pdf
  7. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/BFI_WP_2024-150.pdf
  8. https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/202404.pdf
  9. https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/9505/rwp23-03corbaeglovernattinger.pdf
  10. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/regulating-evictions-role-landlords
  11. https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/FORMS/landlordtenant/LandlordGuide-NonpaymentEviction.pdf
  12. https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-landlord
  13. https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/hrlr-online/the-right-to-counsel-in-eviction-proceedings-a-fundamental-rights-approach/
  14. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488&context=shlj
  15. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2205&context=fac_articles_chapters
  16. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/SLI_Just_Cause_Toolkit.pdf
  17. https://housing.lacity.gov/residents/just-cause-for-eviction-ordinance-jco
  18. https://snappt.com/blog/legal-reasons-for-eviction/
  19. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-eviction-process-georgia-rules-landlords-property-managers.html
  20. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/landlord-tenant/eviction-and-unlawful-detainer/grounds-for-eviction-other-than-non-payment.html
  21. https://innago.com/6-legal-reasons-to-evict-a-tenant/
  22. https://crla.org/get-help/housing/evictions-and-lockouts/know-your-rights-eviction
  23. https://www.sanchez-medina.com/post/the-top-7-reasons-for-evictions-and-how-to-avoid-them
  24. https://www.peoples-law.org/landlord-and-tenant-causes-action-when-things-go-wrong
  25. https://nlihc.org/resource/14-1-advancing-tenant-protections-just-cause-eviction-laws
  26. https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-library/just-cause-eviction-policies/
  27. https://housing.lacity.gov/residents/jco-units-non-rso-no-fault-evictions-strong
  28. https://allard.ubc.ca/about-us/news-and-announcements/2023/bc-still-eviction-capital-canada-and-most-are-through-no-fault-tenant
  29. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-eviction-process-colorado-rules-landlords-property-managers.html
  30. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jwnpryyjo
  31. https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction-landlord/notice-types
  32. https://michiganlegalhelp.org/resources/housing/eviction-what-it-and-how-does-it-start
  33. https://www.zillow.com/learn/eviction-rights-as-a-tenant/
  34. https://www.legalfix.com/topics/landlord-tenant/pay-rent-or-quit-notice-residential/il
  35. https://michiganlegalhelp.org/resources/housing/eviction-nonpayment-of-rent
  36. https://www.turbotenant.com/rental-lease-agreement/michigan/laws/eviction/
  37. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/serving-your-tenant-a-notice-to-pay-rent-or-quit
  38. https://www.inlandlegal.org/icls-in-action/the-most-common-types-of-eviction-notices/
  39. https://www.bridgedetroit.com/the-eviction-process-what-michigan-renters-should-know/
  40. https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/eviction.shtml
  41. https://nycourts.gov/courthelp/Homes/evictingTenant.shtml
  42. https://www.boston.gov/departments/housing/what-happens-during-eviction
  43. https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction
  44. https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/self-help/residential-evictions
  45. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/find-out-how-to-start-the-eviction-process
  46. https://www.njcourts.gov/self-help/landlord-tenant
  47. https://nlihc.org/resource/evictions-101-eviction-process-how-it-works-and-what-know
  48. https://www.azcourts.gov/legalinfohub/Legal-Info-Hub/Legal-Info-Sheets-Landlord-Tenant-Disputes-Eviction/After-an-Eviction-Judgment
  49. https://sheriff.santaclaracounty.gov/services/civil-services/evictions
  50. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consequences-of-illegal-evictions.html
  51. https://www.redfin.com/blog/writ-of-possession/
  52. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/sheriff/courts-jails-legal-system/sheriff-services/evictions
  53. https://filesforprogress.org/memos/sheriff-discretion-evictions.pdf
  54. https://www.lsc.gov/initiatives/effect-state-local-laws-evictions/lsc-eviction-laws-database
  55. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/eviction-protection-grant.html
  56. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/housing/housing-insecurity/help-for-renters/what-to-do-if-youre-facing-eviction/
  57. https://lawatlas.org/datasets/state-eviction-laws
  58. https://www.lsc.gov/press-release/new-eviction-laws-database-reveals-striking-differences-eviction-processes-around-country
  59. https://lawatlas.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/State_Territory_Eviction_Laws_Summary_Report.pdf
  60. https://ag.ny.gov/publications/new-york-state-good-cause-eviction-law
  61. https://nlihc.org/resource/hud-publishes-final-30-day-eviction-notice-rule
  62. https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/HUD-Housing-Survey-2022.pdf
  63. https://phlr.temple.edu/news/2021/07/new-eviction-laws-data-reveal-striking-differences-eviction-processes-around-country
  64. https://www.rocketlawyer.com/real-estate/landlords/eviction/legal-guide/eviction-by-state
  65. https://events.networkforphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Session-3-final.pdf
  66. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/emergency-rental-assistance-program/promising-practices/eviction-diversion
  67. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/hc3-3-evictions.pdf
  68. https://www.feantsa.org/download/policy-review-3-25888950126820351293.pdf
  69. https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/23/4/ngad022/7258745
  70. https://www.housingrightswatch.org/content/respecting-international-standards-home-evictions
  71. https://www.generationrent.org/2024/03/28/renting-around-the-world-comparing-europe-to-england/
  72. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19491247.2024.2367835
  73. https://www.feantsa.org/download/housing-exclusion-in-europe-evictions-chapter7026448962775795966.pdf
  74. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65038459
  75. https://www.gov.uk/private-renting-evictions
  76. https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/How%2520a%2520Landlord%2520Can%2520End%2520a%2520Tenancy%2520%28EN%29.html
  77. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/residential-tenancies/ending-a-tenancy/evictions
  78. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2025/program/paper/ZtbFrZ8r
  79. https://www.workrisenetwork.org/working-knowledge/eviction-cases-penalize-low-wage-workers-when-theyre-down
  80. https://nlihc.org/resource/evictions-cause-increases-residential-mobility-homelessness-and-hospital-use-and-decreases
  81. https://tobin.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2023-02/Evictions_draft_2019.pdf
  82. https://tobin.yale.edu/news/230926/new-research-sheds-light-economic-consequences-evictions
  83. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/evictions_collinson_reed.pdf
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829224000108
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8045672/
  86. https://journalistsresource.org/economics/evictions-physical-financial-mental-health/
  87. https://archives.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight2.html
  88. https://www.casey.org/evictions-child-welfare-involvement/
  89. https://tobin.yale.edu/research/effects-eviction-children
  90. https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2025/CES-WP-25-34.pdf
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10091158/
  92. https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/11/02/pandemic-eviction-policy-children/
  93. https://www.nber.org/papers/w33155
  94. https://snappt.com/blog/eviction-cost/
  95. https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-research-finds-evictions-rarely-result-in-wins-for-landlords-or-tenants/
  96. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/theres-no-easy-way-stem-evictions
  97. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/post/an-eviction-moratorium-without-rental-assistance-hurts-smaller-landlords-too/
  98. https://housingmatters.urban.org/research-summary/do-large-landlords-eviction-practices-differ-small-landlords
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119025000270
  100. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/
  101. https://nlihc.org/resource/research-finds-eviction-moratorium-and-era-reduced-evictions
  102. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07352166.2024.2415937?af=R
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10772599/
  104. https://ced.sog.unc.edu/2016/08/evictions-a-vicious-cycle-for-people-in-poverty/
  105. https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2021-05WP.pdf
  106. https://www.networkforphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-Public-Health-Implications-of-Housing-Instability-Eviction-and-Homelessness.pdf
  107. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24181/w24181.pdf
  108. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/feb/what-are-long-run-trade-offs-rent-control-policies
  109. https://yieldpro.com/2025/09/new-study-the-unintended-consequences-of-tenant-protection/
  110. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-eviction-moratorium-without-rental-assistance-hurts-smaller-landlords-too/
  111. https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/blog/revised-moratorium-on-evictions-causes-new-challenges/
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020
  113. https://www.tlc-monterey.org/the-unintended-consequences-of-rent-control-a-policy-that-hurts-those-it-aims-to-help
  114. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/rent-control-lit-review-2025/
  115. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/as-pandemic-eviction-moratorium-ends-households-with-children-face-greater-risk-of-homelessness
  116. https://evictionlab.org/covid-era-policies-cut-eviction-filings-by-more-than-half/
  117. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/190/12/2503/41371434/kwab196.pdf
  118. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/working-papers/2022/wp22-10.pdf
  119. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/files/harvard_jchs_impact_on_landlords_two_national_surveys_kneebone_et_al_2021.pdf
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35030643/
  121. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2022.2076713
  122. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22521-5
  123. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33155/w33155.pdf
  124. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/how-effective-were-national-state-and-local-eviction-moratoria-20220621.html
  125. https://evictionlab.org/updates/research/eviction-filing-trends-after-cdc-moratorium/
  126. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/nonpayment-and-eviction-in-the-rental-housing-market/
  127. https://www.nber.org/digest/202502/can-policy-interventions-reduce-evictions
  128. https://merage.uci.edu/news/2025/07/Tenant-Rights-Eviction-and-Rent-Affordability-Understanding-the-Trade-offs.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.