One tenant was having wages garnished and still owed more than $5,000 because of less than $700 in unpaid rent.
Another paid $6,032.99 – including $772.50 in attorney fees – after their landlord filed an eviction case over $523.32 in unpaid bills.
A third paid $7,867.99 because of $525.72 in unpaid bills.
They all had large judgments against them because of treble damages – three times the daily rent or other charges for every day they remained in their apartments after their eviction notices expired. None of them had legal representation, based on court records.
In Utah, under state law, judges must grant treble damages as long as a landlord can prove the amount.
And though housing advocates said the judgments can hang over people’s heads for a long time and affect their ability to find another place to live, lawmakers voted against a bill that would have made the fees optional.
SB125 would have made treble damages optional instead of mandatory and made it so the tripling could include damages but not rent.
The legislation also would have required apartment complex owners to give notice if there’s a change in ownership or if they plan to increase rent by at least 10% and allowed tenants to end their lease with 60 days’ notice under those circumstances.
The bill, authored by Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Millcreek, failed in committee, with only one senator voting to recommend it favorably to the entire body for consideration.
Two landlord attorneys spoke against the bill.
Jeremy Shorts with Utah Eviction Law argued it would lead to significant delays and that treble damages are a two-way street because tenants also can argue their case.
Sen. Daniel McCay, R-Riverton, who chairs the committee that heard the bill, agreed with Shorts that judicial discretion would essentially do away with treble damages and asked Blouin if tenants “should get away with the damages to the apartment.”
(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Salt Lake City.
Blouin said he has heard the argument that either side can benefit “multiple times” — but has yet to hear from a tenant who did.
Nick Lloyd, also a landlord attorney, said there need to be consequences when people don’t pay their rent and don’t leave when told to.
Lloyd works with Kirk Cullimore at Titan Legal – which advertises itself as “Utah’s premier source for Complete Landlord Representation.” Cullimore is the father of Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, who voted against the bill.
“If you can’t pay your rent, you should move on,” Lloyd said.
It isn’t that simple, advocates said.
Linda Smith, a former law professor who is part of the Faith and Advocacy Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, said people stay past the three-day notice because they “can’t arrange to move even though they know they can’t stay” and asked lawmakers to imagine moving in three days.
Treble damages are punitive, Smith said, and compensatory damages would be more appropriate.
And the punishment sticks with tenants for a long time, attorneys said.
Jacob Kent, a tenant attorney with Utah Legal Services, said the judgments hang over renters’ heads and follow them “for a very, very long time.”
In 2022, a Utah Bar Foundation study found nearly 60,000 eviction cases between 2013 to September 2021 resulted in $165 million in judgments against tenants. As of December 2021, $143 million of that was unsatisfied.
Kim Paulding, the foundation’s executive director, told The Salt Lake Tribune at the time that the outstanding debt could serve as a mark against someone trying to secure a job and that orders to garnish pay to satisfy a debt can make it inconvenient to employ someone who has been evicted.
The same advocates who argued for SB125 were concerned about another bill that did pass.
HB480, if signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox, the bill will allow landlords to return a deposit and give notice of deductions electronically instead of only by mail.
Advocates did not oppose that measure but did express concerns about sections that: remove judges’ ability to decide how long someone can stay in their apartment after an eviction judgment, broadly limit judges’ discretion in eviction cases and require tenants to pay before they can access any items left behind, with exceptions for necessities like identification and medication — something advocates say will create “additional financial burden on individuals who have just been evicted.”
