Hi, I'm from schuylkill county pa. my ex-landlord has brought a civil action on me for past rent and money owed. It is under $3500.00 and I'm kind of scared about it. I had a written contract with him to pay $200.00 a month but then I lost my job due to a fire right after my first payment. I cannot afford to pay all of it. Can I make arrangements in court to pay what I owe?

If you get a good fair judge and you can clearly show the unforeseen hardship because of a fire then it should be fine. The main objective for the landlord is to get his money in a reasonable amount of time. The biggest mistake here was you not giving any money in good faith to the Landlord to show you are doing your best under the circumstances.
Maybe I shouldn't say this but as I understand the Law where I live ANY bill you get and can't pay it in full basically means the only recourse for the person that owed is to take you to court and get the payments amounts raised. Usually that never happens unless it so far out of whack on the payments that it pays the owed person to sue you for more. If your story is true and not too much time whet by then I see not a huge problem here, The worst scorner is no payments at all and if you can't make full restitution the can sheriff off your belongings.
I'm not a legal expert but what I said is correct where I live. Also it would go in your favor if you had a check at the hearing to pay what you can pay and mention that and that I another show of making a bona fide gesture to help settle the amounts of the rest owed. It again showing good faith and was prepared by you that way. Remember know one there has a personal grudge against you. The Landlord just needs what's owed to him and use that persona to ease you through this


Signed 21 Boat

If I Helped To Answer Your Question Please Rate My Answer

Hello jean:

The courts are set up to award judgments or not. Win or lose - that's ALL a court does. They do NOT have the power to award payment plans, nor do they administer them.

excon

Since it is a civil case, you can talk to your ex-landlord and probably you can come up to an amicable settlement in the sense that you can make fair and just arrangement on how you can pay your arrears. Your landlord would probably realize that even if he/she wins the case still, you would not be able to pay all the amount and all his/her efforts would be futile so might as well agree to an amicable settlement. If your landlord refuses then you can engage the services of a lawyer.
--------------------------------
California Lawyers

The Court awards the Judgment. After that it is between the creditor and the debtor to make arrangements for payment.

No payments and the Judgment Creditor can take any means legal in that State to collect.

Good faith has nothing to do with it. The old wives tale is that you can plead hardship and send a few dollars a month. That is not the legal answer.

I'm glad I was able to help. It's also nice to hear that the judge has finally given the terms on how you can pay your debt.
-------------------------------
Los Angeles Attorneys

First depending on the court you use, no you are not going to "chat" with the other party, you are going to present your evidnece of how you don't owe it and they present why you do.

The court issues a judgement, with a judgement, they can attach your bank accounts, and garnish your paychecks when you are working.

If you and the landlord come up with an agreement before court, you may present this to the court and the court will allow this to be honored unless you fail to pay, at which time they will be free to do the garnishments.
But at this point, of course they landlord can not be forced into any payment plan that is less than he would be allowed by other collection means.

Comments on this post
jeanbean79 agrees: thank you, I went today and the judge just came out to me and asked about making small payments. It was done in 5 min

Small claims courts are more informal and judges are more concerned with fairness. So your judge apparently tried to negotiate a settlement.

Are you sure the judge didn't award a judgement but helped negotiate a settlement for payment?

Scott, there is also at this point a issue about the user name for LawLover, there are 4 user names attached to their IP address, I have addressed this to them in a email. So there are some suspect issues with this thread, I have not deleted it, pending the issue of user names.

So as far as I see it it WAS a fair judge like I expressed for it to go well.
There wasn't even a hearing in the room/chambers

ScottGem if you could explain more I would like to know. A judgment as far as I know weather in a JP office or at a hearing or in regular court. By the way the only difference hear the small claims/ district justice is the AMOUNT on the claim. Hear in PA. if the case was 5,000.00 or over then its to the big Court house. Now if a judgment was made in small claims as you call it then its repeal would go to the city court house.

I'm not guessing hear on Landlords and hearings. Been there tons of times with my tenants as well as my group of friends which they own and manage between the 5 of them, over 3,500 units and houses as landlords.

So let me know what was missed hear. " it still doesn't match this description"

Scotgem "concerned with fairness."

21 boat I mentioned fair judge


JudyKay [/B]" The Court awards the Judgment. After that it is between the creditor and the debtor to make arrangements for payment"

Go back and read jeanbean79s statement form the judge not even in the HEARING coming up to jebaean 79 and setting up small payments. So THAT was the Judge setting up the PAYMENTS and I'm sure it was Him that helped to set it up and make a Judgment for the two Parties. Again I'm not an expert hear but that was also close to my call.

Judykay jeanbean79 already did that and had arrangements made before the question hear was asked. Not only that The judge came out to talk to make Arrangements opposite of what you said that they don't due.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen the Court not just award the Judgment but ALSO SETUP and added condition of the payments in full or in a payment schedule to be paid to the creditor while they are Both standing there in the court before the Judge. The Judge has the power to be a mediator in that position so both parties agree an a agreement of payments. At times you can have a Judge for the city do the same thing. The city is the creditor so to speak.

I don't know who or if there and actual attorney hear I know I said I wasn't and expert. But in this instance I'm more than well versed in this topic of landlords and Tennant's owing money and filing lockouts / Sheriff collecting belongings etc. over 20 years of that.
I will be going to a city council along with about 100 + Landlords FEB 10 a new ordnance is trying to be passed concerning tenants and landlords and bad tenants to rid the bad ones from the town. Three strikes of a Tenant problem and putting that Tenant name in city hall and We as landlords have to check with city hall and who's on the bad list and WE get fined if we rent to them

Again I'm not and expert but what I posted did happen and was partly repeated by you Scottgem and Im from Pa and its laws here so is the perrson asking the question. And what does this mean please

ScottGem disagrees: Courts and judges make judgments according to the law. While small claims court is more informal, it still doesn't match this description
The first part to your statement to me is borderline redundant and becomes arbitrary wording . Its like saying when you push the door it is open.
""Doesn't match the description " What doesn't match? I never said the court or judge doesn't make a judgment of set law.

Hello again:

I repeat, the courts do NOT set up payment programs... They award judgments - NOTHING ELSE.

In the above case, the judge helped with a SETTLEMENT!! A settlement is NOT a judgment. It is NOT court ordered. It is NOT administered by the court. There is NO sanction if the agreement is not met.

excon

You guys can give me all the reddies you want but I have yet to see anyone here SHOW me the comparables I showed you and I don't Agree your whole statements in post hear either.

I see no one hear yet that gave me reds proved why they did that like I asked before. Why? I had the respect to do so.

I didn't just put down a short sentence. I easily do the same thing hear. If I was going to go on the merit that your answers were to the letter and split a hair.

Show me the comparables to rebut not just a disagree. I deserve more respect than an opinion .

So who here is a Landlord and been exposed to that world on regular basis in a Major rental business in court and be truthful.

So don't cheap shot and just make a disagree statement present your case in your view and not just a statement like The law is the law.

Show camparbles and make the case

My starter is I'm form the SAME state as the person that asked the question hear and have been in PA court at many LEVELS. So does anyone hear have that expertise?

This is the LAW forum and answers here must adhere to the letter of the law. That's the problem with your answer. It may apply to the courts you have experience, but it does not apply to courts in general.

A judge's duty is to rule on matters of law. Many times judges find themselves constrained as to what they would prefer to do because the law will not allow them to do it. A judge can only rule on whether one side or another is in the right according to the law.

If a tenant legally owes rent, then the judge must rule for the landlord. However, some courts and judges may be sympathetic and offer to mediate. That seems to be the case for the OP. But I would not like to get people's hopes up that this could happen to them, since the likelihood is small.

That's why I object to posts that make it seems that way.

And that is the end of this discussion.

I see this as a judicial ethical problem. I see the Judge committing a breach of his powers. I would like to know what Court, which Judge.

I am guessing it's landlord/tenant but don't know what City or County.

This should be reported to the Bar - it smacks of impropriety and I believe the Judge would be censured.

I have appeared in over 10 different county courts in NJ over the years for landlord/tenant matters. I was in court an average of 3 times a month for 10 years, with at least 10 and sometimes as many as 50 separate cases each time.

Every single time the court clerk or constable would make an announcement before court began, requesting that landlords and tenants meet in the hallway before the hearing to see if they could work something out. If they reached an agreement, payment schedule, whatever, on their own then they put it in writing and gave it to the clerk. The most common type of an agreement was a payment schedule with dates and amounts, and if the tenant failed to keep to the schedule then the landlord had the right to get a writ for eviction without any additional hearing. This was formally a judgment for the landlord, with eviction to be stayed pending completion of the agreement.

If the parties didn't meet in the hallway, then, when the cases were called before the judge, if both the landlord and tenant were present then they were required to meet with a court-appointed mediator (usually the judge's law clerk or a volunteer attorney) to try and work something out. If they did then the agreement was handled the same way as above. If they didn't work something out then they had a trial.

I have never seen a judge personally mediate an agreement. However in small courts where there may not be clerks or other parties able to handle mediation I can see why it might be necessary, as long as the judge is promoting an agreement and not trying to force either party into something they really can't handle.

I think the key here is "small" courts. We've all seen many sitcoms (an I Love Lucy comes to mind) where there is one person who wears the hats of judge, magistrate, sheriff etc. While that's probably an exaggeration, there are smaller courts where a judge doesn't have any or little support staff. So I'm sure there are situations where a judge may try to informally mediate before handing down a formal decision. But those are probably the exceptions, not the rule.

Every Small Claims Court in my area lkewise requires that the parties meet in the hallway, outside the Courtroom, to see if they can settle. Occasionally a mediator also meets. I've never seen a Judge participate and I've never seen anyone force a settlement.