Alaska’s new eviction diversion program would resolve disputes before court and, maybe, keep people in their homes

Alaska’s court system is launching an eviction diversion program, aimed at resolving disputes between landlords and tenants before they end up in court.

The grant-funded initiative will provide landlords and tenants with information on things like legal assistance, mediation, financial counseling and rental assistance. The goal is to help reach an agreement both sides are satisfied with, and for people to avoid spending time and money going to court to plead their case in front of a judge.

David Nesbett, with the state’s Third Judicial District in Anchorage, is one of those judges.

Nesbett says, like a lot of things, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the nature of how eviction proceedings are working, and not for the better.

But Nesbett also says there’s always the constraint of not having enough time in court to reach agreements. Sitting in an Anchorage courtroom recently, Nesbett said that’s a problem he thinks an eviction diversion program could help alleviate.

[Sign up for Alaska Public Media’s daily newsletter to get our top stories delivered to your inbox.]

The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

David Nesbett: The court’s very mindful of what kind of impact this has on the general community. And this often affects some of the most vulnerable members of our community. And I would say that the Alaska court system is among the frontrunners in the nation for providing a lot of resources to people. And so, pre-COVID, when a lot of people would come to the courtroom, they’d be able to negotiate a lot of these cases in the hallways and in the side gallery and so on. Especially now, when far more people are on the phone, that kind of communication does not occur as often. And so we’re doing a lot of that on the bench. This program not only provides free legal advice, it also provides a structured environment for people to get together and discuss their case. And very often they can reach agreements outside of court.

When parties enter into an agreement voluntarily, they are far more likely to follow through with the agreement. For landlords, that means that people will either move out, and they agree to move out, they’ll agree to get current with their rent, they’ll agree to make concessions. All of that is to the benefit of the landlord not having to go through a forcible eviction. For the tenant, they can avoid getting something on their record that would prevent them from either getting subsidized housing or rental assistance, or future rental opportunities can be diminished by getting something on their record like that. That can negatively affect them. Getting people together in a structured environment to allow them to discuss these things is an enormous benefit to all parties involved.

Casey Grove: But would an eviction diversion program really — and I think this is where people are going to go with this — would it really help keep people in their homes?

DN: It could. Absolutely it could. In a lot of cases we reach agreements where the landlord, given the opportunity and facing what’s going on in the case, the landlord will allow the tenant an additional opportunity to get current on their rent. Just that little reprieve will often give people a chance to get back on their feet, a chance to get their first paycheck from their new job. It allows people to stay in their residences, and it makes a huge difference. And, ultimately, it’s better for the landlord to have stable housing and stable tenancy.

CG: There was one particular case where, I think you even said at one point, you know, you’re going to take off your judge’s hat and put on your mediator’s hat. And you really did seem to be mediating a dispute there that had a lot of emotional components to it but really kind of boiled down to like, “How much money are you going to give me when?” Right? And I guess it sounds like what you’re saying is that an eviction diversion program would allow more time for that sort of mediation where you don’t have these constraints where you’ve got to get this number of cases done in a certain amount of time, right?

DN: Precisely. The landlord-tenant relationship is a very close relationship in many cases. And it often involves a lot of background information that has to do with the relationship of the parties. Disagreements, arguments, fights. It’s a relationship, and sometimes they don’t work out. And a lot of times parties come into the courtroom, and they want to talk about those relationships, the hardships, the background information. All of that is very compelling for the court, but it doesn’t really weigh a lot of times in the decision whether to go forward with the eviction or whether to grant the judgment in the writ. It really comes down to whether the landlord has satisfied the elements of the statute. And a diversion program will allow people to air their grievances, probably a lot more satisfactorily than they would in court, because the court often doesn’t have the time to explore those different types of grievances. It really comes down to whether the statutes have been met, whether it’s been satisfied.

CG: A lot of the sentiment that you kind of see out in public, and maybe just like on social media and stuff, around evictions is pretty anti-landlord and pro-tenant, you know, sort of pro the little guy in that situation. Do you see it like that? I mean, not that that’s your opinion, but I mean, do you see that sentiment? And, you know, what do you think about that as a judge that handles these cases?

DN: Well, I think as a judge, we try to see it as evenly balanced as possible. Because for the the tenant’s issues they have, like I mentioned earlier, they may be down on their luck, they can’t pay for some reason. You never see a tenant saying, “I don’t want to pay.” It’s usually because they can’t. But from the landlord’s perspective, I think the court’s very mindful that they have a mortgage payment, they have utilities, they have their own costs, they have their own fees. They could face foreclosure on their property. I mean, that’s not in the best interest of the community either. I would say that while there may be a sentiment out there to protect the tenant, the statute has been drafted to be evenly applied to both parties. And I think that’s the way the court looks at it. The court doesn’t decide one way or the other. There are significant community and individual interests on both sides of that. And they both need to be addressed.

CG: What’s it like when, either on the phone or, you know, face to face, you have to tell a tenant, you know, “Sorry, the boxes are all checked. This is following the statute. And, you know, unfortunately, a cop is gonna show up at your door and move you out?” What’s that like?

DN: I think it’s very, very difficult for the court. I think in many circumstances, you know, we’re human, we recognize the human toll that this takes on people. We are obligated to follow the law. And a lot of times we follow the law, knowing that our decisions are going to have a dramatic effect on one side or the other. And so when people come in, they’re often very upset. They’re often– a lot of a lot of bad things have happened to them. And then we’re going to add one more on top of that. I would say if you talk to any judge, they’re very, very mindful of the significance of their decisions and how it affects people’s lives. And it’s very, very difficult. I find it very challenging, because we have a heart. We care. We don’t want to inflict suffering on other people. But as part of our job, we’re obligated to follow the law and we have to follow the law and if that’s what the law dictates, then we do it. And that’s part of our job.