Eviction News

When you look online, almost every website says that the CARES Act 30-day requirement is still in effect. But is it really?

This is a TEST article and not a real article. It should not be relied upon. 

Since its passage in 2020, the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act) has introduced several key protections for tenants in federally-backed properties. One of the most significant provisions was the 30-day notice to vacate requirement for tenants in such properties before filing an eviction for non-payment of rent. While the general consensus across the internet is that this notice requirement expired with the CARES Act’s sunset provisions, there are compelling arguments suggesting that this requirement remains in force under specific circumstances. This article examines those arguments and explores why the 30-day notice may still apply to certain evictions.

1. CARES Act Section 4024: Interpretation of the Language

The CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement is rooted in Section 4024(c). This provision initially imposed a moratorium on evictions from March 27, 2020, through July 24, 2020, during which landlords of properties with federally backed mortgages were prohibited from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent. Post-moratorium, the Act imposed an ongoing 30-day notice requirement for these landlords before filing an eviction action. The key language in Section 4024(c)(1) states:

“The lessor of a covered dwelling may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate.”

Critically, the Act does not specify that this requirement ceases after the moratorium period ends. While the moratorium on filing evictions itself expired, the plain language of the statute does not indicate an end date for the 30-day notice requirement, leading to the interpretation that this obligation persists for landlords of covered properties.

2. Legal Interpretations and Case Law

Some legal scholars and practitioners argue that the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement continues as an ongoing condition for landlords of covered properties. The basis for this argument lies in the Act’s explicit language, which lacks a termination clause for the notice provision. Courts in certain jurisdictions have supported this interpretation, ruling that the 30-day notice requirement still applies to covered properties, irrespective of the expiration of the eviction moratorium.

For example, in certain cases, judges have ruled that landlords of federally backed properties must continue providing 30-day notices because it was a procedural safeguard introduced by Congress without an explicit sunset provision. This has led to varied enforcement of the rule based on local judicial interpretation, creating a precedent for continued applicability.

3. Precedents in Federal and State Regulations

Federal regulations often maintain ongoing requirements for properties with federal backing. For instance, HUD and USDA guidelines, as well as FHFA directives, have historically required additional notice periods or procedures in addition to state and local regulations. The CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement is similar in structure and intent to such requirements, suggesting that it may have been intended as a permanent procedural standard for evictions from covered properties.

Moreover, state-level legislation has incorporated CARES Act protections into their own statutory frameworks, referencing the federal notice requirement as a benchmark. These state laws and local ordinances bolster the argument that the federal 30-day notice remains a valid requirement for covered properties.

4. OMB Memoranda and Guidance

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies have issued guidance memoranda regarding CARES Act provisions, providing interpretations that support the view that the notice requirements were not intended to sunset. Although the OMB cannot create or extend statutory requirements, its interpretations carry weight when understanding Congressional intent and agency enforcement.

Several guidance documents have emphasized the importance of the 30-day notice for ensuring that tenants in federally-backed properties are adequately protected. If Congress had intended for the notice requirement to expire, it is likely that subsequent guidance would have clarified that position.

5. Legislative Intent and the Public Policy Argument

One of the fundamental principles in statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent. The CARES Act was designed to provide relief and stability during an unprecedented crisis. By imposing the 30-day notice requirement, Congress sought to mitigate the potential for abrupt and destabilizing evictions in federally-backed properties. Removing this protection, even after the pandemic’s initial peak, would contradict the overall purpose of providing stability and fairness in the housing market.

If Congress had intended the 30-day notice requirement to expire, it would have likely included a sunset provision or an explicit termination clause, as it did for other CARES Act provisions, such as the eviction moratorium itself. The absence of such language suggests that the notice requirement was meant to endure as a long-term procedural protection.

6. Practical Considerations: Compliance and Enforcement

Another compelling argument in favor of the ongoing nature of the 30-day notice requirement is the issue of compliance and enforcement. Many landlords of federally-backed properties continue to comply with the 30-day notice provision, either out of an abundance of caution or due to advice from legal counsel. This widespread compliance further indicates that there remains a general expectation of adherence to this rule.

The complexity of federal funding and mortgage assistance programs, such as HUD vouchers and Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac-backed loans, adds another layer to this issue. Landlords participating in these programs are often required to comply with a myriad of federal regulations, making it more likely that procedural safeguards like the CARES Act’s 30-day notice would remain applicable as long as the landlord remains in the program.

Conclusion

While it is widely believed that the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement expired alongside the eviction moratorium, there are strong legal and interpretive arguments suggesting otherwise. The lack of an explicit expiration date, supportive case law, and the policy rationale behind the provision all point to the possibility that the 30-day notice requirement still applies to landlords of federally-backed properties. Until there is definitive guidance or a clear judicial ruling at the federal level, landlords of such properties should continue providing 30-day notices to minimize the risk of non-compliance and ensure they are adhering to the spirit of the law.