Summary:
Marshall and Tiffany Todman, tenants in Baltimore, were evicted and lost their belongings under Baltimore’s Abandonment Ordinance, which deems any property left behind at eviction as abandoned. The Todmans sued the City of Baltimore, alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, asserting that they were deprived of their property without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
The Court of Appeals, relying primarily on the SCOTUS bankruptcy decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), held that "when operation of a confiscatory statute is triggered by something other than long periods of nonuse, it starts to look less like abandonment and more like a government-induced forfeiture." The Abandonment Ordinance, as applied, failed to provide sufficient notice or opportunity to contest the abandonment, was confusing, buried among other information, and did not clearly inform the Todmans of the risk of abandonment. Further, the lack of a reclamation period further deprived the Todmans of a meaningful opportunity to reclaim their property.
This resulted in the court affirming the district court’s finding that Baltimore was responsible for the due process violation since the Abandonment Ordinance, a municipal policy, directly caused the deprivation of the Todmans’ property. That Baltimore did not control the eviction process was not relevant as the ordinance directly made Baltimore responsible for ensuring the ordinance complied with constitutional requirements. These violations, accordingly, subjected Baltimore to damages under § 1983.
Commentary:
Not only is this an expansion of a bankruptcy decision from the SCOTUS into non-bankruptcy areas, it points out the breadth and scope that Tyler v. Hennepin County has. This raises further possibilities that the disposition of personal property following a foreclosure by government sponsored entities (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac must also comply with due process or risk similar § 1983 being asserted. That a property owner has rights following the loss of possession of a residence, whether rented or owned, now seems to require notice and disclosure of those rights in clear language, separate from the actions, whether eviction or foreclosure, to take possession of the residence.
Blog comments