Provides relative to the sealing of eviction records. (gov sig) (Items #68 and #70)
If enacted, SB46 would amend existing statutes regarding the accessibility of eviction records, adding protections for tenants in vulnerable situations. It acknowledges and responds to the significant disruptions caused by the pandemic by preventing the dissemination of potentially damaging eviction records. This law thus creates implications for how landlords and tenants present eviction histories in housing applications, impacting tenant mobility and housing opportunities.
Senate Bill 46 aims to reform the way eviction records are handled in the state of Louisiana, particularly during times of declared emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill stipulates that eviction records resulting from nonpayment of rent or judgments in favor of landlords for reasons other than tenant violations, which occurred between March 16, 2020, and August 1, 2021, should be sealed. This sealing requires that all records of eviction proceedings be kept confidential and mandates that they remain sealed for a specified duration unless certain conditions indicate otherwise.
The sentiment surrounding SB46 generally leans towards a protective stance on tenant rights, particularly in the context of the pandemic's economic fallout. Proponents of the bill argue that sealing eviction records is essential to safeguarding vulnerable tenants from the long-term repercussions tied to eviction proceedings. Conversely, there may be concerns from landlords and property owners worried about the effectiveness of eviction processes and their implications for property management.
Notably, the bill has sparked discussions about the balance between the rights of landlords and the protections afforded to tenants. Critics, particularly among landlord advocacy groups, argue that the sealing of such records could make it more difficult to vet potential tenants accurately, ultimately increasing the risk for property owners. Additionally, the one-year sealing rule post-judgment could create ambiguity about tenants' rental histories during that critical period.