Housing

This Act allows tenants who are being evicted for failure to pay rent to remain in their homes if they pay all amounts owed prior to being evicted. It also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Drafting Manual. This Substitute differs from the original Act by incorporating the changes from Senate Amendment No. 1 to Senate Bill No. 116 which includes the following changes: - Increased the time from 12 to 24 months for the lookback period for restricting the number of times the right of redemption is available to a tenant. - Puts a requirement to proactively file with the court a request for a stay of the writ if payment is made after the writ of possession has been posted. - Makes clear that payment after posting of the writ only stays the writ until the payment has cleared and dismissal is not required until such time. This Substitute also adds the following changes based on further input from stakeholders: - Makes it clear that this Act only applies to evictions based on failure to pay rent. - Clarifies that any rent that is due under the terms of the lease must also be paid, in addition to any demanded past due and per diem rent, for redemption to apply. - Adds language that the landlord may restrict any payments to methods accepted under the terms of the lease, and the landlord may further restrict any payments made after judgment is entered to certified checks or money orders.

This Act clarifies that Delaware’s Fair Housing Act (Chapter 46 of Title 6) prohibits housing practices that have a discriminatory effect, commonly known as “disparate impact,” even in the absence of discriminatory intent. The Act codifies a burden-shifting framework consistent with federal fair housing jurisprudence and regulations and with laws adopted in other states, including California and Massachusetts. Under this framework: 1. A complainant must show that a housing policy or practice causes or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect on a protected class. 2. A respondent may defend the practice by demonstrating that it is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. 3. A complainant may still prevail by showing that the interest could be served by a less discriminatory alternative. The Act applies to rental policies, sales practices, lending and appraisal practices, occupancy standards, criminal history screening, and zoning or land use decisions to the extent permitted by law. It clarifies that statistical evidence may be used to establish disparate impact and that proof of discriminatory intent is not required. The Act aligns enforcement with existing remedies and procedures under Chapter 46 of Title 6 and preserves the authority of the Division of Human and Civil Rights under Title 31. It does not require quotas, does not invalidate lawful occupancy limits, and does not impose liability where a practice is required by federal law. This Act is intended to be interpreted consistently with, but not limited by, the federal Fair Housing Act and provides equal or greater protection under Delaware law.

This Act provides a pathway for former defendants in eviction actions to have the eviction filings against them shielded from public view. Being the subject of an eviction filing can prevent an individual from securing housing for years after any judgment in the case has been satisfied. Even tenants who prevailed in eviction actions may be denied housing by landlords who turn away any applicant with a prior eviction filing, regardless of the outcome of the case. The well-known health, social, and economic consequences of eviction can thus linger for years after an eviction filing, and trap individuals – including many children and families – in a cycle of poverty and housing instability. The effects are particularly acute among already marginalized groups, such as Black and female renters. By shielding eviction records when an individual has met certain requirements, this Act will help break down barriers to stable housing and economic security. Under this Act, the Court must grant shielding upon a motion by the defendant if the Court finds any of the following to be true: 1. The judgment against the defendant was a judgment on the merits, a default judgment, or a stipulated judgment, 5 or more years have passed since the judgment was entered, the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment, and the defendant has had no other similar judgments within 5 years of the defendant’s motion to shield. 2. The parties resolved the action through a stipulated agreement, and the defendant has complied with the terms of the stipulated agreement. 3. The plaintiff withdrew the complaint. 4. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. 5. The final judgment was in favor of the defendant. 6. The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed to the shielding. 7. The shielding of the records is clearly in the interests of justice. The Court may not charge a filing fee for a motion to shield. Once the Court has granted the shielding, the Court has 45 days to effectuate it. An individual whose eviction record has been shielded can answer questions about prior evictions as if the shielded action was never filed. This Act is a second Substitute for Senate Bill No. 115. Like Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115, Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 does the following: 1. Adds judgement by stipulation to the list of judgments for which shielding is available after 5 years if the defendant has satisfied any monetary award included in the judgment. 2. Creates exceptions that make the shielded records available to the Department of Justice and the defendant in the action. 3. Allows for records of shielded actions to be available to the public for purposes of preserving case law, provided that all identifying information is redacted or otherwise obscured. 4. Makes minor technical changes. The primary differences between Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 115 and Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 115 are as follows: 1. Senate Substitute No. 2 replaces the term “expungement” with the term “shielding” to better reflect how the Court will be handling records. 2. Senate Substitute No. 2 eliminates the provision in Senate Substitute No. 1 that would have allowed certain eviction records to be automatically shielded. 3. Senate Substitute No. 2 adds a requirement that a defendant seeking shielding under paragraph (a)(1) of § 5720 (lines 6 through 9) have no other similar judgments against them within 5 years of the motion to shield. Senate Substitute No 2. also adds language specifying that redacted records are being made available for purposes of preserving important case law, and that the Court is responsible only for databases and systems that it controls.