ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

So when a sheriff’s deputy showed up Memorial Day weekend at her Jennings home, which she rents with her partner and two children, she was confused. There had been no eviction filed. No notice posted on the door. No court hearing. Just a deputy with a sheet of paper telling her she had to get out.

Logan was the victim of a passed by the Missouri Legislature last year that gives landlords unprecedented power to evict people they suspect are in a property illegally. Referred to as a it was copied from similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and other states. The laws have been pushed in recent years by landlords, in part as a response to eviction moratoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Eviction proceedings typically require a notice and hearings before a person can be kicked out of a home. But the law now allows a landlord to file a “petition for removal of unlawful occupant of property� with a judge, and force someone out before a hearing is ever scheduled.

That’s what happened to Logan and her partner, Jonathan Lambert, who, according to the lease, was doing handyman work for the landlord in exchange for a rent reduction.

Logan was working with the nonprofit ArchCity Defenders law firm on clearing up some old municipal court matters when she mentioned being kicked out of her home. The attorneys went to court and filed motions to get her family back in their home

A judge agreed to let them back into the property to gather their belongings. They also counter-sued the landlord, claiming their rights had been violated.

Now, while the case is disputed — the landlord says the lease is fraudulent — Logan’s attorneys are trying to get the law declared unconstitutional.

“She was removed from her home without notice,� attorney KB Doman argued in the case on Wednesday before St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Daniel J. Kertz. “There’s a huge risk of fraudulent use of these filings.�

Doman added that the lack of due process under the law violates both the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Missouri Constitution.

Doman and her colleague, Lee Camp, made their arguments before a packed house, which is always the scene on eviction docket days in the St. Louis County Courthouse. Lawyers representing various landlords mill around, even setting up a table outside the courtroom. Various assistants try to get renters who are being sued to settle before the judge calls their case.

Most of the defendants in the courtroom and crowding the hallways are poor, and few of them have lawyers.

The new law has the potential to make already clogged eviction dockets much worse, says Karen Tokarz, a law professor at Washington University. Tokarz often brings her students to monitor the eviction docket. On Wednesday, she was there to watch a former student, Doman, make her first constitutional arguments before a judge.

The case could have broad impact on landlord-tenant law in Missouri, which is one reason why the lawyer for the landlords told the judge he would rather see a ruling against his clients than have the case make its way to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

“The statute was followed in this case,� attorney Nicholas Meador argued.

He represents landlords Sarah and Jonathan Roven, who live in California. Logan’s lease is signed by Dale Rogers, a representative of Roven Properties, which is the entity that actually owns the house, according to county records. Meador told the judge the lease is “fraudulent,� though he didn’t offer details at the hearing.

Whether that’s true or not, Doman said, a judge should decide in a hearing what should happen before somebody gets kicked out of a house or apartment.

Kertz did not rule immediately, so the case is still pending. For now, Logan and her family have found a new place to rent. But her attorneys are hoping her countersuit protects other people from the nightmare of being kicked out of a home with no notice and a threat of criminal action if they return.

“While the statute is nominally aimed at unlawful occupants of residential property, it poses a significant threat to actual tenants and other lawful occupants,� Doman and Camp wrote in their petition to have the law declared unconstitutional.

Lawmakers can’t just re-define due process because it’s inconvenient, Camp told the judge.

The Constitution won’t allow it.