New Study Shows that Tenants Whose Eviction Cases Are Won, Dismissed, or Withdrawn May Still Experience Negative Impacts from Filing History

By Mackenzie Pish, NLIHC Research Analyst 

A recent article in Housing Studies, “Record costs: examining the impact of eviction filings for tenants and their families,” explored the costs and consequences of eviction filings on Pennsylvania renters in the “best-case scenario”—those who received legal support and had cases resolved with favorable or neutral outcomes. While many prior studies have identified the negative consequences of eviction threats on tenants in general, this study aimed to “disentangle the impact of eviction filings from adverse court outcomes.” The research found that despite receiving support from legal aid and avoiding a court-ordered eviction, these renters reported facing immediate and long-term threats to their financial security, housing stability, health, and relationships. 

The researchers partnered with five legal aid organizations to recruit 29 renters who had an eviction filed against them in Pennsylvania between 2019 and 2023, received legal aid support, and experienced a court judgment in their favor (three renters), a dismissal by the court (three renters), or a withdrawal by the landlord (23 renters). Two-thirds of participants lived in Philadelphia at the time of their eviction filing. Participating renters were engaged in two concept mapping activities and a phone-based survey. The first concept mapping activity engaged renters in collective brainstorming around the costs or losses (consequences) that impacted their household’s well-being or quality of life after the eviction was filed. In the second activity, renters categorized and rated the impact of the 55 unique costs or losses identified in the first session, using a scale from lowest impact (1) to greatest impact (3) on their lives. The survey focused on participants’ individual experiences with the court-based eviction process and their current housing situation, including their housing stability, satisfaction, costs, quality, and neighborhood conditions. All participants were compensated for their time.  

Of the 55 consequences identified through the concept mapping activities, renters assigned the greatest impact scores to consequences related to sleep or feeling rested (2.56 rating), stress, depression or anxiety (2.41), and the ability to save money (2.37). The survey results revealed that despite not receiving a court-ordered eviction, 69% of participants moved from their rental home at some point following the eviction filing; among these, 89% agreed with the statement: “I was forced to move.” More than half (55%) of those who moved cited their landlords’ failure to make repairs as a reason for their move, including for problems related to mold, electrical hazards, pests or rodents, and heat or water. Other reasons reported include the landlord raising the rent significantly or refusing to accept emergency rental assistance. Nearly half of those who moved described hostile relationships with or harassment from their landlord, including instances of repeat eviction filings, illegal eviction, and sexual harassment. Among those who moved, 47% shared that they experienced a period of homelessness ranging from a few weeks to over a year, with most attributing it to an inability to find replacement housing. 

Among participants who tried to search for new housing, 79% agreed with the statement, “my eviction record limits my future housing options.” More than half of tenants who searched submitted 10 or more rental housing applications, with a typical fee of $50 per application. Half of those who searched were told by at least one landlord they were denied because of their filing record. Among renters who secured new housing, two-thirds reported either unstable or unhealthy housing conditions.   

All renters who stayed in their rental home following the filing reported that they would move if they could. Nearly half of those who stayed reported that their current housing was unhealthy or unstable. Only one renter who stayed attempted to find alternative housing, while others reported that they did not try to move because of a lack of affordable options and beliefs that landlords would not rent to them because of their filing record. Two-thirds of those who stayed faced another eviction threat, whether verbal or through the formal court process, from the same landlord.  

The authors conclude that researchers and policymakers need to account for harms that occur from eviction filings, even with legal representation and in the absence of court-ordered eviction. They emphasize the need for strengthened renter protections related to habitability and landlord retaliation in tandem with interventions that provide legal help or rental assistance to ensure that renters can remain safely and stably housed. In addition, the authors call for the implementation of harm reduction policies such as eviction record sealing that can reduce the barriers renters may face in searching for new rental housing.  

Read the report here.