Jun 19, 2019

Co-Workers Working It Out

Aricela and Marisol have worked at the same company for several years. They are in the same department, see each other every day, and get along well. Several months ago, Aricela needed to go to California to be with her mother, who was ill. She was looking for someone to watch over her home while she was gone. As it happened, Marisol’s lease was up, and she was looking for somewhere to stay. They agreed that Marisol would move into Aricela’s home and pay $500 per month. Since Aricela’s mother’s health was unstable, the two did not discuss timing or make a specific agreement about how long the arrangement would last. When Aricela filed an eviction action against Marisol after claiming unpaid rent, the two ended up in court and were referred to mediation.

The arrangement had worked out well for the first several months. When Marisol sent Aricela the rent money, Aricela would send back a written receipt. Aricela kept a record of the money that came in, which was usually in the form of a cashier’s check, although occasionally Marisol paid in cash. Aricela brought an eviction action claiming she had not been paid for April rent; Marisol said she gave Aricela the payment in cash, but had forgotten to get a receipt.

There was an additional issue; after several months, Aricela’s mother seemed to be doing a lot better. She did not need Aricela’s assistance anymore, so Aricela decided to move back to Chicago. Both parties agreed that since there were multiple bedrooms, Marisol would continue to stay in the home. However, once Aricela moved back in, Aricela discovered that Marisol was hosting more people in the home than she had expected. Marisol’s new boyfriend had moved in, and some of Marisol’s nieces and nephews sometimes stayed over.

Aricela explained that having new people in her home, who she didn’t know, made her uncomfortable. Marisol said that while she was paying rent, she felt she should have the freedom of allowing her boyfriend and family members to stay with her. She said that the nieces and nephews only stayed every once in a while, and that they were not disruptive. In fact, they helped her with the dishes, daily household chores, and were very respectful.

After talking the issue through, Aricela identified that her primary interest was feeling comfortable in her own home. She also wanted to make sure that she was not being taken advantage of by Marisol. Marisol needed a stable living situation until she found a new place to live. Both parties valued their ongoing relationship, since they still work together. To preserve their relationship, the parties agreed that Marisol would move out, but would have two months to find housing. Aricela agreed to forgive April’s rent as long as Marisol paid for the current month of May in full during the mediation, and also agreed to pay for June and July on specified dates. Aricela agreed to give Marisol written receipts for payment.

With the help of the mediator, the parties crafted an agreement that allowed them to avoid court and preserve their relationship.

Apr 17, 2019

Family Gets on the Same Page

Leo and his parents, Leo Sr. and Bridget, were referred to family mediation at CCR after Leo was suspended for an incident across the street from his school. When the family met with the mediator, Leo began by explaining some things to the mediator and his family. Before the incident, his ex-girlfriend Sandra had moved away to a different school. Sandra loaned some shoes (sandals that held personal significance as they'd been given to her by her grandmother) to a friend of hers, Laura, and was having trouble getting them back. She had been texting Leo asking him to help her. Leo said he'd mentioned it a few times to Laura, but had no luck; Laura always claimed she couldn't find them or had left them at home. Leo grew tired of hearing about the shoes from Sandra, and he wanted to be done with it. One day when he saw Laura with the shoes on, he approached her in the cafeteria to ask for them. She said no and walked away. After that, Leo left school and spotted Laura across the street standing with her boyfriend, Robert. He went over to her and tried talking to her, but Robert would not let them talk. Leo didn’t know what else to do and he knelt down and pulled the sandals off of Laura's feet, causing her to lose her balance and fall backward. Leo took the shoes and ran home. Robert and a group of Robert’s friends followed Leo.

Leo Sr. saw the teenagers approaching the house and went outside to find out what was going on. He brought Robert inside and Robert said that Leo had stolen his girlfriend's shoes. Leo then rushed to explain that the shoes were actually Sandra’s. Eventually, Leo Sr. told Robert to leave. Bridget, Leo's mom, came in to say she just got a call that Leo needed to go to the police department to give a statement about what happened. Bridget took her son to the station and when they got there, Leo was taken to a different room and the police officer from the school instructed Bridget to go home. While she was gone, the police called her and asked if they could read Leo's rights over the phone. Not fully understanding the implications, Bridget agreed. Later, she spoke with a lawyer and began to feel like she and her son had been taken advantage of. Six hours after entering the police department, Leo was allowed to leave.

During the family mediation all the members of Leo’s family expressed regret about what happened, and also felt that Leo been treated unfairly by the police. Leo felt his reputation and relationships with classmates had been damaged. Leo’s father encouraged him to focus on his own goals, and not to get involved in friends’ conflicts. Bridget became teary-eyed while talking about how she felt she let Leo down by not staying with him at the police station. She felt afraid for her son. Leo was apologetic about what he had put his parents through and emphasized he didn’t want to get into more trouble. He told the mediator and his parents that he has a dream of owning his own business someday, hopefully a car dealership, and that he understood that this kind of run in with police would hinder him in achieving his goals.

Leo was disappointed in how things had impacted his parents and the family spent time in the mediation planning for how to handle similar situations in the future. Leo expressed that he realized that fighting someone else’s battle was not worth the trouble. Leo Sr. and Bridget shared that they wished they had better understood what was happening for their son. Leo seemed especially remorseful for causing his mother anxiety at the police station. After discussing the incident and its aftermath with the mediator and thinking about how to work together moving forward, the energy in the room was lighter; the family understood each other, and had a common goal in helping Leo manage his responsibilities to his friends and meet his future goals.

Mar 22, 2019

Art Not Eviction

Mike is the landlord of a small apartment building. Ben signed a lease with Mike in the Spring of 2018. When they signed the lease, Ben was a client of a social services program which payed his rent. Ben has fibromyalgia, which leaves him in constant pain and is unable to work. Six months after they signed the lease, Ben was notified that the agency would no longer be providing rental assistance and that his placement in the program would be discontinued. Ben did not know there was a limit to how long he would be served by the program and was very surprised by the news. Ben was unable to pay his rent for three months. After the third month, Mike filed a case in eviction court.

In court, the judge referred Mike and Ben to mediation with CCR. During the mediation, Mike said he had no problems with Ben as a tenant, adding that this was business, not personal. He mentioned as a single parent he was dependent on the income he made from the rent to care for his children. He stated he had given Ben many extensions to pay his rent to no avail. Finally, about three months ago, Ben told Mike that he would move out, but the date for him to leave the apartment came and Ben did not move. Mike felt he was completely stuck and had no choice but to file the court case.

Ben explained he knew that he was behind in rent, and it was not his intention to take advantage of Mike situation and live rent free. He explained his financial situation and said he had been looking for additional assistance after the first program ended, but had been unable to find any help.

The mediator helped the men have a focused conversation about their situation, helping them identify that they had a number of common interests. They both agreed that Ben needed to leave the apartment and that they respected one another. Ben said he had arranged to move in with friends, but had been unable to do so because he could not afford the costs associated with moving, like a truck and movers. After further discussion, Mike asked, “If I can get a truck and a couple of guys, can you move out today?” Ben said he could, so Mike made a few calls on his cell phone and arranged to have his brother and a friend come to the apartment and move Ben that evening.

It seemed like the parties had a clear plan, so the mediator began drafting an agreement. While the mediator was completing the paperwork, Mike expressed a bit of ambivalence. When questioned by the mediator, he stated dissatisfaction with the terms of the agreement, asking “I’m doing all of this for him, but what am I getting?” The agreement did not require Ben to pay any of the past due rent, but was simply a plan for Ben to move out with Mike’s support. Mike pointed out that he thought he had been very generous and that he was insulted that Ben had not offered to give him anything. Ben agreed that Mike was very generous, but pointed out that he could not pay. “You could have offered me a painting,” Mike said. The mediator had not heard about paintings before and asked Mike to clarify.  Mike replied, “His paintings. He paints. I saw a lot of paintings in his apartment, and they’re beautiful!” Ben responded that he does paint, and has many of his paintings in his apartment. He was flattered that Mike was interested in his paintings and grateful to be able to offer something in exchange for forgiving the past due rent. Ben said, “You can have 10 paintings! Any ones you want.”

The mediator helped the parties discuss the paintings in more detail and they came to an agreement about the specific pieces Mike would take. After the mediation the parties presented their agreement to the judge and left court together - a plan in place that would benefit both of them.

WARNING: Javascript is currently disabled or is not available in your browser. GlobalGiving makes extensive use of Javascript and will not function properly with Javascript disabled. Please enable Javascript and refresh this page.