51黑料

ST. LOUIS 鈥� John-Thomas Favron鈥檚 girlfriend told him there were people milling outside their home on Cleveland Avenue, in the Shaw neighborhood. Before Favron could see what was going on, there was a knock on the door.

It was the sheriff鈥檚 department. Favron and his brother, Robert, had to get out of the house. They were being evicted.

The brothers had been in the house their entire lives. John-Thomas is 30; Robert is 28. Their mother, Virginia, bought the home in 1995.

The boys were raised there, along with two sisters. Virginia died in January after a battle with cancer. She was 68. The boys are beneficiaries of a trust their mom created. But one of their aunts, who is a trustee, sold the house in August.

The new owner immediately went to 51黑料 Circuit Court seeking to evict the brothers as 鈥渟quatters.鈥� The owner used a controversial new law passed by the Missouri Legislature last year. The law allows evictions with no court hearing if an owner claims the inhabitants of a house or apartment have no legal right to be there.

The Favrons grabbed what they could. In the past week, they鈥檝e stayed with friends or in hotels. On Wednesday, they were in court trying to get their home back.

鈥淭hey had no knowledge that the house had even been sold,鈥� attorney Javad Khazaeli argued before Associate Circuit Judge Michael Dauphin. 鈥淭he first they heard that the house had been sold was when the sheriff showed up 鈥� This is exactly what we feared about this statute.鈥�

The new law was modeled after similar 鈥渟quatter鈥檚 laws鈥� passed in other states over the past couple of years, in part as a reaction to eviction moratoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opponents argued the law would be abused and take away due process for people who might have a right to be in properties.

And that鈥檚 exactly what鈥檚 happened.

Last month, attorneys with ArchCity Defenders filed a countersuit in a similar case in 51黑料 County, seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional for violating due process rights. One of the attorneys who filed the suit, Lee Camp, is helping Khazaeli on the Favron case.

What happened to the Favrons makes clear how the law can be abused. The two men believe they have an ownership right to the house. They question the circumstances that led their aunt to sell it far below market price to a buyer who flipped it twice before it landed with its current owner, Goldeneye Management, LLC, which is owned by Darrell Perkins.

In a typical eviction case, the Favrons would have proper notice and a court hearing before being forced out of their lifelong home by sheriff鈥檚 deputies, with the threat of a trespass arrest if they returned. But under the squatter鈥檚 law, no such rights exist. There is no right to a hearing until after the eviction has taken place.

The need for due process was evident in Dauphin鈥檚 courtroom on the morning the Favrons were there. Before the brothers鈥� case was called, Dauphin heard other cases involving landlord-tenant disputes. In one, a public housing tenant won her case and avoided eviction, claiming she had been falsely connected to a man charged with crimes.

The Favrons never should have been evicted from their home, their attorney said.

鈥淭hey are not squatters,鈥� Khazaeli told the judge.

The judge agreed. In fact, Dauphin said, he was well aware the new law 鈥渉as been abused.鈥� According to court records, the law has been used about 70 times across the state in the past year, most often in rural areas.

鈥淭his is bigger than you, to an extent,鈥� Dauphin explained to Perkins.

In the end, the brothers won on a technicality. Perkins had filed the lawsuit in his name, but the official owner of the property is his company, Goldeneye Management. So Dauphin dismissed the lawsuit to evict the Favrons. He also ordered that the brothers be allowed to return to the home until the ownership questions are resolved.

In the meantime, Khazaeli filed a countersuit against Perkins, seeking damages for making the brothers 鈥渆ssentially homeless.鈥�

After court, Khazaeli told the brothers the process of unraveling who owns the house will take a while. But for now, the use of a dubious law to put the two men on the street has been thwarted.

鈥淚t was all fishy from the jump,鈥� Robert told me after the court hearing. 鈥淲e鈥檙e the owners of the house. We would like to keep it.鈥�