AB 2042: Could Evicted Tenants Reopen Your Case Years Later?

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:48]Hey. Hey. Hey.

[00:01:18]All right.

[00:03:21]Oh yeah.

[00:03:30]Oh yeah.

[00:03:58]Oh hey.

[00:04:43]Hey, hey, hey.

[00:05:06]Hi everybody. This is Jeff Fer, president of the Apartment Owners Association and today now we are going to be talking about AB 2042. And normally we would not cover bills that are moving through legislature, but today we are only because it it was it's it's really deceptive and it's snuck past a lot of people already and there's been a lot of misunderstanding about it.

[00:05:33]So, we're going to cover it, but it it literally the this is a cleanup bill for AB747, but it literally could unravel uh past default judgments. And um there's the significance of that what our speaker today is going to go into. And um yeah, just before we get into that, I don't know, you may have may have made it may have missed uh the last live stream that we just did with John Koopal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We covered Prop 13. And anyway, so I want to recommend go back to the AOA USA YouTube channel. You could see that. And anyway, uh we are celebrating just a win in LA County with the there was a a price control put on. They called it anti- rent rent gouging, which is ridiculous. It was preventing people with vacant units from it was preventing them from bringing it back up even to market rate. And so finally that's over.

[00:06:33]We're going to get some more units on the market now and maybe even prices will come down a little bit. Not that you want them to come down, but the uh renters sure would like to see that. Uh we're watching a ban of ratio utility billing services in LA city and anyway, yeah, there's just a lot going on, but um we are here for you and we're trying to bring you the best information and sometimes we we um want to activate you and get you in the legislative process.

[00:07:07]And even though we're the largest association in the state, if our when our members don't take action, it doesn't really matter how many members we have. So people your cons your u representatives do want to hear from you specifically and we are trying to be a uh we're trying to empower you. So this this specific live stream is for that.

[00:07:28]Uh we do have other live streams that we've done completing the AOA lease agreements. One of the latest ones that we've done, maximizing your AOA membership, Inerson, next Inerson event coming up is in St. Gabriel and it's completing the lease agreement on May 27th. Uh we're going to cover how to handle problem tenants on the June 4th, June 18th, smart tax strategies. And anyway, so there's so much housekeeping stuff, but we're going to just try to jump right in here. and our and today I I have with us an AOA member so he obviously is a housing provider. He is an attorney but he doesn't practice and uh he'll tell you a little more about that. He is a process server, covers the whole state, but specifically uh the nine Bay Area counties, San Francisco Bay Area. And so he works with housing providers and really a lot even more so their attorneys. And so um I just want to invite John Healey in here and and just thank you so much, John. if you could give us an update, just kind of give us a a a lowdown on this AB 2042, what it is and and and just the implications of it. And then after that, we'll take questions uh in the Zoom meeting. We'll take them and then um if they're once those are answered, then we'll get to the YouTube ones.

[00:09:01]>> Well, thank you for having me, Jeeoff.

[00:09:02]It's a clearly an honor to be with you and your members. U been involved with your association oh 30 years maybe more.

[00:09:11]Um but I'm very thankful to be here. Um and this is a very important port point for all of your um viewers and your members. Um, this was originally a bill that came out of AB747 and AB747 was called the Spare Act and it requires a lot of different things that are dealing with originally consumer debt.

[00:09:35]But they crammed in unlawful detainers which really shouldn't be involved in these processes since unlawful detainers are summary proceedings. They have their own special proceedings. they're sped up to get the property back sooner. The consumer debt are like that I'm thinking about or discussing here are things that are credit cards and auto loans and things like that. Even though rent after you've done the eviction and you go after that, that is considered consumer debt. Um that's not really what we're talking about here today. In AB747, they made the big changes that there's now going to have to be photographs. And they were claiming that process servers were out sewer serving people, registered process servers. Well, when they brought the cases that they discussed before the legislature, they were not cases of process servers, but they're targeting them. And why is that so important for you, the landlord? Because the process server has a rebuttable presumption under the evidence code that they served it when they did serve it. And this new bill that they brought about removes that rebuttable presumption and it has a cascading effect upon you the landlord at the end. So let me bring it up to the very top. AB 2042 is supposed to be a cleanup bill that and a cleanup bill is something that generally uh changes the wording and items that were in a bill previously that are incorrect. In this particular bill, as they worded it, a cleanup bill, it actually introduced new items that were never discussed or brought out in 2042, excuse me, in 747.

[00:11:11]And those issues are the removable the removable removing the rebuttable presumption from a process server under the evidence code. They don't say it directly. It's the way that they've worded it. So, it officiates the the whole process. And then it allows for a dismissal at the end. and that that dismissal is what's completely devastating to a landlord at the end.

[00:11:35]So, let's walk through the process real quick. And and and one last thing, why it's so absurd that a pro that an evictions involved in this is that they get seven and eight notices technically.

[00:11:46]How how absurd is it that a person didn't know that they were done and they can come back and claim, "Oh, I wasn't served." you remove the rebuttable presumption and we start and you you it stops the whole eviction and it voids the judgment. If it's a voided judgment, it means it was no good in the very beginning. Then they can come after you.

[00:12:07]And I'm kind of shotguning this. I apologize, but let me walk you through it.

[00:12:12]So, you the pro uh you have the processor go and do the notice or you do it yourself. If it's posted, it's mailed. The tenant gets those two notices. It's then filed with an unlawful detainer. By law, the court has to send a notice to the tenant that an unlawful detainer has been filed.

[00:12:30]Generally, a prejudgment claim of right to possession is done. So, that gets posted on the door. It gets mailed to the residents. They get served a copy of it, and then they get subserved a copy of it.

[00:12:41]Then if they don't answer, they get a mailing from the attorney of the notice of default and then the sheriff comes out and posts the premises and then they physically get evicted.

[00:12:55]How did they not know? And that's the crux of where we're going with this.

[00:12:59]It's under the default judgment that things the reason why it doesn't really matter if someone answers is because they can't make the argument they weren't served. They appeared. So they've made themselves a party to the action. They've submitted themselves to the jurisdiction. Where AB2042 comes in is that they come and challenge the dismissal or excuse me the not the dismissal, the default judgment and ask for a dismissal and they can do this 10 years later. A judgment is 10 years long and you can renew it if you have a money portion and you want to for an additional 5 years under consumer debt. So imagine this. You've now evicted someone. They didn't answer. 10 years down the road, someone claims under this doctrine. They just sign a piece of paper, not under the penalty of perjury, and they get to have a hearing. And the hearing shall take place. It's not that there's a gatekeeper in place that they look at it. There's no evidence required. It's just under an affidavit.

[00:14:02]And an affidavit is not the same as a declaration under the penalty of perjury. An affidavit is something you usually go to a notary and you're swearing that this is you, the person signing the document. It's no evidence profered of any kind that you didn't get notice and how absurd that is.

[00:14:19]So you go down that process, the judge goes to hear it. Let's say it's 5 years later, six years later. What if your attorney's not around? The process server now gets notice of it. Unless you subpoena him, he's not going to be there. What happens if you can't get those people there and they dismiss the case? It doesn't get hurt around its merits like it would normally do today.

[00:14:39]Now it gets dismissed.

[00:14:42]That becomes a void judgment. Not avoidable judgment, a void judgment. A void judgment means it was no good. So now you have this voided judgment. That means your eviction was improper.

[00:14:56]What are the damages to the tenant now?

[00:14:59]Wrongful eviction. The penalties are severe for that. malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, it can go on. It's not fair to the landowner to have this happen. The whole principle in law that we've been going for down for many years is finality. The whole process of finality and that's important for us to know. You have to bring a suit within a certain amount of time or it's dismissed. You have to bring it to trial within a certain amount of time or it's dismissed. You have to do certain steps.

[00:15:32]there's all finality involved with it.

[00:15:34]That's the whole point of getting a judgment. You then get the possession of the premises.

[00:15:39]So now you go through this process so absurd about this is that someone can come in under just a declaration, no prof, no evidence, and the court shall give them an evidentiary hearing and they can get the case dismissed and then you put yourself at jeopardy.

[00:15:57]That's no, I don't think that was what the legislator's intent was, but that's what's happened. And that's extremely dangerous to you, the landlord. It's also extremely dangerous to me, the process server. But for the process itself, you would not be able to overturn that.

[00:16:13]No one notifies me. The case goes bad.

[00:16:15]You go to it goes to the attorney. I'm not in that food chain. You got to subpoena me. What if you can't find me?

[00:16:21]What if I went out of business?

[00:16:24]All those things are real dangerous. I don't think that that was the intent.

[00:16:27]It's absurd. There's something called the absurdity doctrine doctrine. And I think that fits in here. I'm so mad I'm tongue tied. I I'm sorry, Jeeoff. It's just It's amazing that this can actually happen. I don't think anybody ever thought of this. And here's the other thing. Why then am I a process server? I get I register with the state. I get fingerprinted. I get a federal background investigation. I get a state background investigation. I pay a bond.

[00:16:54]I sign things under the declaration of penalty of perjury and I take a photograph. Now I have to do this geoloccational photograph with every attempt and on every proof starting January 1, 2027.

[00:17:09]That's not good enough. Someone can just say and then that what happens to you the landlord? You've already proved your case up. Now you got to come back and do it all over again under the proponents of the evidence. What if you don't have the evidence with you now? It's been a couple years later. There's already something if they weren't served they can make a motion to quash. There's a lot of other things they can do or motion to set aside. This is just new language that is just brutal to the landlord. Why would you want? They have a housing crisis now. Why would you want to do this if they're going to be able to open this up? The one last thing I want to leave you is that if you already had a judgment and they haven't addressed this properly is in the proof of service. the proofs of service right now don't require a photograph, >> but the standard that they're going to use is this with a photograph. So that just means that the proof of service you have now is just not going to be as strong. So the danger starts immediately in 2027 if they pass this bill. I recommend that you contact your state senators and let them know immediately to to either change this bill, remove unlawful detainers, or kill it all together. So, Jeeoff, I'm gonna turn over to you. I'm sorry. I I just just get so upset about these people. How How does this happen anymore?

[00:18:22]>> Right. Yeah. And I'm gonna I'm putting a uh link for those of you that are on in the Zoom meeting. There's a link there that I'm putting in and that takes you to the um to our website and it and it kind of goes through everything. And and John, I want you to to walk us through it. I'm going to share my screen here.

[00:18:45]And is that the right one? Yeah, that's it. I'm going to share that.

[00:18:50]And so now you can see this is on the like AOA pack has a website. And so here's this call and all this was, you know, really what you gave us and it and it, you know, what you walked through here. you've already talked about this and you know like current you know all these different things the cleanup bill description and so I don't know if you would like to walk through the language or if it would be maybe the best thing is it leaving a public comment at this point we have a link and wording there um or is it going to be finding and and calling their senators what do you think is the best action right now for people to take.

[00:19:36]>> I'd be honest with you, I would tell you both.

[00:19:38]>> Okay.

[00:19:39]>> But that's, you know, people's time is important. I think the phone call is the quickest and most powerful at this moment. And, you know, one of the things that is going to cause a real backlog that I haven't really discussed is this particular level. Now, if let's say that they challenge the photograph or other things saying that they weren't served under this new standard, that dismisses your case and you really have never get to the merits and you're going to have to go back to do the notice all over again.

[00:20:08]>> So, it's it's got a real chilling effect on this process. It gives this whole new uh space or a different tool now that you can attack landlords. And one of the weird languages that they had in there that you were just we showed a minute ago is that says uh a signed affidavit or otherwise.

[00:20:28]There is no other language that I can find anywhere in California law that says or otherwise.

[00:20:34]What is that? And that's under uh 473 2B1.

[00:20:41]No evidence required. Proper evidence through a sworn affidavit or otherwise.

[00:20:46]Is that smoke signals? Is it someone flashing braille at them? I I don't know what that means. And I know that was argued, but that's just amazing that that's in there. And I talked about the two standards below that next one, which is really important for people to understand is that this opens them up expos, which means it goes back in time.

[00:21:08]Generally, you're not supposed to be able to do that, but the older proofs can be attacked easier now under this process. if they're going to do it, they should say going forward from this date forward if they're going to have this type of language. We submitted something directly to the author Calra asking them to amend the language and to talk to the sponsors that are the bill people that are sponsoring this is a a gentleman by the name of Ted I well I don't think it's appropriate but UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Bolt Law is the one leading this action and it's just crazy that we're seeing this you the landlord now some of you not all of you get this experience through the eviction defense centers the offic Ina de la Raza, the East Bay Community Law Center, Eastbay, Eastbay Defense, uh Collaborative, the different ones throughout the state. For every $26 that you file in a lawsuit, it goes to pay to them to fight you. This is this is a problem, >> right? So here here we have so really like AB747 some people may be confused but AB747 that passed we're not trying to fight that.

[00:22:21]>> Correct.

[00:22:21]>> Correct.

[00:22:21]>> Correct.

[00:22:22]>> All we're trying to do is to get these things to happen. You have three points here. And can you tell us what these just talk about these three points and how this will solve everything.

[00:22:35]>> What we want the person to be able to do as they do today. If a person is going to go before a judge, they need to require some corroborating evidence alongside their declaration under the penalty of perjury. That's what the declaration different from an affidavit.

[00:22:52]That's what they must do today to the process server has a rebuttable presumption under the evidence code. The way that they've used this language today, they will remove our rebuttable presumption. And it actually says that in and I did not articulate that in this particular document to you because I wanted to get it to the tenants's attention or landlord's attention about what happens with the tenants.

[00:23:13]But that rebuttable presumption goes away. That means you have to reprove everything. They have no evidence of any kind. It's purely a statement. And then you now have to prove it up again of what happened. That's not fair.

[00:23:29]And we need need them to remove the whole dismissal thing. Right now, if you have a motion to set aside a judgment or to quash a summons or anything else that's heard in court, it's not dismissed. You're brought back before the court to have the matter heard on its merits. In this particular case, it's not heard on the merits. It's dismissed. And this is where it's really crucial because if it's dismissed and the judgment is void, no longer exist, and you had evicted them, you could create a whole cottage industry of attorneys that will come after landlords because now it's not whether they were damaged, it's how much were they damaged because the judgment should not have taken did not take place or should not have taken place and you evicted them.

[00:24:21]And that's where this judicial gatekeeping that's highlighted. This is where the judge stands in the front says, "Okay, this is real. Let's actually have a hearing, not where it says there's nothing here." Today, you have a process where you go in exparte.

[00:24:36]You just give notice to the other side.

[00:24:37]And the judge or looks at it and says, "Yeah, we can go forward with this." Or says, "No, we're not going to go forward with this." This actually creates an evidentiary proceeding. We want the judge to sit there. They should have control of their court. Right now, I believe I put in uh today, Alama County had 60 on the calendar or yesterday was 60 on the calendar for the uh unlawful detainer assignments just for Wednesday.

[00:25:04]That would have probably added another 30 cases to that, which takes about a half an hour each. There's just no way you get through the calendar.

[00:25:14]>> That's another good point. And then um and then here too you also have we wrote out that doctrine of finality that you talked about.

[00:25:23]>> Yes. The whole point of going to court is to have finality to it. You get your property back. You end the bleeding. If you get your money back, that's great.

[00:25:32]But most importantly is you get the property back so you can stop the bleeding and rerun it and start making income again. If you can't do that anymore because this person can keep coming back and and just keeps what's the whole point of going to lawsuit for?

[00:25:47]It's defeating the purpose of going to court. It's it's a hole in the head.

[00:25:52]It's it's it's absurd. That's what I'm saying.

[00:25:54]>> Yeah. And you know, one thing that a lot of, you know, like I spoke to a couple of the attorneys that that we work with pretty closely and at first at first glance they're like, well, you know, you can always dismiss a case, but there is that key misunderstanding of the timing of that >> during the case, before the judgment versus after the judgment.

[00:26:19]>> Exactly. And what's unfortunate is that a lot of people have been looking at this and seeing that, oh, it's just a cleanup bill. And if you look at the language and you don't really dig into it, it it's slick. These guys were good.

[00:26:32]They're hiding it and they're and they're not telling us what it is. Oh, it's just cleanup language. It's not cleanup language. It's new. And the attorneys that have looked at it, I have to tell you, I've got a couple of them and they go, "Oh, oh, you're right. I didn't see that there. I didn't catch that." And you mean that's right. They get to void it. I was talking to a lobbyist yesterday who was working on it originally and the lobbyist says oh yeah we they don't they dismiss the case and it becomes void. I said exactly from voidable to void. What's it mean when the judgment was void? Does that mean that the eviction was proper and you can the the silence was deafening? You go oh I get it now.

[00:27:16]And that's the problem. I don't think this is for was foreseen and that's why we got to get them out there and clean it up because if not you're always going to be in jeopardy, >> right? And I I like the way you articulated the layers of cost, you know, c could you just hit that real quick?

[00:27:33]>> Sure. You know, you as a landlord now have already paid probably to have an unlawful retainer, especially in some of these more sophisticated areas where the eviction defense people are sitting in the courthouse.

[00:27:46]So, you've paid maybe 25, $3,500. LA, it might be a little cheaper. Um, but you've paid all that money. Now, you've incur incurred a cost to clean the apartment, to get the eviction done, pay the attorney, pay the process server, and now you have to come back and you've redone it. And then all of a sudden, someone says, "Oh, I wasn't served. I was evicted, but I wasn't served." And now you got to come back. You got to hire an attorney. You got to subpoena the process server and you're spending the exact same amount amount of money again to reprove the case that you just won.

[00:28:25]>> Right. So, we're talking there you're talking couple thousand 5,000 bucks just to just to get there just to get just to appear and fight it. Right.

[00:28:34]>> That's right. Well, that's the second time around. And what happens if they sue you?

[00:28:40]What's the cost involved in that? Even if you're going to win, you're going to have to spend money to defend yourself.

[00:28:46]You shouldn't have to defend yourself.

[00:28:47]It's supposed to be final. Now, there's something called extrinsic fraud and exttrinsic fraud. Now, if someone truly wasn't served and didn't know about it, it really hard to apply in an unlawful detainer case. You were evicted. You're gone. How did you not know? And that's the whole claim about I wasn't served. I didn't have knowledge of it. I didn't know about it. Well, how could you not?

[00:29:14]You had eight notices before this and you get evicted and you don't know.

[00:29:20]It's absurd. You should this this whole unoffer, this summary proceeding should not be in this area of law. If it was a consumer debt like a credit card and the person was never served and they find out about it four or five years ago, I can understand reopening the case but dismissing everything under its marriage. Let me one last thing. you have an unlawful detainer, the case is then dismissed. Instead, you know, you can't have it reheard. What if you're three or four years down the road, you're four years, you're beyond the statute of limitations. You as the landlord have no, you can't redo open it, but they can come after you because they've just learned of the danger to themselves.

[00:29:58]>> They've just done it. So, that gives them the statute of limitations in their favor. It stacks the deck in a bad way.

[00:30:06]>> Great. So I think we know leave a public comment, leave a public comment and contact them directly. We we have that of political action software program where if they go to that link and the link is also if you're watching from YouTube, I asked our guys to put the link in there. So there should be a link there for you to click on. It'll take you to the AOA pack voter. It's called VoterVoice is the software. And when you put your information in there, it knows who to send that who to send the letter to.

[00:30:39]Leaving the public comment, you that's not an automatic thing, but you can copy and paste that one, two, three and and um the doctrine of finality. You could even just paste that in there saying, "Hey, um please amend this thing." And so just we we've tried to make it as simple as possible because it is kind of really it is complex and um you know we but we we need to get the our voices out there for sure. But I'm confident I I think that as long as the public knows and we make it known, I don't I don't think that they pass this. John, what do you think? Do you think that this thing's just going to pass 90% probability or do you feel like >> Well, how are you?

[00:31:24]>> At this point in time, because we're late to the game, it's about 6040.

[00:31:30]>> Oh, wow.

[00:31:31]>> And and I I think that if we can get enough people to get their attention to look at it that it will um go. It went under the under the covers when it went through the assembly. we get we got to it too late because it was hidden and we found out about in fact there are three of us that created a new association because of this bill and uh the three of us have over 150 years of experience in the industry as process servers in the legal community that's how dangerous we thought this was that we had to come out we normally don't talk about this process servers we want to remain out of sight we don't want to be seen um we're the quiet people you know we just want to get in and get out um and this is not something we normally do, but we had to come up and talk about this. Not just for us, because it's going to eliminate a lot of business, I think, because people are going to go out of the business of being landlords. Why would they take this risk externally? I don't think they can buy insurance for this kind of weird stuff. Not yet.

[00:32:28]>> Yeah. Yeah. All right. And so, I do have there are some questions here that we can get to. I know Patricia, she asked about, well, what do you do if you have a tenant in there and you have this voided judgment and do they need to bring back the evicted tenant? Really, it it's going to end up being, you know, you could talk about trouble damages and the amount that um you know, the the it would you end up having to pay damages.

[00:32:56]It's right. It's not like you can you can't evict someone that's there lawfully to be to to put in someone else that was unlawfully evicted, right?

[00:33:04]>> That's correct. And the damages right now statutoily are $100 a day from the date of eviction plus $250 a day for the attorney's fees. So that's statutoily.

[00:33:12]It could be more.

[00:33:14]>> Wow, that's crazy. So guys, 40 60% here and and that's why we're doing it. We want we really need you to take action.

[00:33:23]And then on YouTube, we're not obligated to keep files for that many years back.

[00:33:28]So, how can we show any proof if there aren't any records?

[00:33:34]>> That's the great that's the whole point.

[00:33:35]What if your process server is dead?

[00:33:37]What if your attorney's dead or gone out of business? It puts me in a position where I'm basically in involuntary servitude. Do I just have to stay in business forever?

[00:33:47]>> Right? And this is, you know, not just is this going back and maybe they change, they could tweak one little thing and make it so that it's only moving forward, but even if it's moving forward, think 15 years from now, you know, where are all of us? Where's your attorney and your process server 15 or 10 years from now? And so that's a great point. Whether it's retroactive or whether it's moving forward is it's it really is insanity. Jeeoff, if I can just articulate this again a second for people to understand the time frame.

[00:34:19]When you get a judgment today, it lasts for 10 years.

[00:34:24]Whether you recorded or not, it's good for 10 years. Now, it can be in an unlawful detainer if they did a 585D declaration, which is the uh declaration you make to get your money judgment or they did approve up, but the person didn't show at the time of trial and you get your money judgment, you could renew it for another 5 years total. So, let's just say you renewed it for five years.

[00:34:45]You're 14 years out. I mean, under the IRS rules, you're only allowed to keep your records for, I think, seven years.

[00:34:51]You don't have to. Um, so who's going to have the records? I don't even know if I'm going to be around in 10 years from now, you know, for my business. I've been >> Let's hope you're retired by then, right?

[00:35:02]>> I hope so. I've been I already been doing it for 45 plus. So, um I I just I'm concerned for people. Anyway, that's where we got the time frame from. So even if it was just 3 years out, that's imagine the damages. 365 * 100 * 3 * 250 * 365 * 3 and then there's uh punitive damages that can be put on top of it. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, all that other stuff. You could be reaching in the millions very quickly.

[00:35:34]>> Yeah, this is this is just absolutely devious and that's why we wanted to just get the word out there. And um yeah, so please guys, if you could share the video with others or even just share the link for people to take action on that.

[00:35:48]If everybody does that, hopefully we can get the word out and enough people um communicating.

[00:35:55]And um yeah, so again, thank you. Thank you, John, for sharing this with us. And um another another plug here um John also did a he did an in-person seminar about the individualized assessment.

[00:36:12]This is a HUD guideline if you're going to if you're going to look at a criminal or civil uh derogatory history and deny an applicant. And so he went through that individualized assessment and what's required there. And and and that was really a unique video. That's one for for those people who have a three-year membership. That's part of that. But, um, you know, there's lots of different way. He's just very gifted, very intelligent, and >> kind of you.

[00:36:42]>> You know, we're just honored. I'm honored and I know that AOA is full of members like you that are just very talented and mo and so many are incredible landlords and uh or excuse me, housing providers.

[00:36:58]So anyway, thanks again, John, and thank you everybody for caring enough to even watch this and hopefully we'll get the word out there and um I know that it went to tell us where it's at right now.

[00:37:09]Also, as far as judiciary committee and all that, >> it's to go through on the 14th of June is going to be the final vote out of the judiciary committee. Um Mr. Umbberg, Senator Umberg, this is his last year at the term there. um he has always been very process server, you know, and prolegal community um in this process.

[00:37:31]And I hope that just your phone calls alone will get him to look at the finality document because they've spent he has spent many many years building this whole idea about what the judiciary is supposed to be about and this just blows a hole right in it.

[00:37:46]>> Great. And like I called and I had to leave a message. You've called and you've had to leave messages too, right?

[00:37:54]>> Exactly. And you're not going to they're not going to pick up the phone for us.

[00:37:57]They're going to only take it. But that phone call or your friend's phone call, they add that up. They count all those phone calls and that makes a big difference.

[00:38:05]>> Yeah. And there's a multiplier that they use with the phone call. Like they don't just count one phone call. They there's a multiplier on that. They where they figure if one person's calling, there's multiplied by how many people didn't call and it's probably multiplied by 10 or or more. I thought it was 11x, but >> yeah, 11. Yeah, there we go. Like to be >> I'm not an expert in that, but I think that's what the number was, >> right? So, your call counts for 11 times if you can believe it. So, leave a message. Look at that. You don't even have to talk to anybody. Just read those three points off of the uh off of the deal there. Um's number. Gosh, I I don't have it right there. I should have maybe we can maybe I'll try to get that added there.

[00:38:51]But do you have his phone number handy?

[00:38:53]>> I thought I did myself, but I guess >> we can wait a half second to get that and we can also put it in the in the YouTube. Uh >> one thing I don't have and I apologize, but um >> I should have had that. Those were good questions, people. Thank you very much.

[00:39:10]Um and it was an honor being with you, Jeff. I mean uh I I met your father a long time ago when I was very young and started in this business and he was very inspirational to me and you've been the same. your your passion for the house per the housing providers is is um paramount to everything >> and I don't I don't think people understand how much or how lucky they are to have an association like this that they're members of. It's important and uh thank you for all supporting it because it's it's something we all need.

[00:39:38]If we don't have this advocacy and we don't talk with each other about these important issues, we're going to get run over like a train because somehow we're we're the enemy now. And I don't understand how that's turned around when we should be the the heroes that are trying to help people.

[00:39:53]>> Right. Right. Agreed. Anyway, thanks again. I know you have a busy schedule and so we'll let you go and um let's just hope that we get enough people to respond by June 14.

[00:40:05]>> Thank you, sir. You have a great day and to all your members, be safe.

[00:40:08]>> Thank you. Take care.

[00:40:09]>> Thank you.