Here’s the article I wrote, though without the footnotes.
“Capitalism Gone Mad”: Compulsive Hoarding and Collyer Nuisances
It was New York’s biggest news story in 1947: The infamously reclusive Homer Collyer had been found dead in the Harlem mansion that he shared with his brother Langley, and Langley was missing. In the decades they had lived there, the brothers had quite literally filled their home with barricades and elaborate booby-traps, ostensibly to protect them against break-ins due to the changing racial nature of Harlem. All eight major daily papers extensively covered the ensuing search for Langley. After nearly three weeks of excavating debris, a decaying smell led the authorities to find Langley’s body buried under one of his booby traps a mere 10 feet from where the body of Homer had been found. In the end 103 tons of papers, largely worthless miscellaneous items and garbage were removed from the house, which had to be razed due to the damage caused by the accumulated clutter.
Unfortunately, the Collyer brothers were not unique eccentrics, but rather suffered from a relatively common condition known as compulsive hoarding, also referred to as Collyer brothers syndrome. Although the excavation of the Collyer mansion became a grand public spectacle, more mundane cases of Collyer-type accumulations provide serious challenges to landlords, neighbors, emergency personnel, the courts and indeed the tenants who live in them as well as to real estate practitioners. Although a landlord may bring a “Collyer action” to evict a tenant based on the claim that an “apartment is so cluttered with papers, refuse and/or rubbish as to constitute a nuisance,” prosecuting these actions can be anything but straightforward. Moreover, as one housing judge has recognized: “I have never seen a landlord that truly wanted to evict these people – they just want the problem to go away.”
MENTAL HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE ISSUES
At the heart of the problem is that Collyer-type accumulations are frequently symptoms of mental illness. Although it been referred to as “‘capitalism gone mad,’ . . . the urge to collect objects of significance only to the collector,” compulsive hoarding is generally considered to be a variety of obsessive-compulsive disorder, though it is also linked to Alzheimer’s disease. On the other hand, sometimes the problem may simply be that a frail, elderly tenant has lost the physical ability to keep his or her apartment clean.
Because of these issues, a court facing a Collyer action has to consider whether the tenant is mentally impaired and unqualified to litigate on his or her own behalf, and whether social services are appropriate. A housing court judge has explained that in each Collyer case he has been assigned he has considered whether it is necessary appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the tenant’s interests, in addition to social service and legal aid referrals.
In the course of social services involvement, an interested agency may petition for a guardianship under Article 81 of the Mental Health Law if the tenant is uncooperative with efforts to eliminate the Collyer condition or is otherwise seen to be unable to manage their own affairs. Depending on the circumstances, a guardianship can be an effective tool to improve the living conditions of the tenant, or a source of significant friction in which the tenant strongly opposes the efforts the guardian takes in the tenant’s interest. For instance, Matter of Linden-Rath, tells the success story of “a remarkably vigorous and charming woman, now approximately 103 years of age and the widow of a German count,” whose hoarding behavior, and the resulting Collyer-like state of her apartment, were substantially reduced through the efforts of a guardian appointed with her consent. On the other hand, Matter of Murray F. describes how the Collyer condition in one couple’s apartment was only brought under control after years of battles between the tenants and the agency appointed as their guardian, during which time the tenants “continually harassed everyone involved in the case” including constant letters, phone calls and faxes to court staff, and threats and physical abuse to the guardian agency personnel.
LITIGATION OF COLLYER ACTIONS
Although Collyer conditions sometimes indicate a tenant’s incapacity, many otherwise competent and productive people choose live and work in excessively cluttered quarters. Living in clutter is legally unobjectionable, until the point that it becomes “nuisance, specifically the accumulation of newspapers and debris in [tenant’s] apartment causing a health and fire hazard.”
The question of when an apartment crosses the line into nuisance is obviously a fact-intensive one. Nuisance will be found in cases where “the apartment is literally overcome with thousands of books, magazines, cans, bottles, pictures, rags and assorted other items. There is barely room to walk.” One factor weighted especially heavily by the courts is specific fire hazards like combustible materials on the stove and overloaded electric circuits, particularly when there have been actual fires caused by the hazards. On the other hand, no nuisance was found when: “all rooms of the apartment contained articles roughly appropriate in amount, although varying in the quality of the housekeeping; dried flower bouquets were no more in number than can be seen every day in many other homes; newspaper stacks were low, a far cry from the previously reported fire hazard of a three-foot-high cabinet-sized mound next to the stove.”
A key procedural element in Collyer cases is that resolution of the case will usually involve a personal inspection of the premises by the judge, particularly as photographic evidence of the apartment conditions introduced by landlord may be misleading or stale. One element that may have to be overcome on a court inspection is judicial disbelief that tenants might actually live in exceedingly cluttered conditions. Although there are a few cases finding that Collyer-like apartments are used for storage only, particularly when the tenant has an identifiable alternate place to live, the psychological and social services data, media reports and case law show that people can clutter their living spaces to levels that normal people find incomprehensible.
Where a Collyer nuisance is found, it is considered a breach of the tenant’s lease for which a warrant of eviction may be issued, but under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 753(4), the court is required to grant a ten day period to cure the breach. In practice, however, the courts will frequently grant longer cure periods, particularly where the tenancy is of long duration. Where the tenant cures the condition prior to entry of judgment, courts will permanently stay execution of the warrant.
In the end, litigation over a Collyer condition is likely to cause significant headaches to all involved. For landlords particularly, it can be a long, hard, expensive slog to achieve an eviction or a cure. Even with social services, mental health or guardianship involvement, there are likely to be significant challenges before a clean-up is achieved, and there is a good chance of tenant backsliding even after a full clean-up. In the end, however, because of the risk they pose to the building and neighboring tenants, it is necessary for landlords take action to force compulsive hoarder tenants to remedy the Collyer nuisances they create.