Committee hears broad support for automatic sealing of qualifying eviction records; technical questions remain

Senate Bill 142, a proposal to expand eviction‑record sealing and to make sealing automatic in qualifying cases, received broad support from legal aid, housing advocates and social‑service groups at the Judiciary Committee hearing.

David Pruitt, director of the Eviction Clinic at Notre Dame Law School, told the committee the bill improves an existing 2022 eviction‑sealing statute by ensuring cases dismissed or won by tenants are not left on public records and by allowing sealing when judgments have been satisfied. He said the proposed 7‑year automatic sealing window recognizes people can change circumstances and should be able to move on.

Indiana Legal Services attorney Jenny Terry said her organization filed more than 1,600 eviction‑sealing petitions last year and ran clinics across the state; she described common practical barriers for tenants who try to petition a court themselves — printing forms, serving landlords, and missing court dockets — and supported automatic sealing to reduce those burdens. Terry told the committee she found sealed eviction records still present on third‑party background reports about 82% of reviewed cases, which she said shows the need for better administrative sealing and follow‑through.

Witnesses from Prosperity Indiana, United Ways, and AARP cited public‑health and economic harms from evictions and supported the bill as a tool to improve housing stability, reduce homelessness risk and help renters qualify for housing or mortgages. Notre Dame’s Pruitt recommended a shorter 3‑year sealing window in his written report; committee members discussed 3‑year versus 7‑year options during questioning.

Title companies and bar‑association representatives raised technical concerns about money judgments and title searches. Elizabeth Berg of the Indiana Land Title Association said automatic sealing could obscure unpaid monetary judgments that have become judgment liens and attach to after‑acquired property; she and others proposed a drafting fix that would preserve the ability of judgment creditors to find and enforce outstanding money judgments while still sealing eviction dockets from public consumer‑facing searches.

Committee members asked court‑administration and technology questions about which office would implement automatic sealing across multiple townships and how sealed cases would be excluded from public background reports and commercial tenant‑screening services. Witnesses said many eviction dockets are handled in small‑claims procedures and that automatic sealing could also reduce court workload by removing petitions that otherwise would have required thousands of sealing hearings.

The committee did not vote on the bill at the hearing and will consider amendments and potential changes in a future meeting.