Do Both Tenants Really Have To Show Up To Eviction Court?

Both co‑tenants named on a joint lease must generally appear at the eviction hearing; courts typically enter a default judgment against any defendant who fails to show unless they have filed a limited‑appearance request or a power‑of‑attorney. One co‑tenant's testimony only addresses that individual's defenses and does not automatically shield the absent roommate. As we covered above, the attendance rule applies to each defendant, not to the lease as a whole. The next section explains the consequences when only one co‑tenant makes it to court.

Both co‑tenants on a joint lease do not have to appear together; a single representative can satisfy the attendance requirement. The eviction court treats the lease as one contractual entity, so procedural rules allow one party to speak for the other, although each tenant remains individually liable for any judgment. (The judge may still ask for the absent tenant's presence, but it isn't a prerequisite.)

Because only one person needs to be there, a no‑show by the other co‑tenant doesn't automatically halt the hearing; the court can still render a decision that binds both. This nuance explains why the next section warns that a missing roommate can jeopardize the shared case, even when the present tenant has prepared a solid defense.

If one co‑tenant shows up, the eviction hearing proceeds but the absent party does not lose every right automatically. The court treats the present tenant's testimony as evidence while the missing co‑tenant remains on the docket.

The absent co‑tenant can still file a written answer, raise defenses, or ask for a continuance; failure to do so usually results in a default judgment against that individual alone. (Courts love to hand out defaults, but they won't blanket‑penalize a roommate who never stepped foot in the courtroom.)

Because the lease is joint, any monetary judgment may bind both signatories, yet the non‑appearing tenant retains the opportunity to contest the eviction on future motions. As we noted in the joint‑lease section, liability for back rent persists, but procedural defenses stay alive unless the court orders otherwise.

A missing co‑tenant instantly tilts the odds against the remaining party.

• Judge issues a default judgment solely against the no‑show, leaving the present co‑tenant legally untouched, yet the landlord may still sue any liable party under the joint lease (default judgments in eviction cases).
• Shared defenses unravel because the absent co‑tenant cannot testify or submit evidence, forcing the present tenant to argue alone (see 'what happens if only one appears' above).
• Court treats the lease as a single financial obligation, allowing the landlord to cite the missing tenant's unpaid rent as part of the overall dispute.
• Credibility erodes; opposing counsel highlights the absentee's refusal to appear, casting doubt on the remaining tenant's reliability.
• Financial exposure stays high; even if the judgment targets only the absentee, the landlord can still chase the present co‑tenant for the same balance under the joint lease.

One co‑tenant may not normally speak for both in an eviction hearing; the court requires each party to appear or be represented by an attorney, and any informal 'speaking for' the absent roommate risks that their interests are ignored and a default judgment is entered against them (as we covered above).

• A written power of attorney or signed consent lets one co‑tenant act as the other's proxy.
• An attorney can represent both co‑tenants if the proper notice is filed with the court.
• Without such authorization, the judge may treat the absent co‑tenant's position as unchallenged.
• The landlord can still pursue collection from each tenant on the joint lease.
• Requesting the judge to accept a single testimony is rarely granted and must be supported by documented consent.

Defending a joint‑lease eviction alone means gathering evidence, filing the correct response, and rehearsing your testimony. As we covered above, a co‑tenant's no‑show doesn't automatically invalidate the case, so preparation becomes critical.

1. Check the summons for the response deadline.
   Some jurisdictions demand a written answer within 3‑10 business days, while others allow - or even require - only an oral response at the hearing. Verify the exact rule on your local court's website (for example, California self‑help eviction guide) to avoid missing the window.
2. Gather every lease‑related document.
   Pull the joint lease, rent receipts, bank statements, and any written communication with the landlord. Photographs of the unit's condition and copies of repair requests strengthen your position.
3. Draft a concise answer or outline oral remarks.
   If a written answer is required, limit it to factual admissions and denials, citing the documents you'll present. When an oral response suffices, create a bullet‑point script that mirrors the written version.
4. File the answer and serve the landlord.
   Submit the paper to the clerk, pay any filing fee, and arrange service - usually by certified mail or the court's online portal. Keep the receipt as proof of compliance.
5. Build a chronological narrative for the hearing.
   Start with the lease signing, list each rent payment, note any landlord breaches, and end with your current defense. Practice speaking clearly, anticipating questions about the co‑tenant's absence.
6. Secure witnesses and duplicate copies.
   Ask roommates, repair contractors, or neighbors to sign brief statements. Bring at least three copies of every document: one for the judge, one for the landlord, and one for yourself.
7. Confirm any remote‑hearing options.
   Some courts now allow video participation; check the docket entry or call the clerk to see if you can appear from home, which can reduce the stress of standing alone in a courtroom.

• File a motion for continuance when the co‑tenant cannot attend and lacks authorized representation.
• Obtain a court‑approved power of attorney or retain an attorney who can legally represent both tenants, since a simple affidavit is insufficient.
• Submit the lease, payment logs, and any written statements from the absent co‑tenant before the hearing to bolster the joint‑lease defense.
• Testify solely about personal conduct; avoid answering for the missing co‑tenant unless proper authority is on record.
• Inform the court of the no‑show and request that the case proceed without the absent party, understanding that a default judgment may result if the landlord's claim is unchallenged.

Skipping the eviction hearing almost guarantees a rough ride; the absent co‑tenant usually receives a default judgment while the present tenant must carry the entire defense, and judges often view the no‑show as a credibility hit.

• Default rulings typically target the non‑appearing co‑tenant, but they do not automatically seal the case against the one who is present.
• The appearing co‑tenant bears the burden of proving lease compliance, rent payment, or any other defense the landlord raises.
• Security‑deposit refunds may be divided proportionally, meaning the absent roommate often forfeits their share.
• Judges may interpret a no‑show as neglect of responsibility, swaying discretionary decisions such as stay‑away orders or rent‑arrears calculations.
• Certain states (e.g., New York, California) permit separate judgments, yet the present co‑tenant still needs solid evidence to defeat the eviction claim.

Given the stakes, filing a motion for continuance, grabbing legal aid, and presenting a complete, documented defense become essential moves before the hearing concludes.

No, the idea that a single co‑tenant can skip an eviction hearing while the other holds the line is a myth; courts typically expect every party on a joint lease to appear or submit a response. Ignoring the joint nature of the lease invites a default judgment that drags both names into the sheriff's lock‑out list.

Equally false is the belief that one co‑tenant can speak for both without the other's consent. Even if one tenant testifies, the absent party still has the right to submit written defenses and may be summoned later for a separate hearing. As we covered above, a 'no‑show' rarely shields the silent co‑tenant and often harms the shared case (see co‑tenant eviction responsibilities for details).

Many courts now permit eviction hearings to be held remotely, allowing co‑tenants to appear by video or phone rather than in person.

Typical remote formats include:

• live‑streamed video conference through the court's portal,
• telephone call dial‑in using a case‑specific PIN,
• third‑party platforms (Zoom, Microsoft Teams) approved by the judge.

Tenants should file a motion for remote participation well before the hearing date, attach proof of work schedule or medical constraints, and confirm the judge's preferred platform. Courts often require a signed affidavit stating that no party objects to the virtual format; the same affidavit can address a co‑tenant's no‑show, as discussed earlier.

If the request is granted, the judge shares a link and login instructions, and the hearing proceeds exactly as a in‑person session - evidence is presented, objections are heard, and a decision is entered. Should technical issues arise, the judge typically pauses the proceeding and allows a reconnection window.

For jurisdictions that still mandate physical appearance, remote hearing guidelines for eviction cases outline exceptions and the procedure to obtain them.

The next section explores how an incarcerated co‑tenant affects the court's ability to move forward.

If a co‑tenant is incarcerated, the eviction hearing usually still goes forward. Courts treat the prison sentence as a personal circumstance, not a procedural bar, so the case stays on the docket unless a formal request changes the schedule.

The incarcerated party may file a motion for a continuance, supplying proof of confinement and a reasonable alternative date. Alternatively, the co‑tenant can appear on their behalf, or the inmate can retain an attorney to represent them in court. Some jurisdictions allow a video link for a detained defendant, but that depends on the local rules and the judge's discretion.

Consider 'Mike and Jordan,' both on a joint lease. Mike receives a six‑month sentence mid‑process. The landlord files for eviction; the hearing is set for next week. Mike files a continuance request, attaching his booking record. The judge grants a two‑week postponement, giving Jordan time to appear and an attorney to discuss Mike's defense. Had Mike not filed, the hearing would have proceeded, and his absence could have been treated as a no‑show, harming their shared case as we discussed above.