780 Credit Score, One Eviction From Six Years Ago
Their credit is 780. Income is 3.5x rent. Current landlord raves about them. But there's one eviction filing from six years ago. Approve, reject, or condition?
You list a 3-bedroom single-family rental at $2,100/month in a B+ neighborhood. Three days, eight applications. The one on top of the stack looks almost too clean.
Here's what the screening report comes back with:
- Credit score: 780 (excellent — well above your 620 minimum)
- Gross income: $87,000/year (3.5x the annual rent — clears your 3x rule with room)
- Employment: Same employer for four years, salaried, verified by Plaid
- Current landlord reference: "Best tenants we've ever had. Wish they weren't moving for the new job."
- Two-back landlord: Confirmed great. Paid on time, left the place spotless.
- Background check: Clean. No criminal history.
This is a 99th-percentile applicant on every layer of the Five-Layer Shield — except one.
You run the eviction history search separately from the credit report — Layer 3, the way you're supposed to. And there it is.
- One eviction filing. Six years ago. Travis County, TX.
- Outcome: Dismissed. Tenant paid in full before the hearing.
- Stated reason (per the applicant): Disputed security deposit deduction at a previous rental. Landlord filed; tenant paid the disputed amount under protest to avoid a judgment; case was dismissed.
You go back to your written criteria. Yours says: "No evictions in the past five years." Six years is past your window. Technically, this applicant clears the rule.
But the rule exists because evictions in the past five years multiply future eviction risk by 4x. This one is six years old. Past the window. The math doesn't apply — or does it?
Approve as-is, no conditions. Six years is past your written five-year window. The rest of the profile is exceptional. You wrote the rule. Apply it consistently. Bending it tighter for one applicant — when nothing else in the file is concerning — is exactly the kind of inconsistency Fair Housing claims feed on.
Reject. An eviction filing is an eviction filing. The five-year window is your floor, not your ceiling — you're allowed to be more conservative on your own property. One court record beats every reference call. Move to applicant #2.
Approve with a higher security deposit. State the specific reason in writing — the eviction filing within the prior 7 years — and condition the lease on a deposit equal to 1.5x or 2x the standard. You honor your written criteria, you price the residual risk, and you document the decision in case anyone ever asks.
The Right Framework vs. the Right Action
Option B feels safe. It isn't.
A blanket "any eviction ever" policy looks conservative on the surface, but it's the policy most likely to land you in front of HUD. Disparate-impact doctrine says a facially neutral rule that disproportionately harms a protected class is still actionable — and eviction filings, like criminal records, have well-documented disparate-impact patterns by race and income. The Fair Housing Act is untouched by the November 25 guidance rescission. Disparate-impact claims are still alive. A 5-year window plus a documented exception process is far easier to defend than "I rejected anyone with any eviction record going back to college."
That doesn't make Option A right either. Approving as-is treats a six-year-old filing as if it doesn't exist. It does exist. It's a real signal, even a faint one — and ignoring real signals is how you turn a $35 screening report into a $3,500 eviction.
Option C is the framework that keeps you out of court on both sides. Here's how it plays.
You honor the written rule (no evictions in the past 5 years — applicant clears). You acknowledge the residual signal from the 6-year-old filing. You price it. You document it. You make the same offer to the next applicant who comes in with the same fact pattern, the same way, every time.
What does "pricing" actually look like in practice? On a $2,100/month rental, your standard security deposit is probably one month — $2,100. A conditional offer might look like:
- Standard: First month's rent + $2,100 security deposit
- Conditional offer: First month's rent + $3,150 security deposit (1.5x)
That additional $1,050 isn't a fee — it's refundable, sitting in escrow per your state's law. It's insurance against the residual risk you're identifying. If the tenant performs the way the rest of their profile predicts, they get every dollar back at move-out.
Most states allow this. California caps total deposit at one month for unfurnished units (since 2024's AB 12), so Option C as written doesn't work there — Option A is closer to the right call in California. New York City has rent-stabilized restrictions. Check your state. In most of the country (Texas included, which is where this applicant's old filing lives), an additional deposit is legal as long as it's within the state's overall cap.
Then comes the documentation move that protects you from Fair Housing claims and from your own bias. Write the conditional offer letter. State the specific factual basis: "Eviction filing within the prior 7 years, dismissed but on record." This is your FCRA adverse-action notice — even though you're not rejecting, you're using credit-related information to set adverse terms. The notice protects the applicant's right to dispute, and it protects you by creating a paper trail showing the decision was based on a specific data point, applied consistently.
Two more notes from EP 125 that apply here.
The two-back landlord call did its job. That's the data point that should carry the most weight in the file. The current landlord might be motivated to give a glowing reference to move someone out. The landlord before the current one has zero incentive — and they said "best tenants ever." That's the strongest signal in this file. Stronger than the 6-year-old court record by an order of magnitude.
Don't fall in love with the file. Even with Option C executed perfectly, you should run the numbers as if there's a 5% chance this turns into an eviction. What's your reserve cushion? Do you have 6 months of mortgage payments in the bank for this property? If yes, Option C is a defensible bet on a 99th-percentile applicant. If no, Option C is a stretch, and Option B starts to look more honest.
The rule isn't "approve great applicants, reject bad ones." The rule is: write your criteria, disclose them publicly, apply them the same way every time, document every exception with a specific factual basis, and price residual risk where the law lets you. Do that, and you're not picking tenants — you're running a system. The system is what survives an audit.
One eviction from six years ago is a faint signal. Faint signals get priced, not ignored, and not used to override everything else in the file. That's the move.
- The 4x eviction risk multiplier from past filings drops sharply after the 5-year window — but it doesn't drop to zero. A 6-year-old filing is closer to background than to red flag, but it's not invisible.
- Written criteria is your Fair Housing armor — but the ARMOR works in BOTH directions. Bending the rule tighter for one applicant is the same kind of inconsistency as bending it looser for another. Pick a standard, document it, apply it the same way every time.
- An additional security deposit is a legal way to price residual risk in most states (check yours — California, NY, and a handful of others cap it). Document the specific factual basis on the rejection or condition notice — that's what the FCRA adverse-action requirement is for.
- The two-back landlord call from EP 125 just earned its keep. The reference said 'best tenants ever' — that's the data point that should weight more than a 6-year-old filing that ended in dismissal.
- Fair Housing's disparate-impact doctrine is still a cause of action — even after the November 25, 2025 HUD guidance rescission. A blanket 'any eviction ever, any age' policy is harder to defend than a structured 5-year window plus a documented exception process.
