Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome back, everyone, to the Committee on General Housing, and it's Thursday, February 12, and we are now with our legislative council considering seven seventy two and other, a total of five bills before us, and there's a couple of other bills that are floating around in other committees, and those committees are But we're looking at those bills as well. And what we're doing is we're in the process of sort of looking at these bills from a high level and trying to see where we have committee discussion, and also instructions to counsel of markup of the next draft. So to remind of where we were, one of the things one of the issues where we were counseled, and I talked to you later, one of the things that was hard for us to figure out was the whole situation of writ of possession then, writ of possession on the one hand. What is the exact timing of the process? If the landlord has won the case, what is the exact timing? And the wording was such and then the second issue is, okay, so what's the exact timing from the moment that the judgment in writ happens to the moment when sheriff is empowered, at least, to go and remove the tenant. And then, the second issue was, how long does the landlord have before they can get the tenant's stuff out if the tenant doesn't remove it? And what we decided was, we really couldn't look at those two separately. We couldn't make up our mind how we felt about the latter until we knew what happened to the former, and we couldn't tell for sure. The issue that came up was what runs Once you get the judgment and writ from the court, our obsession is, from the language, that has to serve. Later than fourteen days doesn't apply, just has to be served presumably quickly. And then after that service, the fourteen days runs, but we wish you'd go over it with us.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, happy to jump in. For the record, Cameron Lloyd office, we're solicitor counsel. So I pulled up two relevant statutory sections to kind of discuss. We still also have this side by side, the one that's blue is the one that deals with the ejectment process. So as we talked last time, you all recall you have the termination period. You may zoom in.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, zoom in.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so you have the termination period, which is what would start the whole process. And then you have the termination period depending on what you're terminating the agreement for. And all that means is it's notice to the individual that you're terminating, they need to vacate, they stay, then you have to bring the ejectment action. Now, is we're all the way to the end of the ejectment, which as we talked last time could take the advocates that argued to you that it could take up to six months. I don't practice in that area, so I can't give you any personal experience. But when there is a judgment issued for the plaintiff that they are entitled to possession of the premises, so the judge is saying you've complied with the termination notice requirements and the reasoning you're doing the termination is sufficient for what you're arguing, non payment of rent, demonstrated the person isn't paying rent, so we're gonna give you a judgment. And then what it says is focus here on the last bit of this section, it states that the writ shall direct the sheriff to serve the writ upon the defendant. There's no timeframe there. So presumably the sheriff gets it and is going to go out and serve it But as far as whether it's that day, they receive it on a Friday, they wait till a Monday, they receive it on a day, they don't have a deputy to go out and deliver it. There's no statutory timeframe there. So I can't tell you that it's gonna be that day, it's gonna be the next day, it could be a week, I don't know. That's a question for someone else to answer. But then it is not earlier than fourteen days after it's served to put the plaintiff in possession. So you have a minimum there of fourteen days before the plaintiff is actually going to take possession.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Just a quick question. Is

[Speaker 0]: there some, to your knowledge, any legal reason, either constitutional or statutory, that we rely on the sheriff to do the service? In most civil litigation, the parties do the so that the service could be done by the landlord.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not aware of a legal reason, I can understand practically why you may want the sheriff to do it in the event you have to Deal In the event you need to get to a point of locking the person out or ejecting them, etc. I don't know, I'm not aware of a legal reason why you can't do it of some other party other than the sheriff, other than the

[Speaker 0]: statute of scents. But in the prior parts of the case, as in service, every time service happens, it's by the parties, right?

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct, like you don't, the sheriff isn't required to deliver the termination notice. She isn't required to deliver the complaint. So if we

[Speaker 0]: wanted to give the option to tenants, to landlords, to serve it themselves, the reason I'm saying it is I have just heard that sheriffs are way overburdened, sometimes it takes a long time for sheriffs to do anything.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. So I think what you're asking is, can a landlord do it themselves if they want to? Not under the circumstances. They cannot. Only a sheriff can.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not aware of And

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you're asking if we might want to allow that as an option. A may, not a shall.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, sure. Just an option.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Don't think that that's dangerous, you're putting the landlord in that situation?

[Speaker 0]: Then they wouldn't do it. Don't you think they're the ones that should make that decision?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I think when things are heightened and volatile like that, they're not thinking clearly, And I think that cops will be called, and I think it just complicates things more.

[Speaker 0]: You, Debbie, do you agree?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, no, I'm just gonna say that when you have a sheriff serve the writ of possession, and we pay to have the sheriff serve it, and then he will, in this, what happens in those fourteen days, he will visit the people every day. Four of the fourteen days.

[Speaker 0]: This is during

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: During those fourteen days.

[Speaker 0]: Fourteen days.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Like, if you take your writ of possession, you take it to the sheriff's office. They have to process it. Right. They they do their stuff, and then and then it's given to the sheriff that's gonna serve it. And then what happens in those fourteen days, the sheriff will visit the defendant and let them know on this day, I will be back, and if you're still here, I'm gonna physically remove you from the premises. That's what I'm Right.

[Speaker 0]: I'm just raising the issue of because I know sometimes you can't even get the thing served because sheriffs are so busy. So it might take as your experience, that I'm not talking, I'm just that once you win the serving the writ, have you had any problem with the sheriff delaying service?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: We we personally, we have not, but

[Speaker 0]: I'm sure it does happen in some counties. Right, right, and you're worried maybe we shouldn't just even allow it because of, okay, all right, so go on, I'm sorry to interrupt. That's just, all right, well, we got a higher half of what

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we were just talking about, Mr. Chittenden, started us with, so you have this section. So fourteen days have passed, the individual's still there, the sheriff can come back and physically remove the person, change the locks, etcetera. At that point, for argument's sake, let's just assume that the individual's possessions remain, they have not removed their possessions from the property. What then? So then you need to go to this section, section 48.54A, which states that a landlord may dispose of the personal property remaining in the dwelling unit without notice or liability to the tenant or owner of the personal property fifteen days after the writ of possession is served or upon the landlord being legally restored to possession of the dwelling, whichever is later. So you've got the writs issued, the sheriff delivers it let's say the same day, the person still has fourteen days to remove all of their belongings before the sheriff comes back and physically removes them. So you've got fourteen days, now the sheriff removes them and they've left some property. The landlord is required to keep that property for another fifteen days.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thirty told almost. Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: well that's, it says whichever is later

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or upon the lamb are being legally restored, whichever is later.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And this is right now?

[Speaker 0]: Right now, so yeah, this is what I found out, I thought Paul would want to know. It's a weird thing that it's written this way because it says, the law elsewhere says when the writ of position is served, you can't get position sooner than fourteen days after that. This acts as if you could. If somebody Maybe they leave, they just leave voluntarily, And I say

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: this is after a court proceeding not being served.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: No. No, what

[Speaker 0]: happens is, A, you win. Yeah. When you win, you get a judgment. Right. The judgment is a writ and writ of possession all in one, okay, then the sheriff has to go out in service. Whenever they serve it, day three, day five, whenever they get around to it, fourteen days has to run before the sheriff can go back and remove them. Then there's another fifteen days before they can take their

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: stuff No,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I get that, but what I'm saying is, I know an experience where the landlord sent the sheriff letter to the tenant, but then they went to court because they were arguing against the eviction. And the person remained in the house for months during the court proceeding, is my point.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is all after that?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That's what I was asking. So after the court decision, then this clock comes in. You can't remove the stuff before that happens, is what I'm sending

[Speaker 0]: you. Right, right. Got it. So, it's a total of twenty nine days.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: After the court decision. Yeah, it could be months after

[Speaker 0]: the service of the court. Right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The way I'm reading it, it's saying fifteen days after writ of possession is served. So that's the actual sheriff showing up to the tenant and saying, you now have fourteen days. After that fourteenth day, the fifteenth day since that action, we get to take your stuff out. But the or upon the landlord being legally restored to possession, that's the decision. That's the court decision.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The court

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: is The landlord being No, no, that is the serving. The writ of possession is served. Isn't that the actual sheriff serving? Right. Yeah. And then the landlord being legally restored to possession, wouldn't that be the court decision, wouldn't that be the judge's decision?

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's the fourteen day period after. So if you go back to the previous section, the writ is directed to the sheriff to serve it and not earlier than fourteen days put the plaintiff into possession. The plaintiff doesn't get possession until person leaves or until the sheriff removes the person. I did go back have a legal right to the possession, but then your physical possession of it isn't going to occur until here.

[Speaker 0]: Could you go back to the other one because I think she's being a great lawyer here. Really is. God, you guys. I mean, come on. She's making the argument, which I think you're saying, no. It's not that way. She's making the argument that it's a matter of law, quote, the landlord is, quote, legally Restored to possession. Possession By the judge. By the writ, by the judge. And he's saying they're legally entitled to possession, but they are not, quote, restored to possession until they're physically the tenant's out.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's an amazing question of interpretation. I think you have to read it the way that I'm reading it because if you don't, then the person is served, which is always gonna happen after the writ is issued. And then the person is served, now the individual can remove all the property.

[Speaker 0]: And so if you read it that way, the fourteen day period in the previous section doesn't have any effect. And also if you go to the previous section, look at the word restored to possession, okay, in this one, and then go to the prior one, and not earlier than fourteen days after the writ is served, put the plaintiff into possession. In other words, possession is different than right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But that still says writ is served. The

[Speaker 0]: writ is after fifteen days after a writ of possession is served. Service is one thing. Then fourteen, or upon the landlord being legally restored to possession. And when what he's saying is, and I agree, restored to possession doesn't mean legally entitled to possession. It means restored, which means the tenant is out and the landlord is free to re rent.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So, I think it's poorly written. I think they met what I said. I think they met what I'm saying.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: And they just wrote it wrong.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: They did. He wrote this.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This goes all the way back.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, why would they have read the second sentence if it means

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you have to go with the latter, what's the whole point of the section? Well, because, again, it

[Speaker 0]: could it they could happen early. Next day. Yeah. In other words Then why would you say that

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: if it's the same thing?

[Speaker 0]: In other words, if you go to the let's say, the landlord Fragged up. The the writ is served and the tenant goes, oh god, and they leave after four days or they leave after five days. Well, then at that point, the landlord's entitled possession and the the fourteen days

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: right there. It says it would have to be after or it it's gotta be the later of the two. Right. It has to be no matter if the person left on the fourth day after being served, it's after that. So it's still the same period

[Speaker 0]: of

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: time

[Speaker 0]: in The that later go back to that language. Says the later whichever is later. Fifteen days after the writ no. No. You were where you were. Fifteen days after the writ of possession is served. Right? Or I see what you're saying. No matter what, you'd have to wait.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So why would you need the second sentence unless you're clarifying that the maximum is 50 showing

[Speaker 0]: how badly written it is.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I think No. Need

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: to change.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm saying that it's been poorly interpreted. I think it's written the right way. It's just that it should it should be interpreted as meaning. It's fifteen days from the decision of the

[Speaker 0]: Let's just ask the decision. When she comes in here what she thinks.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: If the court has decided but the sheriff has not been able to show up, you have this maximum time.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because if you read it that way, then you're significantly reducing

[Speaker 0]: the Yeah.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The obligation of the landlord to maintain

[Speaker 0]: the property if you're reading

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it the way that you're interpreting.

[Speaker 0]: Why is that?

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If it's if you're reading this legally restored to be the date the writ is issued, You could leave the court house to separate their stuff. First off, the date will always be after the day it's served. If it's the day the court issues it or the day it's served, whichever is later, it will always be the day that it's served which means that the sentence means nothing which based on your statutory construction, it can't be the case that it means nothing.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. In any case, ladies and gentlemen, might I argue that we should move on to what we would like it to say rather than what it would say?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, we get to rewrite it.

[Speaker 0]: Exactly. Oh, nice.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I think that's what I'll just say.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, let's agree that there is a credible argument, which I would go further than that, that there is a credible argument that we are talking about twenty nine days passing before you can take stuff out. Okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's credible.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Can I just say real life? Yeah. We just got one for seven days, not fourteen days, which you say is the law today. The judge gave seven days. Seven days for what? They gave in seven day instead of saying fourteen days, it was seven days. For what? The right of possession.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. That's interesting.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So the court can interpret it how they want.

[Speaker 0]: Not legally. But,

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: apparently, it doesn't matter because it has to be whatever the later date is. So it's so

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Okay.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So they have a case that the 70 worth asking

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: a sharer How they've been reading this? Now, it may be consistent, it may not. But secondly, I can I can only comment as to how I serve this being applied, which is and and since I'm thinking of the the judgment is made, the writ is served whenever they get there and serve the writ, that starts the clock, the official paper? And it doesn't say they have to serve the writ fourteen days later, so they

[Speaker 0]: have to

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: serve the writ. Fourteen days later, they come in, the tenant is removed and the locks are chained. Right. The next day, they clean out the apartment. Look

[Speaker 0]: at the next language. First, look at this. When is go back for a minute. What is the word that is the keyword of that sentence? Serve the writ. That's one thing. A. B. After fourteen days, the writ is served. Put the plaintiff into keyword possession. Yeah. Okay. Look at the next section. Mhmm. Okay. Fifteen days after the repossession, forget that because it's whichever is later, or upon the landlord being legally restored to possession. Okay? So fifteen days after the landlord is legally restored to possession, that doesn't happen until fourteen days. So it's fourteen plus fifteen.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: No. Sorry. It's fifteen days after it's served.

[Speaker 0]: No? Whichever is later. That's your authority. I'm telling you. Yes. He certainly can.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And then

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: And then come up with

[Speaker 0]: what we want to do.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: We can have this That's what much stop

[Speaker 0]: talking about the status quo and ask what we want.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Right. I am in favor of fourteen days after that paper is served. It's out. Done.

[Speaker 0]: They're out. And can they take the stuff out too? Yes.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I say one share it.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Same thing.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: One day it's time to do the share it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: No. No. I mean, fourteen.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Oh, okay. But I mean, there's there's two weeks here, and I I don't know that I would go shorter than two weeks because, yeah, people have jobs, all kinds of things going on, but it's not I don't I can't see how this would be a surprise anyways.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So 688 so you do have a question, but 688 proposes that, which is immediately after the individual is given possession, physical possession is essentially how it reads.

[Speaker 0]: Seven seventy two also.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Physical possession, then the landlord can remove the property at that point.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: But these are all calendar days.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Correct? Yes. Is possession the same as ownership? No. No.

[Speaker 0]: Possession means physical possession. I just

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: have it, but I don't own this.

[Speaker 0]: As soon as you get the judgment, you are well, first of all, always own it. The question is, does the lease do they have any right to be there? When the judgment's issued, the right goes away. The stuff that's in the the unit. Yeah. I possess it. The unit.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right? The unit, not the stuff

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: that is in unit.

[Speaker 0]: You don't possess that either. That belongs to the tenant.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You're just getting rid of liability for throwing it away.

[Speaker 0]: What do you consider?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Get in trouble for throwing it away. That's it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Anything that's not nailed down.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Anything. You just can't get in trouble for throwing it away.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. That's what this is establishing.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, I'm not comfortable with It's I

[Speaker 0]: just and it's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: that sped up getting rid of stuff

[Speaker 0]: like that. So just to clarify, and then let's get to what we want. Feel

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: free to raise that because it's an area of the law

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: that I'm not

[Speaker 0]: Oh, Claire, said, just so you know, our attorney informs us that after the writ of possession is served, a total of twenty nine days, fourteen days elapse before the tenant can be thrown out, and then another fifteen days goes by before the landlord can take the stuff and get rid of it. 06/8772, both basically eliminate that extra fifteen days. They basically say seven seventy two says immediately after the landlord is, quote, legally restored to possession. And six eighty eight, it says immediately after the writ of possession is served. So, to clarify that, also, going back to the first period, the first fourteen day period between the time of service and the time that you can be thrown out, Currently, it's fourteen days. Six eighty eight says twenty four hours. Seven seventy two says seven days. So, ladies and gentlemen, how much time do you want to allow? A, between the time served and the time that they can be removed from the premises? And b, after that, how much time do you want to allow before the tenant stuff can be removed if they don't move themselves?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yes. Is there any way that we can find out how long it takes for the sheriff to serve?

[Speaker 0]: It depends on the sheriff.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And you can't give them a definitive date either. Like, you can't put that in statute like, must be I mean, you can do what you want, but they will not That will not go over well if you say, must do it within They can't What I've learned from being in judiciary so much this year is they can't how can they prioritize, like, if there's, like, a domestic violence situation or, like, a murder where they're then, oh, Right. We to go do They need to decide triage, like, oh, we can't just oh, but we have to do this tenant thing. You know? So, like with my animal welfare bill, like the judge and courts and people like that, they didn't want to be told, you have to do this if there's something else that they might need to do.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: They do work only weekdays. They don't work weekends. Right. Well, that's why I

[Speaker 0]: suggested We maybe let the landlord do

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: can't give them a

[Speaker 0]: Right, so they have us It depends on us. There's sheriffs in every

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: You probably get a different answer from everyone. So you said they only work weekends? No. They only eight days.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Eight days. I mean, no weekends. Why that day?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I mean, our sheriffs could be doing four evictions a day. What?

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, how much time

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: do you I would like to say that I have heard from tenants. I see both sides of this issue, but I have also heard from tenants of what it's like to have everything that you have disappear and have no place for it to go. And we talk about what's fair and not fair, and I get that landlords have those rights as the owners, but I want to be conscious that

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So what do you suggest? What are the days that

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Well, I hadn't gotten there yet. Okay. I was just formulating my

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, no.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm thinking I'm not I wish I was like That's not

[Speaker 0]: how I roll.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But I just want the committee to know that I feel that, again, and I'm not in charge, No, this is true. Let's be aware that it can be really hard and damaging. Same with when you slash tents and then where does those I make sure that public works takes people's, you know, stuff. People's stuff is sometimes everything they have. So I just wanna be aware of that.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But I don't have a magic number. Okay.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: If I have a number, I'll put it out there. Okay. People can say it's terrible

[Speaker 0]: or whatever

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: they'd like. Somebody's gotta start. Yeah. Yeah. So both bills, one has it immediately, one has it seven days. And then after seven days.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. That's after the writ after When has it filed? Yeah. No. Wait. Joe, which time period are you talking? Think two time periods.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. The

[Speaker 0]: You're talking about

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Judgment to Yeah. The bail. The bail. Okay. It's 14 current, $6.88, twenty four hours, seven seventy two, seven days. Okay. $7.06. It's fine. I would propose the seven days with a seventy two hours after that, your stuff has.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And I would post 10.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Because I think in my thought process of that, of having a longer runway after you've left, I think for a lot of people, that is the catalyst. I think when you give somebody ten days, you're gonna have somebody take ten days. When you give them nine days, you're gonna have them take nine days. But when you're out of your unit, that's your reality of, like, oh, crap. So you're Now you have three days.

[Speaker 0]: You're saying seven to get to be removed Yeah. Plus three to get your stuff out Right. For a total of as your stuff, ten days.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I okay.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Because of

[Speaker 0]: the whole I

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: mean, you're not you're not kicking the tenant out because of their stuff unless they're, you know, hoarders having a problem with that. I get it. But, like, a lot of the times, they're being you're be that tenant for other reasons. And in that case, that tenant is now gone.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's just Give me that.

[Speaker 0]: And then then.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I wanna make sure, are we still considering having that alternate scenario that there has not been a service of the writ? Like, so you're saying that the language in the end, we concluded that the language is not talking about what regardless of whether the sheriff has or has not visited. Like, there's no time clock starting at the point of the court decision. Right.

[Speaker 0]: Should we have that? What she's saying

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Regardless of whether the sheriff shows up or not. Or do you like because right now

[Speaker 0]: You can't. I think constitutionally, you can't deprive people of property without service, without notice that that means service. The question is And we can't pressure the parents by having threw out the possibility that if the sheriff was unduly delaying, that service could be accomplished by the landlord. And Debbie was saying she's not comfortable with that because she feels that's quite likely to provoke some violence. In other words, once you if you're really talking about taking people out of their home. So so Joe is proposing service Service. Plus seven days. Seven After seven days and they're out three days. Three days. Right, Jim? It was

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: definitely mean, that gives you weekends. Right? That gives you the weekend that they could possibly be longer before they're served. Just think it's a fair thing.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: With if it goes to the sheriff removing them from the premises, then the door they put a no trespass sign on the door. The locks are changed. And then we, as a landlord, would have to take all those possessions, load it up, and take it to storage.

[Speaker 0]: Well days. Couldn't you

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Ugh.

[Speaker 0]: My impression is you could always just the tenant the tenant would have to call you and get their stuff out. In other words, they'd have to arrange to get their stuff out. You wouldn't have to for three days, you wouldn't have to put it in storage. The tenant would have to arrange with you to get their stuff.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, they can't go back in the department.

[Speaker 0]: But wouldn't you if they called you and said, can I go back in and take my stuff out? Would you let them?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: No. Why not? It's because they're that would we wouldn't do that.

[Speaker 0]: Because you're afraid that they them would stay.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Right. And then what are you gonna do, go through the whole process again? They refuse to leave?

[Speaker 0]: People would to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: ask This is not equitable.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: But you have to remove all their stuff, put it in storage.

[Speaker 0]: Is being proposed. Which is now the case. Correct?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Right. We have to do that and keep it for fifteen days, then we can throw it out.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Well, this just makes you think that we have to make it match up, that it has to be like you're out with your stuff.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Saudia has her hand up.

[Speaker 0]: Saudia. I can

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: give you her time.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: That's fine. Thank you. Yeah. I I'm just Jill agrees. Sorry, Saudia. No. You're you're good. You're good. I'm I'm just trying to to ascertain what is the intended outcome here? Because we know what the barriers are. And it sounds like we're in the same situation we were in yesterday where we keep going in circles. And I'm confused as well, one, I'll just say this, the part of saying the landlord may, I mean, I would say yes, because if landlords are complaining that the sheriffs are taking too long, then give them the option, not saying they must or shall, but they may, if they so choose at their own discernment, knowing what situation they are in, and hopefully they'll be knowledgeable enough to figure that out and know what they're dealing with and what their level of safety is, right? So it's not saying they must, it's saying they may, it's another tool in the toolbox. I feel like what we're trying to do here is give resources is what we should be doing. And so that one, I'm actually fine with saying they may in the event that the sheriff is taking too long, otherwise they'll be waiting until who knows when for the sheriff to show up. So options are wonderful, love options, great. When it comes to the writ, I'm gonna say the same thing I said yesterday in that, or two days ago, in that it's just from the time that people get out or have the notice, I feel like our role here is to set the precedent of what the statute and policy should be. And it needs to be a reasonable time. And I think the timeframe currently is reasonable, the fourteen days. If it is in fact fourteen days, even though we just heard it's what twenty after you add up all the times. So I mean, I say the, however you word it and however you get to the fourteen, after the notice is in the tenant's hands, I think fourteen days is a reasonable amount of time to have them remove their property

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Themselves and their property. Yeah,

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: just make it line Where

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I find the challenge is we need the language, is what we're looking for, the language to make this enforceable. I think that is the barrier. And so I think that is where the conversation should be on how do we enforce what we're trying to accomplish here as opposed to continuously going back and forth and not getting where we're trying, we're not going to get anywhere at this point is what I'm saying, if that makes sense.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, Mary.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Oh, a couple of things. One,

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: my own personal opinion, I would think that a tenant who's being evicted would really take it serious if a sheriff showed up and gave him the paperwork, rather than the landlord. He could just blow it off and that could create a real serious problem between the landlord and the tenant.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But what I would like

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: to ask Debbie is, what is your experience with people that you may have evicted? What was their time and did they get their stuff out? We had one that was fourteen days,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: and the sheriff visits them every day. The same one that serviced the rent visits, lets them know what day I'm coming and what's gonna happen. He'll let them know what time it's gonna be there and what's gonna happen. And what happened was in those fourteen days they brought in animals, they brought in drugs, there was drug activity going on and still they had to be physically removed. I mean, the sheriff were there, the sheriff goes, you wait in your car and we'll handle this. And if they have to handcuff, they handcuff, they physically remove, you can walk out willingly or whatever. And they we won't get their stuff. They they didn't. They never get their stuff. Or they never came back to get it.

[Speaker 0]: Is that all in one case?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: We had to move it to a storage place, and they never pick it up.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I mean, that's one story. I can tell you another story about a single I understand. I'm saying there's not gonna be consensus in this committee on this issue. Right. That's clear. But we can talk about stories all we want, but we have to make decisions. But this is not going to be an agreed upon thing.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I think it would be great if we could reach a compromise. The current situation is 14 plus 15. And can we do better? And what I'm hearing, I'm going to put this on the table, I'm hearing, first of all, I mean, one option that people seem to like, although it's a little long for Joe, it's 14 plus zero. Right? I can cover that.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I think Joe, yeah.

[Speaker 0]: 14 In plus other words, you have fourteen days, and then at the end, fourteen days, and then your stuff is

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Your son and yourself.

[Speaker 0]: And your son.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So like if so that you don't have I mean, I think this is something that the landlords would benefit of, like, not having to move the stuff, store it, and and you don't have the liability over those things.

[Speaker 0]: Do you have to do that? Then go ahead. I'm sorry.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And then but we guarantee that the person has two weeks from the time that the sheriff shows up. In other words the move and get out.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, no. I mean, excuse me.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I agree, Emilie, that there's going to be so many different scenarios. However, when you're behind in rent or your behavior is off, this is not happening in fourteen days. They are very well aware and landlords have discussions. That fourteen days is just making it fair for the tenant. You have fourteen days to get out and also get your stuff out, and it's also fair to the landlord.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm not against the

[Speaker 0]: She's saying 14 plus zero is okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay. I'm saying I'm I'm not trying to be, but it seems like there is possibly someone on our committee who wants it quicker than that.

[Speaker 0]: No, I'm gonna just try to frame this. I think we're coalescing around this, but Debbie's, there's two different issues. You're Under zero, I think that's better than existing law and that's a good The fourteen days, you're saying, when you hear this tenant stories about not having you know, trying to get their life together in those two weeks, we're hearing on one side, that's reasonable. That's okay. Debbie's saying, no. It's it's too long. And I think that

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And that's my floor, No, and that's no,

[Speaker 0]: But listen, just because we have disagreements doesn't mean we can't coalesce around an issue. The question everybody has to face when it comes back as a whole, can they support it? It's in other words, if I say, okay, the council, please draft it at 14 plus zero, and will you clarify that goddamn language so that it does not satisfy us, you're gonna get then it'll come back that way, and people can decide whether they want to vote for it. My one question for you, Debbie, is under existing law, do you always move property to a storage unit? Just because you can't, there's no other way to get rid of it fast.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, because we don't own it yet, so we have to store it.

[Speaker 0]: Why don't you own it? Because of the fifteen days. What do you do at the end of fifteen days?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: We have a 30 yard dumpster.

[Speaker 0]: You have a dumpster come and get it. So under this provision, you could have the dumpster it's like your bill. You could have the dumpster come at the end of fourteen days. You could have the dumpster waiting when the tenant is removed.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I just wanna say, do

[Speaker 0]: Would you?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I do. Well, I'm just saying I have you know, our sheriff will come on Zoom and explain the whole process. He could explain the attack orders, and he can explain rid of possession and what all that means.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, good. What I would like is, I just wanna know if this is okay, I'd like counsel to redraft it, clarifying the language as as as pointed out, to remove the ambiguities pointed out by the other attorney in our group, and to draft it as fourteen, believe me, it's not the only time I want. Anyway, draft it at fourteen plus zero, and that we should get an offer if we can find a sheriff to walk us through, we can do that.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I'm sure he'll if you have time, is there time?

[Speaker 0]: Well, we're not I think there may be time next week. Yes. Okay, so those two issues

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You might want to reach out to the Sheriff's Association too, to have like a more broad Yes. Than individual sheriffs.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right, right. Yeah. And whether this is something they want to deal with.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'd rather hear from them than

[Speaker 0]: an individual there. That's That's good. Let's see. Camera. I'm just trying to think where you don't have instructions.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. I wanna can

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I can I just add one thing? Can there be Would it make sense to also If we're shortening that legal, like, this is your your writ, is there reason to think that it might be helpful to have something like that somebody has to tell before the sheriff shows up even that as soon as the decision has been made that there's another way aside from a sheriff serving somebody, that there should be a way to inform. First of

[Speaker 0]: yeah, this has happened. That's why when the judgment is issued by the court, it must be served.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, I get that, but that's a very formal service that requires staffing availability

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, there's other ways to And to do

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: that realistically, if we don't end up with a bunch of extra pain and wastefulness. Because realistically, if I tried to get a moving van the same weekend, like if I was served on a Friday, there's no way I'm getting my stuff out that weekend, and I may not even be able to you know?

[Speaker 0]: Have to. You have fourteen days.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I have fourteen days, which is two weekends.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think she's saying a shorter time.

[Speaker 0]: It could be too short.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Shorter would be too short, but if there's a way to

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Give them notice? Yeah,

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: just give notice without us serving.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh yeah, you're going to be serving that.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: You're to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: be serving that all the time.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Email, phone call. But can we put that just like the notice that we've defined notice without it being a service. Can we put something into the language that says that the court has to notify.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Think that's what that implies.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: You would think that it would be obvious,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I would

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: But

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: somehow, we're getting so hung up on this because it seems like we're talking about fourteen days, but does it you know, not every if some if the complaint is, no, this gets this is longer than you think because it's not just the fourteen days, it's fourteen days from when the sheriff deems it has the availability to show up.

[Speaker 0]: Ask her what?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: About what the different options and what people present, how they present.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Do you

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: see what I'm saying? Yeah. Yeah. Like, let's see what landlord, what landlords are doing now to notify, right? See what the stat Like, what people currently do. Thank you. I Obviously. Don't know, I'm not a landlord.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I have a question for Debbie. You said that you have to pay for the sheriff? And does the sheriff, once you speak to the sheriff then the sheriff, what was it called, the grid? Okay, The so in between that time you said they come every day and you have to pay for that every day? Just the one time? But if they have to remove them at the end of whatever timeframe it is, then that's an extra fee.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Tom? Is it conceivable that a judgment would be made in favor of either party and that they're if they're not there in the courtroom, their counsel doesn't advise them the same day of what the decision was? I mean, are we trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[Speaker 0]: It exists when people aren't represented. Yeah. Okay. And also, the courts don't notify anybody of anything, the party, they're required to. That makes sense. Yes. So, if nobody is represented, I actually don't know what happens, if it's both people are improper.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Alright. And

[Speaker 0]: if then usually they're in court. Yeah.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. Lawyer to lawyer too is the thing.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. Lawyer to lawyer.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, yeah. Then it's right away.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I I don't have much experience in this, but it's happened two times. If they're not in court and represented, the sheriff just shows up and

[Speaker 0]: gives Yeah, if they so there's a couple of possibilities. One is a situation which probably is not uncommon, it's not a majority, but it's a lot, when the tenant never shows up in any way, that is, you know, they know, I don't have any money, or they know, I hate the landlord, and this is awful, I'm out of here, I had a case like that. And they just don't, they don't bother going to court, they just wait it out until as long as they can, and usually that's until the sheriff comes out with the writ and says, I'll be back in two weeks and you're out. Then they make alternative arrangements, so that can happen. Or they're unrepresented, and they don't know to come into court afterwards, or they answer, and then the court says, well, okay, I'll I'll let you know what I'm gonna do, and then they issue an opinion. I don't know what the court does when both parties are unrepresented. Do you? Yes.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yes, Debbie? I just wanna say, I mean, if we even cut it down, let's say, just looking at, let's say, just three days, and let's say it turns out the sheriff serves it on Friday. They don't work on weekends, so it's like Friday. And then month so Monday would be the fourth day. Right. And they could be removed if we decided three days, right? They could be removed, right?

[Speaker 0]: Or People are saying that they'd like to stick with the fourteen days. And then but no extra fifteen days after that.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yeah. Got my stuff. You told us about midnight movers?

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It gives them two weeks now.

[Speaker 0]: It's it's receivable that's

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But I don't know how long

[Speaker 0]: they were document.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: So just happy to

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. The first notice they're getting is the sheriff coming out and saying, I'll be there in two weeks. And you and your stuff will have to get out. I'll have to remove you, and landlord can have your stuff moved to a storage unit.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, my position is that three is way

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: too short a time.

[Speaker 0]: For between the time of the writ being served and the time that the sheriff can remove them. And how do you feel about 14? 14 plus zero. So what I'm hearing is that nobody except my original draft was seven. Debbie's was three, and I hear Debbie and I are out of the cold on this as far as the committee was concerned, but at least for the

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: next Well, you still kept the the fifth was it Fifteen. I kept

[Speaker 0]: I I had another seven. I'm I can live with definitely fourteen and zero.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I think the biggest concern is that, like, for Debbie's part,

[Speaker 0]: it would be if they were gone if

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: you're taking them out for damaging the unit and then you give them fourteen days, you probably haven't seen anything yet. Mhmm. Which that's

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: But they could do a lot of damage

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: on three bolts.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I know. I just it's I I get your point. I it's just hard to, like, tell somebody.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Okay.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: But we can get it back sooner and start

[Speaker 0]: Right now. Okay. I wanna raise another

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I get it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Because it's

[Speaker 0]: We're gonna take let's see. We've been at it since 10:30. So let's take a break. Well, can we just go to lunch? Yep. Okay. Yeah. Alright. I want to clarify something and ask you how you feel about it. These are I'm just trying to look at my memo and the differences. One of the, if there are some appearances between the options that aren't really differences, in other words, 772 and, what is it, Debbie? I keep forgetting the number. Oh, 688. 688. I mean, seven seventy two just eliminates the words no cause, for and cause or just cause, but there's really not a lot of difference in these bills in that all of the bill Debbie's bill, seven seventy two, all allow, one, the landlord to terminate the lease, excuse me, to just non renew a lease. Landlords are free to non renew. They're free to sell the unit, they're free to convert it to family use, to a condo, or substantially renovate it. There's no difference there. The question is timeframes and notice period. Biggest difference, so I just want to bring up and see how the committee feels, either June nor both June and July allow the landlord to non renew. April and March do not. In other words, if a if tenant is paying rents, I'll Saudia, I'll get to you. If a tenant is paying rent, there's no termination for lease end after a probationary period. There's a probationary period of six months in April and three months in March, but after that probationary period, as long as the tenant continues to pay rent and not break the lease in some other way, they are free to stay in the building, period. That is not the case with July or June. Those July and June continue existing law, which says that if a landlord and a tenant enter into a twelve month lease, that's what it is, twelve months, and it isn't more. Saudia, I'm just raising this issue, asking the committee what their feelings about this is. This is an important difference between these bills.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yes. Thank you. And I just wanna clarify, and I'm glad Cameron's in the room to clarify this for me. So a couple of things on 04:40. Well, one, I have a question.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oops. You just oh, you froze, Saudia.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. I think it's not. It's just No.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm saying this is what we could write. We could.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Like, on the thirteenth month.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: We got that. Yeah.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: We couldn't hear you. You're frozen.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Speaker 0]: You froze. Sorry. You just said the furthest you got was, as far as we could hear, was I have a question about 04:40 and a comment.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. Oh, okay. So I said the I'm I'm trying to understand the right to non renew. So if a landlord doesn't renew the lease and the tenant pays the rent on the thirteenth month and there are no complications, what what happens?

[Speaker 0]: Well, it depends on what the landlord wants. The landlord cannot just say nothing and accept rent, and it turns into a month to month rent, which is not uncommon, actually, Saudia. Lots of I'm not sure. But if the landlord says, no. Actually, I want you out. Well, then you have to leave Okay. Or be evicted. Yeah.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. And so and so if if that happens, then they still have to go through the eviction process?

[Speaker 0]: If yes. In other words, let's say you have a twelve month lease Right. And the landlord decides that they don't want you there anymore, and so they refuse to renew. Okay?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. And

[Speaker 0]: then you say, tough, and you pay rent. First of all, they don't even have to accept it, but also, if you pay rent, they can move give you notice of you know, notice that termination and then go through the eviction process.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And they still go through the eviction process. Thank you. Okay. So the same thing. So I just wanted to just clarify, and Cameron, you can correct me if I'm wrong that in April, there the landlord can in fact give a notice before the end of the lease. Go ahead. Yep.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, Representative Lamoille just to jump in there. I was going to clarify. Were you asking about current law or 04:40 because Go ahead. Yeah, because Mr. Chair was describing current law.

[Speaker 0]: Under So you just get to report it. Under four forty,

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if there is a lease that is twelve months and then it expires, it would then go into what is kind of termed a month to month lease agreement. However, the individual, once they pass their probation period under April, they cannot be removed due to the expiration of the agreement or due to the end of a month period coming. They are there and they will remain unless they stop paying rents or unless the landlord can remove them for some other reason that's Correct. Stated in

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay. And then also, did we not state because I asked you explicitly about this when we were drafting. Around if the landlord knows they don't want the tenant to be there and it is month six or seven, they can still go through the process and submit notice and would run the course of the time limits that are in the bill, is that not accurate?

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you were four forty has a probationary period of the first six months. So the landlord can remove the tenant within the first six months by giving thirty days notice.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Once

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that six month period is up, the only way the landlord would remove the tenant is if the tenant failed to pay rent, if they failed to comply with the material terms of the agreement, if they were conducting criminal activity or threatening other individuals or for a very limited subset of circumstances, they wanted their immediate family to occupy the space, the place needed renovations, or the tenant refused to accept good faith renewal terms. So in April, if the twelve month lease expires and the individual goes month to month after that, the landlord wouldn't be able to remove them just because there's no agreement, but the landlord could come to the tenant and say, you need to sign a new twelve month lease agreement. And if the tenant refused, then at that point, the landlord could remove them.

[Speaker 0]: But otherwise, if it's just to clarify, because I can see where Saudia is going.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: No. No. You can't wait. No. Let me finish my statement. Thank you. So I'll I'll I'll tell you where I'm going. Where I'm going is is that if they submit a new lease, the lease is up and they say here is a new lease, they can give the tenant a new lease and if that tenant refuses the new lease then they can start the eviction process. My point is there are ways in which in April they're not there indefinitely. There are options. The landlord has remedies. They have tools and resources and recourse available to them in four forty. Because trust me, that was a compromise for me. That my friend is what you call a compromise. When you say, if I give you a new lease and you refuse it, then I can start the eviction process. That's not saying you can stay there forever indefinitely. So I just wanna caution because the framing of it is that, four forty says you can just live there forever. That is not what it says. What it did was it put in notices and it gave timelines. That was the important part, to clarify the language, because what happens is, and we heard testimony with people with developmental disabilities and all kinds of learning disorders, and we talked about reading and writing and understanding notice. So when someone is in a contractual long term agreement and they're paying their rent, they may not know that, hey, at the end of the Especially if they've been in situations historically, like many people are in Vermont, where you pay your rent and you stay beyond that point, it may be a miss to them. So that is why I am suggesting we clarify the language around notices and people are aware of. And that was the important part for the written notice, everything. We have to take into accountability people's awareness of the situation because we have to make sure everyone is on the same page, understanding the same thing. And that's why we have agreements, notices, and options. And that's what I wanted to say. That's where I was going with that. So sorry to cut you off, Chair. But I just, I feel like people weren't articulating what I was trying to articulate and that was my point.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I will agree with one point Representative Lamoille makes about four forty, is the person would not be there indefinitely. If the landlord was providing a new lease term and the individual didn't want to accept it or refused to accept it, at that point, it

[Speaker 0]: would give the landlord an opportunity to remove the individual. Is it at all clear under four forty? If a landlord and I offer a new lease term but I increase the rent and they don't take it.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: The only thing

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that four forty would do is there is a section in there that has a maximum increase in rent section. So as long as the new lease term, new twelve month term rent is being increased and it's in compliance with the maximum rent increase section that's being proposed.

[Speaker 0]: And that's CPI plus three, I think.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah, CPI.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or 8%, whichever is lower. Right.

[Speaker 0]: So the difference, to be clear, just to try to clarify, seven '72 and six eighty eight leave current law in effect. And by current law, that means that just simply the lease is what the lease is, and after that, a landlord is free to non renew. The motivation there, and I can't speak for Debbie's bill, He can't. But my motivation, to be clear, was twofold. One, what I've heard both in actual testimony, but also people talking to me, is that there's a whole subset of reasons why a landlord wants a tenant out that are such that they just don't want to go through the whole eviction process. It's too much, And so, the tenant might be being really unpleasant, really difficult, but not violent, or violating the terms of the lease in a minor way, like smoking, maybe that's not that minor, and they just don't want to go through it, and they just feel like, well, I'll just let the lease run, and that way I won't have to spend $10,000 on attorneys, and just let the lease run. And that was one thing that influenced me in going with the status quo. Another thing that influenced me was, I feel, I guess I know this is sort of formalistic, I admit. I feel like a contract is a contract, and when you enter into a contract with someone for twelve months, it doesn't mean forever, it means And twelve the, also, I'm hearing and I will be talking about it, I'm not comfortable with across the board. I'm just speaking for myself. Okay, this is what motivated me. My initial research was that there is no state in the union that does allows a tenant who is, you know, following their lease and paying rent to stay indefinitely. It's just not, to my knowledge, I imagine maybe I don't know what the cities require, you know, perhaps New York City has provisions that I'm unaware of, And I just didn't think that a bill that would made us an outlier like that would get through. So, as a matter of compromise, didn't put it in. I really appreciate that Saudia's bill is a compromise in many ways, especially compared to March, but and then finally well, I guess those are the reasons that I stayed with it. I think that the big difference is the approach in April is it does depend on rent control, obviously, because otherwise the landlord could just raise the rent, but is that it just basically takes the point of view that a tenant who is complying with the lease in good faith and is paying rent should be able to stay indefinitely, because it's housing, and housing, if you believe, as many do, is a fundamental right, they should be able to stay. And then the other view, it's really unfortunately difficult, and the other view is yes, but housing is a business and if you enter into a contract for a period, it should just be that period. And if you're not happy with the tenant, you shouldn't be stuck with them. And the way those are sort of irreconcilable, they're just, I mean, I'm admitting, it's sort of, it's not as if any of them is silly, right? These are not silly differences. So, I'm curious, what is the sense of the committee on this issue?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Well, I appreciate I'm sorry. Yes. Go I appreciate Saudia's attempt at codifying notice and having an escape valve, I think that it balances the need to recognize both that it's a business and that you're fulfilling a need in a practically monopoly environment. Right? It's just very, very hard to relocate as a good tenant. And we hear a lot of stories of people being relocated multiple times within twelve months who are good tenants, who pay their rent and aren't causing damages just because of market pressures. And so just letting the market run its course is what's hurting some people. And so it's creating some buffers to me makes sense.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I see it as a business and what I'm having a hard time with is how would I be thinking if there wasn't this housing crisis? Would I be looking at it differently and as a business with making a decision? Because when you're in this spot, when you know that it's urgent and it's a crisis, you're gonna look at it from a more emotional standpoint. So I'm having a hard time.

[Speaker 0]: One of the things I should just clarify is about my own position, because I would change seven seventy two if I was, you know, it's just up to me. I would change seven seventy two. What seven seventy two does is it looks at all of the reasons that a tenancy could be over, and it treats them differently. One group are within the control of the tenant. It may be, control is the wrong word, it's the tenant who is the relevant mover here. One is no money, so they don't pay rent. It's the tenant's action. Another is the tenant is violent or otherwise endangering people. Seven seventy two kind of has short notice periods in that event, Then there are, it shortens things, then there are matters that are really up to the landlord. Like, I am the landlord, I just, I want to turn it into a family thing, or I want to renovate it completely, and I can't have a tenant there when that happens, or I am converting it to a condo, or I'm not contending the tenant is violating the lease, but the lease is over, and I just don't want this tenant to carry for whatever reason. In that case, July gives very long notice terms. It's sixty days if you've been there less than two years, and ninety days if you've been there more. I would add to that two things. This is just me. It's not in July. I would take something in Saudi's bill and put it in. Saudi has a CPI plus 3% limit. Okay? July had CP well, or 8% for shippers. July had a limit, but only on sale of the building, because I've heard so much about that problem. I would change that to the landlord upon sale of the building can raise the rent, but they can only raise the rent to reflect their actual costs, rent, mortgage, you know, that's taxes, etcetera. The other thing I would do is take from Saudia's bill, Saudi has a relocation required, and at first I was thinking, oh, wow, that's a lot to ask, but then I realized that her bill is actually fairly modest. What her bill does is say, under certain circumstances, the landlord has to pay relocation costs up to one month's rent, which would mean the landlord could just waive the last month's rent, or if they've already paid it, return it. And it occurred to me that for this class of things that are in control of the landlord, I'm not talking about nonpayment of rent or violence or endangering other tenants, or any of that. Forget that. But if it's the kind of thing where the landlord's saying, I just want you out, or I know you're paying rent and all that, I just want you out, or I want to use it for my family, or I want to rehab, or whatever, they have to give people a little assistance in relocation up to one month. So, I just want to clarify, although 772 doesn't have all of that in it, I I would it's my view is fair. So Tom, then Joe. How do you wait first?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Joe, then Tom.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I think we need to remember that the reason we're doing I'm getting a lot of emails from everybody about how this will be a disaster for this or this will be a disaster for them. And I need to point out it's already a disaster. And what we're endeavoring to do is ask pretty much everybody to raise the bar for their own responsibility. It does have the longer notice periods when it is a decision the landlord's making that is separate from the quality of the tenant and is under their control. It does shorten the time periods when it is something that the tenant is causing. There's the reason we're doing this is because the disaster is impacting people who do not have an apartment. We have problem tenants occupying space that there are probably two other tenants that need desperately And we have people, because it's already a disaster, we have people who just don't want to rent and there are people who need those rental units. And at the moment, because it is a housing crisis, we need to do what we can to influence the market to bring more of those rental units online for the sake of people who do not have a place to get indoors at the moment. It may be that five years down the road, the crisis is over and some other committee can revisit this before the moment. You know, I can't envision not addressing it because we need rental units available, need them available. So, willing to craft a legislation that is asking everybody to step up because I, you know, there's very, I don't think I've seen yet an email that speaks to both sides of the issue. And that's the problem. We have to, and nobody else is, and there's been time for them. The market has failed to find consensus in and on itself, and everybody's advocating for their group. So we need to be the ones to say, we're redrafting the rules, here's the game, you play the game, but the rules are changing a little bit. Because the rules we have are not sufficient to make

[Speaker 0]: it work out in a healthy way. Joe? I

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: got no direction on which way you're going on that. Do you mean that we should

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Wait down the middle. Nobody's gonna like it, but it's gonna have to work. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. All the calls. You'll withhold. I don't know, Tom, whatever Tom said is causing you to stop talking? No, I was

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: just wondering why he said it.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just, yeah, I think

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: that's our entire process in general, hope. Just kind of bringing us back to that, because we've been really snagged on details.

[Speaker 0]: Right, so I hope see detail. This is what we're talking about here, is sort of a very fundamental cluster of things, which is, I guess I'm, and then I'm going to ask, Gayle and then Debbie, I'm arguing for admittedly, as I'm down the middle, I don't think think we have to allow landlords the ability to non renew. I don't think we can put in rent control across the board that is based on CPI rather than cost, but I do think we can get at cost, at least for sale of buildings. I don't think we should ask, in a situation where the tenant is not in control, but is behaving and the landlord for business or other reasons wants to change the tenancy, I think we need to allow that, and in fact, all the bills do. The question is, what can we do for the tenant? And my proposal is what we do for the tenant in that situation is A, give them a lot of notice and B, give them a little financial help at the end of the lease to help the relocation. That's all I'm saying. Joe, you were gonna say, and then one, two, three.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. I'm not for the relocation if you're just doing it that way. If you're just not renewing the lease. Just feels like a penalty for following a contract. Penalty is not the right word, but it just feels like I held up my end of this contract, and now I owe a thousand dollars or I owe $1,400. If I if I know that that's gonna happen and that's how I have to that's my part of the bargain for holding up contracts, well, guess what? Now rent just went up a $130 for everybody because at the end of your term, when I decide that I'm going with the contract we had and not renewing it, that's my decision. Now I owe x amount of dollars, and that's coming out of all of your pockets.

[Speaker 0]: How do you feel about a month's rent for even the nonrenewal is not when it's not based on just I want to nonrenew, but I wanna use it for my family or repurpose the unit.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Still not I mean, it's still the same thing. Still the end of a contract.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: The

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the businessman is gonna count that cost into their overhead potential. It's gonna it'll be reflected in rent somewhere.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: It might have been answered already, but I don't remember. If the landlord decides not to renew, do they have to give sixty days notice? Yes. To the landlord? Under seven sixty?

[Speaker 0]: They do under existing law and they do under seven seventy two.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay. Or ninety.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's thirty days that you've been there or less than sixty days that you've been there for greater than two years for

[Speaker 0]: the end of a written action. This is under existing law? Yes. And my bill, seven seventy two, changes to sixty and ninety.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because it goes to sixty and

[Speaker 0]: ninety if you don't have a written agreement.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: That's And mine right. And mine doesn't care whether it's a written agreement or once a month. It's the same. Yeah. 60 or 90. Oh, I would just say that putting that 90, I think, is almost arbitrary. Speaking with the landlord actually at the grocery store yesterday, They work under contract. They have a written rental agreement across the board for everybody. Doesn't matter if it's your first year renting or your twelfth year renting. Sixty days before the contract is up, they show up with the new contract. You either sign it and admit I can't vouch for it, but his was there never is anything wildly different about him. Maybe a small increase here or there, a little little something. If you don't sign the contract, the next is your paper script. Because I work under contract, but under lease terms.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That's my question. Doesn't matter if

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're You just would show up ninety days before.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: There well, that's my question. It's why would there be any difference in timeframe, whether you're there a year, five years, nine years, why does that matter?

[Speaker 0]: I think the theory is that the long term tenant is someone who's been there longer has more rights. It's sort of like the probate, it's not, instead of just a probationary term, which is, and then I want to get to Saudia, she's got her hand up, a probationary term of six months is one thing, this is sort of like the next step. It says the longer you're there, the more rights you have, and that is true in many European countries. They have, you know, the longer you're there, the more notice is required. In some year, to my knowledge in European countries, never have the right to stay forever, but the notice period goes up to like a year, you know, substantially longer. And the only thing I'd say to Joe is, in commercial setting, that amount is just subject to contract negotiation. It can be 90, it could be 120, it's often six months. It just depends on the business usually, and also it depends on the power relationship. I mean, you know, if you're a landlord negotiating a lease with Chevys that you just sign on the dotted line. If you're negotiating it with, if you're a really powerful, know, owner of the building. Yeah, right, it depends. Saudia?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thanks, just want three things. So one, the clarification of that I just want to make make it abundantly clear that this was brought forth by a group of folks who have been experiencing these things and and other community advocacy groups and that's where H440 came from. I just want be abundantly clear that it wasn't me advocating for myself because full disclosure I actually burned some bridges by changing it the way that I did. So I want to make that abundantly clear, number one. Number two is that precisely what Joe was saying when it comes to the notice of what the person who you were just referencing, how they go and give that sixty day, that was my intent. That is what I was trying to convey when I said to give the notice if they don't want to renew the lease. And so that, I mean, maybe the language wasn't right, but that particular point, that is exactly what I was trying to say in that they can't stay indefinitely. If you don't want to renew the lease, come with the new lease ahead of time and address the issue, just as Joe just stated. That was my intent. Sorry if I did not articulate that correctly. And then the third part is most landlords collect first and security. And so it's not that they have to come out of their pockets per se, you just, they should already have that money because they should still have that person's first, last and security in most cases, or at least their security and we're not talking about damage. I'm not talking about damage. I'm not talking about people who are there for breaking the lease or other situations. I'm talking about people who didn't have problems, just don't want them there anymore. In those instances there should not be a problem as to where they would not get their security deposit back which in most cases is the cost of one month's rent. So I don't how that would pose a huge barrier to landlords. And I say that and not as a landlord, I'm not a landlord so I can't speak for them. I am a renter and I have been evicted multiple times. I have had to move out, I have had to go through these things. And guess what, FYI, storage units require a security deposit too and first month's rent, just like a rental agreement, same difference. And so no matter what thing you're going into, you have to do those things. And so I would like to say, I would like to think that my perspective is coming from a sound clear perspective because I actually truly want landlords to benefit. I have found housing experiences. I've been renting since I was 16 years old, paying taxes and renting apartments since I was 16. So I hope that we find landlords who continue to be in those situations, right? Who continue to take those chances and rent to people. And if landlords aren't in the business of eviction, then this shouldn't be so scary. We're just putting in precautions to set a healthy balance. And so let's create that healthy balance and put those boundaries and buffers in to protect all parties involved so we don't have people dying of exposure. We don't have working class Vermonters losing their homes, families and children being displaced. Children cannot learn if they're unhoused and don't know where they're going to sleep or have to commute three towns over to go to school because they're staying in a shelter elsewhere. We're here to help Vermonters. So I'm just saying, let's let's focus on the the language on what we want to do and how is the best way for us to do that within the parameters of what we what we can actually accomplish. Sorry for a particular community again.

[Speaker 0]: We under the current here's what I'm gonna propose. I realize in a way I'm I'm sort of nudging things along without there being total consensus. I know that. Counsel, I am going to propose that when that for now in July only, you include the notice that I've talked about, you know, the substantial notice for those circumstances, and that you include you include a cost limitation that is articulate, you know, that it has in it all the kinds of, you know, it says including but not limited to legitimate cost of operation, including but not limited to the usual stuff, just so we can look at that. For sale of the building.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you're selling the building.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. It's the same thing that seven seventy two now has, but uses CPI plus three.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: You're saying not sell the building, but raising

[Speaker 0]: Just sale of the building. If you sale the building, seven seventy two does not have any rent control except for sale of the building, because that is what I had heard. Remember, I'm trying to Got it. Was trying to craft a compromise. I've heard that the worst situation has been in this rising market, which isn't going away, landlords just raising jacking up the rent too much when they sell the bill and the new landlord comes in and raises the rent, and I'm saying change the CPI plus three to cost, a cost based.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We can talk offline, but

[Speaker 0]: a cost. Yeah, the cost of operation, taxes, maintenance, financing, etcetera. I mean, I just think the committee has to look at that. And the other is, I think we should import the $4.40, and this is not, I think we should abort the four forty relocation, but I think we should limit it to situations that are conversion to other uses or renovation, but not raising just the end of the lease. And I think it should be up to one month's rent. The $7.72 does allow, at the moment It's okay. $7.72 does allow at the moment in the current draft. It limits the security deposit. I believe it says first, last, and two months. It doesn't say just first. It says first and last. First plus

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: two months.

[Speaker 0]: It doesn't say last? Is there's no can people under existing law just ask for first and last?

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can, but how I would read it and I'd have to pull it up is anything other than first month's rent. I always think about it. It's part of the security deposit name for the first month,

[Speaker 0]: so you're going to pay that up. Anything other than that is a security deposit, it doesn't matter what you call it. Okay, alright, okay, so I think that I'd like to see that in a draft just to see what it looks like with $7.72.

[Cameron Lloyd (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Security deposit saying as you have it. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Do have to press. Yeah. Debbie, quick, and then we got it.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Is very old. We have leaks coming off the market, we know that, because it's our current credit landlord laws, and I think we have to be aware that I think we should look at a timeline, like maybe six weeks for the whole process to end. So when you want to do 14 dates here, which is a little over two weeks, that means the rest of this process is going to take four weeks. So when you keep adding times, because we want to keep units on, we want to keep landlords in the business. That's my 2¢. We

[Speaker 0]: are going to, we have lost our forum, think, or just about to. We are now going to adjourn until 01:00, and we can continue this conversation at 01:00. Okay? But I think we've got to keep going till we've covered the issues and can come back and decide where we are. Okay? So we should we stay live or No. No. Okay. So we're adjourned,