Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone, to the committee on general and housing, and it is still February 13. We are briefly before lunch returning to the various landlord tenant bills that are in front of us, and about which we've had substantial discussion, over a dozen witnesses, and many letters. And our witness, our next witness in this is Nadine Saudia, who's an attorney who practices in this area, generally for nonprofits. And Nadine is here, and Nadine, I warn you, people will ask you questions.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: I have no pressure.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You've been here, you've testified before us, Right?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Over the year. Over the years.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But not okay. I'll tell you what. Let's introduce ourselves.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I'm Debbie Dolgin. I represent Saint Johnsbury, Concord and Kirby.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm Tom Charlton, Athens Chester, Drafton and Linde. Joe Parsons, Newbury, Topsail and McGraw.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Leonora, Digesticks Town, City Of Essex Junction. I need the Ashley Bartley, Fairfax, Georgia.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Marc Mihaly, Plainfield, Caledonia, Washington.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Emilie Krasnow, South Burlington.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Mary Howard, are their consent relevant to the District 6.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, tell us your name for the record and share your wisdom with us.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Good morning everyone, my name is Nadine Siebeck, and thank you for inviting me here today. I'm an attorney, I have a solo practice in Burlington, I cover the state, My practice, my only area of practice is landlord tenant law, I represent landlords. And I represent the whole gamut of landlords, but the bulk of my practice is the non profits. And I know you've heard from LaMont and some of the other housing providers. I work with Champlain Housing Trust and several of the state's housing authorities. So this is all I do. I live it every day. I've seen it all. And it's been thirty five years coming this fall that I've been practicing. So I've been doing this for a really long time. I've seen a lot of changes in the legislature over the years. I've been a part of a lot of the last big changes that have come across near DUS. So I'm gonna talk generally about proposed bills primarily on seven seventy two because I think it encompasses a lot of the same issues that were raised in some of the other bills that were presented. And I know you've heard a lot of testimony, and I've watched a lot of it, so I'm gonna try not to repeat what some of the other people have said. But I can tell you that it is a long process. It is not short. And there needs to be a process fair to both sides, the landlord and the tenants. And how do you achieve that middle ground? On average, I would say from the starting of your case forward, if the tenant does not respond, you're looking at a minimum of three months. If the tenant answers the complaint, you're looking at at least six months less. Things have changed in the judiciary that I think it was about maybe a year or two, time flies. Now we have to include answer forms with the complaint. And the summons has also provided more detail to the person being sued as far as how you respond, who you have to copy, how long your time frame is, things like that. And it's written at a level that people can understand. I also get a lot of calls at my office from tenants, happy to talk to the tenants. I tell them, here's your deadline, this is what you need to do, things like that. And goal of the landlords, and I've heard some of the testimony, so there's a lot of wonderful, wonderful landlords in the state. And I know you've heard some stories about things that tenants have done. And granted, there are some really bad landlords out there too. But my clients are wonderful. They're in the business of providing housing, safe, affordable housing, and this is what they do. And there are rules to comply with. They even have to pay your rent. You can't go months and months without paying your rent. Landlord has bills to pay property taxes, etcetera, things like that. So, the process the way it is now

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Gayle, I'm gonna interrupt you, because you did refer to one thing. Yes. We have had testimony that a complaint has to have the answer attached to it, instructions. And we've had testimony that this has resulted in fewer defaults. Do you still see a lot of defective answers where there's a problem, you know, that they didn't do it right, or they, you know, a lot of, I'm not talking about where it's just no answer. Right.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: I don't think there is a thing as a bad answer. As long as the tenant files something, all they have to do is fill out the notice of appearance form and they're in. They're in the case, they can't be defaulted, things like that. And the notice of appearance, it's just their name, address, phone, email, how the court can contact them. And then the answer, they can fill it in. They can always get legal counsel later. Legal aid can help them or legal services. They can amend their answer if they want to do that later. So they're not prejudiced by just filing something. I mean, I get some tenants that just write agree to everything or literally just file the notice for appearance. And I have noticed a sharp decline in the number of defaults since that law was changed with the judiciary of having the answer form provided with the complaint package. So I have noticed that. I think that is increasing the number of cases that are still pending with the court because it's defaults, you move them very quickly through. If the case is pending, it's more court time, more hearings, things like that. So the process itself, and they're costly, and I'm sure you've heard that. So the state filing fee is $299 plus the Odyssey fees. The sheriff's fees are $75 per person plus mileage. Not so much postage anymore because more sheriffs are emailing their insurance back, which is safe. But I can tell you that it's costly. If the tenants want to stop a nonpayment case, they do have to pay the court costs. Those are gonna run about at least $500 on your average eviction in order to stop the case. These are all costs that the landlord needs to pay. They may not be reimbursed for those costs. There's also the cost of the attorney. And I think I heard Brian Armstrong or somebody testify that there is a decrease in the amount of landlord lawyers out there. And I agree with that 100%. The landlord tenant bar is shrinking. It's becoming very complicated to bring an eviction case. If you do not bring it properly, you can be subject to dismissal if you miss one step. So, we've all heard from tenants, landlords, one of the things I've heard regarding no cause eviction is a landlord will break forward a complete, and then at the bottom still fill out a no cause as like a safety net. Have you seen that as well? Well, I usually advise my clients, bring everything you can. If it's a tenant that they're not willing to work with, there's usually some other issues. If it's just a non payment issue then, give the tenant a chance to get caught up and redeem, but the safety net would be the no cost. Okay. Yes. You mentioned that those court costs don't always get covered. I thought I saw that, like, our statute says that the costs, is that only if the case is found against? Right, so if the tenant wants to stop an eviction, they have to be in the rent and the costs, but if they redeem or get caught up and they do end up getting evicted, their bill is gonna have to eat the cubs. Okay. Good. Alright. So there's the cost involved, things like that. And I was just gonna say that the landlord bar is really, I got an email this morning from a person, represent several home parks in the state. She emailed me in 2024 and she says, I haven't been able to find a lawyer. Are you taking new clients yet? So I get this repeatedly, repeatedly. So that's another crisis. It's just bad, it's really bad. And I can tell you that in my thirty five, almost thirty five years, that this is the worst I have ever seen it as far as the number of evictions. It is out of control. Not just for, and I'm sure Judge Sone or somebody else or Terry from the court can give you the numbers as far as how many evictions have been filed. I can tell you that I resolve a lot of evictions before they get to court. I serve first, give the tenant an opportunity to pay before we start the case. If they do, they pay in full, great, we don't start. So, I have a significant amount that don't even make it to court, then there's the amount that do get to court. I have four assistants right now who are working full time. That's how busy it is. And it's not just nonpayment. I'm talking cause. I can tell you cause evictions are the worst I've seen it, as in drugs, as in noise, as in mental health. It's challenging right now. So, since I mentioned cause, let's talk about that for a quick second. I would recommend, there's gotta be some change as far as shortening the process for cause of evictions, as drugs, violence. In July, I absolutely loved the additional language about harassment, violence against staff, landlords, agents, and the landlord. I can tell you that is on the rise. I had several assaults this year alone against property managers. Your property managers, especially in the nonprofit world, who are in the mission is to provide housing for people and to serve, to have your job, to have you threatened. I've had property managers come down with PTSD who have had to leave their field because of the violence. And then it's not getting support from police and the system itself. I had one property manager this past year, the tenant came in, had an episode, punched her in the face, and then destroyed her computer and printer. And now she is trying to deal with that and getting the other side to understand there's reasonable accommodations and things like that, but people are scared. Property managers are scared. So having that additional language in there would be a very welcome right now. And then cause wise, I can tell you that if you have a right tenant and they know how to manipulate the system, drug eviction, I had one maybe two years ago, took a year and a half to get them out. They filed counterclaims. By the time I got to the trial, was about a year and a half in. Meanwhile, the drugs are still going on. Meanwhile, Burlington police are still investigating and they brought a whole another drug case, the second one within a year and a half because of the traffic. My client had cameras on the building, gave it to the police. 80 to 100 people a day were going to this unit. They got a warrant, went in, this is what it's like out there. You've heard about the needles, I can't tell you. And I think I heard Joe Gamow is coming in next week. He can tell you about what he sees in his outlook for enforcement of business. I'm not trying to interrupt because know that this I'm the not trying, but I am. Think part of the struggle that we're facing in the housing committee is that we want to help the tenants and the neighbor tenants and the landlords and everybody who's trying to do the right thing in house Vermonters. How do we still protect due process when an accusation of criminal activity should require some sort of proof? And so do you see that seven seventy two threads the needle? Is there a different language that you would recommend in how we address no cause versus breach of lease and those activities? I mean, I feel uncomfortable just saying criminal activity because I feel like that requires proof, whereas disturbing neighbors' peace and tranquility We

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: had a discussion, you should know, where because partly of concern about constitutionality and the whole criminal thing, people felt much more comfortable focusing on any actions by a tenant that threatened the health or welfare Or tranquility. Or health or well, health and safety. We we're putting in one box, if you will, activities that threaten the health and safety of the landlord, to other tenants, the landlord's representative.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Right, and I agree with that, and we have a little bit of the law right now. This would just expand the categories of what would entitle you to bring a shorter under the current law, but to even shorten the notice or to be able to get into court, they still have their day in court. They're still gonna be able to present, it's landlord's burden. It is ultimately the landlord's burden to prove that the police has been violated or the law has been violated. And if the judge finds yes, then that person has to go. I can tell you that I only bring cases that I think we're gonna prevail on, and I make my clients work really hard to build their case, especially if it's not something immediate, like the police went in on a warrant and they filed a kilogram of coke or something like that. That is, bam, those are the fast ones. Those we can start right away. Or an assault by one tenant against another tenant, that is immediate, we start right away. Other things you have to build, noise violations, things like that. Smoking, you give them an opportunity, Hey, you're violating your lease, stop smoking. That's a big issue. We've had several fires in the last few months because of smoking in the buildings, which are not allowed. So there's still the day in court, it's just how fast can you get into court. That's the key. Again, I don't wanna take away anybody's rights. You get your day in court and we go forward. Speaking of that, there's jury demand. I know there's some language in here about taking away jury trial rights. I do support that. This is a property issue. This is a landlord tenant issue. Tenants do file answers with jury demands. I've seen that on the rise. It's either a delay tactic, because it will delay your case. I mean, they could delay it right up to the jury draw. I can tell you my experience, I have only had myself two jury trials in thirty five years, and they were unrepresented tenants who actually got that far. I prevailed on both cases, but it dragged the cases out significantly. Either tenants use it as a delay tactic or they don't understand what a jury demand is. And legal services or legal aid have forms, like standard forms. They give to tenants, they instruct them how to complete it. And some of those forms have a jury demand box. The tenants just check them all and they submit. So that will automatically delay the case.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How long, you were saying three months if there's no answers, six months if there's an answer, what if there's a jury trial?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: So, it really depends. When Judge Katz, I don't know if anybody remembers Judge Katz, but he passed away maybe a year or so ago, great, great judge. If he had a landlord tenant case that came in with a jury demand, he put it on to the next draw. So a lot of it depends on how the judiciary would handle the jury demand.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I just had a quick question about a lot of times when you do pay rent into court and the judge says, you can pay 2,000 and then in two weeks you can pay another 2,000.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I would like to see that eliminated and just have one amount. Let's expand that question. One of the questions that has been circulating, I mean, as we've grappled with this, we have heard repeated testimony that the problem with the current system is it takes a long time, and during that time, you're often not paid rent. And then as we became familiar with the, at least, the law itself, as it's stated, there's this pay your rent into court, landlord can request that you pay your rent into court, and then if people don't pay the rent, then there's a rapid process to get them out, and people are wondering like, well, so what's the problem?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: That's a problem.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If might be so blunt, am I saying this right?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yeah, that was just my reaction after reading that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, we're new at this, so Let help us

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: me help you. Pay rent into court motion is to get them. It only applies to the current rent going forward. It does not apply to the back rent. So, one issue is getting a hearing scheduled. Some counties are taking two to three months to get you in for the escrow hearing. So there's the issue of scheduling the judiciary. Once you get in, there will be a court, if the court finds, or you stipulate with the other side, that rent is owed, they're behind in their rent, and then how much the first payment is, that's the owner that issues. I find that the tenants can usually make the payments, right? So if they haven't paid rent in six, eight months, some of them are able to pay the rent going forward and preserve and actually they buy time that way. Some tenants can't afford it because it's not sustainable. So, once the order issues, a lot of them So let me back up a little bit. There's I think three counties left that have the landlord tenant clinic where legal services Vermont provides assistance. I think Portland was canceled. Washington County, maybe Middlebury and Burlington. So, legal services, bono attorneys are there to give tenants advice. We work really well together. I know the minute if a tenant is not going to be able to make it. So we tend to structure the order so that the tenant will get at least thirty days or so to figure out where they're going to go if they can't make that first payment. If they don't make the payment to court, we file a motion with the court. The judges are very fast about issuing orders and that it's currently a seven day writ. So once the tenants serve, they have seven days to go. But if the tenant continues to pay the rent, the current rent, it just delays and then you wait for your trial date to come. And at some point, you'll have a trial and the back rent will be addressed. And if the tenant's able to redeem, then they say, if they don't, then they have to. Those are non paid cases.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just to clarify, so, right now, the way the law works, when you file your complaint, you can file also a request for rent to be paid into court, but it only is the rent that's due the month of the order, or what rent is it?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Right, you could technically ask, it varies by counties and judges. The law is from the date that your tenant was served or the case was filed, whichever happens first. Some judges, because of the delay in scheduling these hearings, are saying from the date the motion was filed, which could be later. And then some judges, if there's too much of a delay, just don't think it's fair for the tenant to have to come up three months, up to three months or more of rent. So that's all judiciary issue, but for the law, it's only from the time the case actually starts with the court. Is that because there's an assumption that you'd have to prove that there was an unpaid leave? Right, you have to prove that they owe rent, that entitled to pay rent, and they failed to pay. And that the tenancy was properly terminated. Right, that's how that works. But that's how escrow works. I don't use it as the be all end all for every case. I try to resolve the cases with the tenants. There's a lot of great tenants out there, and believe me, I see them struggle. I see it. I see it every day. The kids, something breaks, this happens. So I'll put a quick plug in for the back rent program, continue to fund that. It saves a lot of tenancies. And these are sustainable tenancies. So, car breaks down and you get behind or somebody gets sick. It happens all the time. Or you lose your job and you're out of work for a few months. These are the tenants that this program is there to help. It has to be sustainable. They won't get the assistance if it's not sustainable.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'd like to return to this, back to the Rent Under Court program. Sure. Help me make consistent that if there's an answer, you're talking six months before resolution and presume and I've heard here the landlord is not fully compensated for the loss of rent during that time, but the rental program, as you described, it sounds like it could take care of that. So, what's, I'm missing something.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Right, so the rental program, so that's another issue, guess, is that program, there are certain requirements in the program. No, don't mean the rental Not the arrears, but paid it into the court.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Payment in court. Okay.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: And, I'm sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so the payment, what we're trying what we're wrestling with is sort of what appears to be a contradiction, and maybe you can help us see that it isn't. What we hear is that it takes six months to bring a case and get a tenant to get into possession for a landlord. And what we've also heard is that in addition what's wrong with that is not just that it's six months, that it's six months largely without rent, and so you've lost the rent during that time as well. But on the other hand, we see this program that says that a landlord can file to require rent to go into court on day one when they file the complaint, and then the tenant if the tenant can pay rent, well, they can pay rent into the court, and then if they get evicted, the landlord gets all that rent. So what's the problem from you see what I mean?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Right. And in fact, the as in the statute anyway, it says that if you ask for that rent from the and the and the court demands that rent and the person does not pay it, that then immediately it's they're found in default, and so So in other words,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we're kind of wondering Why

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: are we here? Yeah, why are we here?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is this really a problem? Why change anything if you don't do this? For non For non payment.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: So, if you get an order to pay rent into court, that's only for a certain amount. Usually there's a large arrearage that they still have to pay. The landlord will get some money and that is the helpful piece of the escrow motion or the escrow order. But the bottom line is there's usually still a lot of money out there that's still owed to the landlord. So, there will be money coming into the court for escrow, and at least the landlord, would tell the client, at least you'll get something. If they pay it to court, great. At least you're going to get something. At some point, we're going to deal with the back rent at trial and how much they owe. So, it's not a be all end all on the escrow. Do

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: most landlords use the rent if it's a back rent issue? If it's a non payment, it's sort of automatic.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yeah, we file those right away because either the court will schedule the case for a status hearing as soon as they get the case in. I'd rather have it be an escrow hearing versus a status. A status is just giving the judge, hey, this is what's going on with this case. I'd rather have an escrow order issued. At least we've got something in place for the landlord to have the current rent coming in until the case is resolved. Go ahead, Chittenden. I would think, it's sort of incumbent on the landlord to have tried to work to get paid. But if they have this ability, are you saying that they go a long time without getting paid because by the time they are given a court date to appear, that there's been perhaps months of non payment. Right. So I'm going to go out on a limb and I'm going to say that the vast majority of landlords try to work with the tenants. They just want the rent. And then they'll say, Oh, I'll pay next week. Next week and it comes. And next thing you know, the tenants are behind two months. And then by the time the process gets going, we're up to three, four, five months. I can tell you that a lot of my nonprofits, and I know Mike Monty has addressed this, they have a CHT, Champlain Housing Trust, they have a resident services program. They do everything they possibly can to resolve these cases with the tenants before they have to send it to me. Sometimes by the time it gets to me, and that's not just CHTA, I'm talking across the board for my nonprofit and my housing authorities and my subsidized housing providers, I am seeing staggering numbers of rent, 12,000, 15,000. There's no getting out. I mean, there's no getting out from under that. How are they going to come up with that kind of money in order to stop a case? So, I think landlords try to work with the tenants and if it falls apart, and then one thing with the landlord relief program is that you actually have to have a court case. So at some point, you can all explore the program requirements for the eviction prevention program that's being, for the Vermont State Housing Authority that you're funding. Because a lot of my clients will not participate in it because of several requirements in the program. So, there's that whole other issue. But Not the rental arrears program. Yes, that one. The background. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, but for here, so what you're saying is, what you don't get paid for typically is the period of time when rent was due, but you've been working with the tenant. Then you don't get paid for the time between the time you finally give up and file an eviction and the time that the hearing is set, which you say in many cases is several months.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is it typically that way?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: It is.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yep.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Then at the hearing, at that point, the judge probably will order current rent into court, but not back rent.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Back rent's another day. It's only from a certain time period, and a lot of times we reach a stipulation or agreement on the order with legal services or any clinic situation. Is it usually though an order for

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the full rent going forward, or is

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: it Yes, sometimes it's always at least the amount of the current rent.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay, I just have a question. I mean, we'll stick with nonpayment of rent, but do you see damages going along with that nonpayment of rent? When the, let's say the tenant loses the case or whatever and they're out and you get the unit back, are there damages along with back rent? So,

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: yes, I mean, there's a lot of good tenants that just can't pay and they leave and they leave the place in good shape. I always tell them leave in good shape because it's going to hurt you in the end if you don't. But there's a lot of bad out there. Two weeks ago, as I was driving to the airport in Logan, a client called because a tenant had broken back into the apartment. Landlord was in possession. Tenant broke back in. The neighbor called the sheriff's department. I ended up calling sheriff's department. They literally broke in. They took the door down. I said to the deputy, You gotta go back out there. You gotta get them out. They're not supposed to be there. So, then he goes back out. He was assaulted, and the tenant also deployed the fire extinguisher. And I've seen the pictures, the place is destroyed from the fire extinguisher. The tenant has been, the former tenant has been charged with five different counts and thankfully charged with something. So, this is what you're up against. If it's bad, it's bad. I can tell you honestly that I've never had so many units literally boarded up with plywood. We literally, we take possession out and we board a lot because they keep breaking back in and causing more damage.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Am I right that it's a legal matter, paying rent into court doesn't deal with damages? No. That's dealt with at the trial, finally. Correct. And at the trial, if there's judgment for the tenant, then the rent that was paid in court goes back to the tenant?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: That's what the court finds if there were, say, habitability issues, Or goes back,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: if they just, for some other reason, it could go to the landlord, but the issue of damages to the rental unit is something that's separate, and that ends up, if a judge can award money damages for the damage to the unit, but then it would be up to the landlord to collect that from the tenant, right?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Correct, and I can tell you that the vast majority of my tenants being in the subsidized non profit world are, are pretty much judgment proof, which means uncollectible, never gonna see a dime. So, the landlords are out, thousands, plus damages, plus legal, plus, plus. And it adds up over time. And they're uncollectible. You collect fuel systems, you're uncollectible, so security, disability, things like that.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: So I

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: feel like a lot of our, you know, if we're trying to paint a picture, we kind of have this just scene of horrors, right? And I'm trying to In the cat cases, yeah, is a scene of horrors, but In the back of Right. Can we try to delineate between the nonpayment cases versus damage, criminal activity, intimidation, violence and aggression? Or do you see a lot of overlap? Like my instinct, as I say often, we're citizen legislators, we're here just because of our sense of right and trying to be a voice. So I I'm trying to understand is the person who's who's committing the really disruptive criminal stuff, do they tend to actually pay their rent so that so that you have to As they do, and then we have to buy rent to go after them for the actual cause risk. I can tell you that So then like, yeah, do you see where I'm going I'm with Put it in a picture, so here's the picture. There's a process. What do you want to put into the process? How much time? It's all about the timing. There's still a process. Right now, what this bill proposes is to shorten some of the timeline. There's still a process. It's just, the tenants don't get as long to, you can start sooner if they don't pay. And I can tell you that non payment doesn't concern me as far as the notice at all, because most of my clients are bound by the CARES Act and federal regulations, which is So 30 I really don't care about that. I care about the cost pieces. Can we shorten the time period on that to get those cases going sooner rather than later? And same when you're in the court process. Why is it a fourteen day break? Should be a shorter day, a seven day break, things like that. And a lot of times, a lot of cases, work out dates or about dates, or the judge can also give more time. The judge has the discretion to say, I'm gonna give you thirty days to move out, or I'm gonna give you sixty days to move I've had judges do that. So the courts still have the discretion to give more time, but the law gets sentimental.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Actually, while you're there, we would like to confirm what we understand. I am warning from our counsel, who is interpreting a statute which we have stared at and think is, at minimum, horribly written, and maximum unclear. We were trying to combine and understand the effect after a writ has been issued. And served. Okay. How much time before the landlord can actually get rid of the tenant's stuff? And looking at the ordinance and the statute and it whichever its later language interpreted or told by counsel that it meant after service, unless there's a counter by the court, the sheriff can go and remove the tenant no sooner than fourteen days after service. And that after that date, the landlords cannot dispose of the property after they're put in possession. They still have to wait fifteen more days to do that. Is that your experience?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: No, but and I was part of that legislative change, so the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So my apologies if I insulted you, but you're not.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: You never insult me, Mr. Chair. So, I mean, it's the way that was written, because at the time, the law before the current was a landlord had a hold, it was really crazy, had a hold of the property for thirty days if it was under $1,000 or sixty days if it was valued at over $1,000 And then it went to just thirty days. And it's like the argument that we brought to the legislature was, well, why? The landlord's just gone through this lengthy, expensive eviction process. Why should they have to then continue to store the tenant's belongings? So the way the law is now is that it's fifteen days. It coincides with the fourteen day writ. Day 15, landlord takes possession and can dispose of the property. I understood you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I feel. I want to tell you, the statute is not in front of me. The statute says, it says, fifteen days from the issue I'm talking about the time when they can dispose of the property. Right.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yes. Fifteen

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: days from the issuance of the writ, or service of the writ.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: No, issuance, Service not the of the writ, or Or fifteen days after the judge speaks. Or

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: whenever the landlord is put in possession, whichever is later. Okay. Yeah. So if it's fifteen day so if the first day is the writ's served, the fourteenth day, the landlord's put in possession, the statute says another fifteen days. It says, whichever is later. So how does that end up? You're saying what we wanna do, I think, which is fourteen days plus the next the next day, you can Right. And you're saying that's the law. Right. Okay. Well, we have some writing

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: to It's whenever the the landlord takes possession, at least fifteen days after

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they Whichever is later. Okay, so what we want to do is what she says the law is currently. Okay. Oh, Yes.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: That's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: okay. So, I'll have I'm talking to Cameron this afternoon. We have some writing to do.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Okay. So that's his How much should I go ahead?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You take I have to leave it now, but she wants to go, No, I have to go downstairs. She's gonna take over. We have a first stop at noon, so that's twenty minutes. If it's less, we have another witness, but take twenty minutes.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: So I want people to ask questions. Okay, sounds good. But it's a process, everybody. It really is a process. So again, I'm just looking to bring it down a little bit. And there's a lot of moving pieces. So there's the statue itself. There's also the court. How burdened is the court? The courts are very burdened. We have a new judge that is helping out some of the landlord docket now in Burlington, which has been very, very helpful. It's kind of moving the cases along a little bit faster, but still there's time. And then there's the sheriff's department who has to serve these things. And especially in my more rural areas of the state, they have to drive out there. Sometimes they're driving thirty, forty miles to get to the property and then they have to make multiple attempts. And sometimes the sheriff's departments take time to get the paperwork served. And then there's some issues with the sheriff's departments in general just not getting civil service done. So that's another delay for the whole process. So if you can shorten, I think that would be helpful. No cause, let's talk about that. I support keeping some sort of no cause in the law. I think landlords are not gonna take as much of a risk on tenants if they can only evict for cause. I can tell you that, again, landlords do not wanna evict. If things are going great, everything's good, they don't want the expense or have to deal with the vacancy. So I think we can keep something in there. If you want to consider something, maybe adding more time to the notice. Right now, it's thirtysixty for written lease or sixtyninety, or no, thirtysixty and then $60.90 for no cause. If you want to lengthen that, give more time, great. Because I think some of the arguments made by my esteemed colleagues are that the tenant gets a no cause, they get thirty days notice. That's not enough time for that. So why not build in more time? So we extend it, which is fine. Because if it's a no cause, then fine. I as a landlord are gonna give you more time to find another place to live. So that might be some way to kind of appease that part. We talked about no jury trials. We talked about expedited cause for drugs, violence, things like that. And abandoned property, we talked about that a little bit. Go ahead.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Oh, sorry. Oh, I was just gonna bring up the tack orders. Were on

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: I'm so glad you said that's like down here on my list. Thank you. Sorry. That's great. No, you're great. The tack orders, I think that was in, it in June, I believe. I would love that, love, love, love. So if you can work that in, and that particular provision talks about alternative service. There's a split with the judges right now. Some judges will give you a blanket tack order. A tack order is literally the sheriff can't serve the tenant, made multiple attempts, either the tenant is blatantly dodging the sheriff. It allows the sheriff to literally tack the paperwork to the door. Some judges will give you blanket for the entire case. So for your summons and the plate, you're writ everything else. And some judges will make you do it piecemeal. So that just drags it out. They've already dodged the first service. They're definitely gonna dodge the second service. I would love if the legislature could enact a law that said, that issues one order is good for the entire case. That would just save a lot of headache. So in other words, you yourself and your property, you put a sign up. Sorry, I'm a little bit No, that's okay. A more It court order. So, when you start your case, you have to serve the tenant with a summons and complaint. It goes to the sheriff. If the sheriff can't get the tenant, they have to make so many attempts at different times of the day. Sometimes the sheriff goes over there and can hear somebody inside and then knocks and then dead silence. Or you hear, don't answer the door, or you see people running out the back, or, I mean, there's so many ways to dodge service, but then the sheriff sends me an affidavit, it outlines what happened with the service. I file a motion with the court, the judge rules, the judge says that we're gonna issue a tack order, it's alternative service, it will allow the sheriff to literally tack all the paperwork to the door. I also have to mail it to the tenant so they have it. So it's tacked. Some judges won't give it to you for the whole case. You have to come back for each order. What are the different orders? Sorry. It's the same. So, there's multiple services in an eviction. There's a sum of the complaint. If the tenant does not show up for the escrow hearing and an order is issued, that has to be served. There could be dodging service on that. There's also the writ judgment. If you get to that point, they can also dodge that. So there's multiple services that they need in an eviction case. And having to go back to the court each time is time consuming and costs you more in sheriff's fees and things like that. So having one order that would apply to the entire case is just so much easier. So

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: currently, in the draft and discussions that we've been having, is that similar to the language that you'd like to see?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: So that's currently 488. Okay. I don't 688. 688. Thank you. But it's not it's seven twenty two. So

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: we had talked about maybe I've spent a lot of time in the judiciary room lately. Oh, we're aware. Which ended today because they voted out. But, anyway, talking about tap orders and and whatnot. So it's definitely something that I think we're gonna talk to, the judiciary guy about because there's some conflicting opinions.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yeah. And he'll be here on Tuesday.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Excellent. So we'll we'll talk

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: about it. That'd be great.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Just to clarify on so I know that sixty eight does have that tax order.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yes. That's that's

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: July has changes actual notice to include things like putting it on the door and mailing it. Was that the same thing or is it different?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Different. Yeah. So that in July, that's the actual initial notice. So in order

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: to Just the initial notice.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Just the initial notice, Which is, I love that, it expands it and adds email. So many people use email now. And then as far as either delivering it to the door and mailing it, it just gives landlords more options to get the initial notice there. When I first started, it was sheriff or certified, which was costly, and then you had to prove that the tenant actually got it. So, this expanding the seven seventy two is great. It gives more options for the landlord to deliver notice and prove that notice to the Senate. Definitely.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Thank you.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: No problem. Rent control, I know there's some piece in seven seventy two about rent control. I don't think it would work. The only thing I would, I think, agree with would be if landlords couldn't increase the rent more than once a year, just out of a fairness piece, because you shouldn't get a notice every sixty days or whatever. I'm just gonna keep jacking the rents up. Landlords should be able to know within a year if they need a rent increase. Limiting So, that, I don't have a problem with that at all. The security deposit, I'm okay with the two month limit statewide. I think Burlington varies one month. But if you put a cap on that, I don't really see landlords, because I work in the nonprofit world, I don't really see landlords who are charging three months of rent per deposit or something like that. But if you feel the need to cap it because there's somatics out there, then no problem. Application fees. Can I ask about the security? So I had this wild notion at one point of trying to create some sort of proportion between how you could charge for secured deposit and how much we can shorten with court, like the eviction process, so that there is some relationship between the two, so that there is less of this, like, you're going through the court system for months without any money, without it, you know. Can you think of any elegant way to do that? Are we getting there in any way through some of these changes? I mean, I think all of the pieces in July and some of the other legislation, which again, I think a lot of it is in July, the attack order piece was definitely different. The only thing that really stood out that was different in June was, I think it's all there and they're all different. So, an eviction is one thing. What you require of a tenant for a security deposit is just a whole another issue. I tell clients, If you don't get the security deposit up front, it's a good buy. I had somebody this week, they're like, Oh, they have to pay their deposit. I'm like, You get it upfront or you're not getting it. That's just how it goes. So, what's fair to charge a tenant for a deposit? I know Burlington changed its law, gosh, it can be a years back because pet owners, tenants that were allowed to have pets, I think the landlord can only charge half a month's rent or something like that. Now I think they can charge a full month's rent for a pet deposit. So landlords weren't allowing it because Burlington only allowed a certain amount for a pet deposit. So, that has since changed, that's better, but you see how it affects when it's in practice. Everybody has good intentions, but what is the actual practice? Next issue, application fees. You can't charge an application fee for a rental. There's been back and forth, believe me, I've seen my fair share of memos from legal aid at different times over the last several years saying your landlord can't charge an application fee. I do believe there needs to be some clarification on what an application fee is. If you could do that, that would be extremely helpful. There's various language about, and you can work out the technicalities on what is appropriate, but that particular section of the statute really needs to be expanded. So, don't that include third party verifications? Can you charge for a credit report? Because the issue is landlords don't charge an application fee, but then they charge say a nominal or a reasonable fee for a credit check or a criminal check or some other background check. And they pass that along to the tenant or to the applicant. So, is that discrimination because you're wiping out a large portion of the population because they can't afford to keep paying all these fees with different housing providers? And it really doesn't matter to me either way, as long as there's some clarification. And I love my friends at Legal Aid, but I don't need to see any more letters. And if you're in the subsidized housing world, you can't charge anyways for credit checks. It's only in the private sector. You can charge them credit checks or criminal checks, things like that. And a lot of clients are going to national services for criminal background checks because we're coming in from somebody that does that. Exactly. So it's helpful information. So there's that piece. Confidentiality, I've got a couple of things about confidence. So many pieces in this though, absolutely love it. So, confidentiality, I think we can find some language that will work for everybody. I don't have an issue with confidentiality of eviction records. Let me preface this by saying initial, say the initial filing. I have a problem if there's a judgment against somebody, none of those should be confidential. What I find in my practice, and I agree with my colleagues at Legal Aid, that if a tenant who has left a unit, they go to apply for a new unit, and a landlord, now that you can go on the public portal, it's so much easier to find things on the court records that, hey, look it, there was a case in 2021 with this same person. They didn't disclose on their application that they had been evicted before. What I find is that some landlords don't go the extra step. They just see that a case has been filed. They don't check to see what happened. If there's no judgment, you can't use it against them. The tenant, believe me, the tenant raised habitability issues, that's not an eviction. So, there's gotta be some protections, I agree, for tenants in those types of cases, because it is hurting them. I've had applicants call me out of the blue, nobody I've ever dealt with, and they're like, I just got denied housing because there's this case. This isn't me. And then I'll have to say, no, it's not, if it's a common name, Smith Jones, whatever. But some landlords are jumping the conclusion that, hey, look at it, it's the same name, it's the same person, they were evicted 2022. So, just for clarity, what can be used against tenants should be only if there's an actual judgment. And that means they were wrong and they owed money, or they were violating the lease and they were evicted for cause or whatever it is. But I think a lot of landlords are using that to deny tenants without getting a full picture of what's going on.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I think we also talked about, like you go to the courthouse and they have the list of who's on the docket that day and we're taught, this was part of the discussion, it's like, can we see that or is that going to be blank?

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Oh yeah, the eviction court process is public, the docket, the hearing date, because you can just pull up and it goes away after the week, right? So if you look at the court docket, once that week is over, it's gone, right? That's the calendar. I need that. I know I'm gonna get access to it. I always triple check where am I supposed to be at any particular time, but it's very helpful to I just want to clarify. Yeah, and that's why tweaking, there's tweaking, I'm not supporting anything 100%, but I think some work can be done around confidentiality because you don't wanna prevent tenants from finding funds.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. One of the I was looking for it here just to get the wording correct, so forgive me.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure. I'm meeting the phone. This

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: allows bill seven seventy two allows a landlord to kind of file, like, an affidavit or or, I think, however it's worthy of the crimes just because there's so many tenants who don't want to be part of evicting their neighbor on record. One of the things I suggested was that that that be and I I'm guessing that can be filed with signatures of tenants, that that's safe forever sealed. Because that seems to be one of the problems when you're like, hey, we have somebody doing this and it's a little hard to prove. So if nine other tenants are also in the same boat as the landlord, seems like it would hold a little more weight with the court.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Yeah, so in the no cause world, this is why the no cause world is great, because if you have those issues, then you don't need to have the need. That's another, thank you, that's another piece of why go no cause in the no cause situations for market private landlords, because then you have

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: to drag the neighbors in, if you can do that.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: I hadn't thought on that. It's, the piece in proposed bill as far as an affidavit being submitted with the notice, I mean, that just needs to be tweaked. I don't think you need an affidavit and a notice. I can tell you that we could do some language in there that talks about, which I use in my subsidized world, is required under HUD regulations, that you have to specifically detail the basis for the eviction in order to provide the tenant enough information to provide a defense in the case. So if you ever see one of my cause notices in a subsidized housing world, I mean, like some notices for landlords are like a page line. If I have a problem tenant, I think I just wrote one a couple weeks ago, 10 pages long, and it details all of the violations, what happened, when, etcetera. That should be enough. I don't think you need an affidavit, I think that's just another layer of, negative affidavit.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm just thinking of the four unit people having the ability to write 10 page.

[Nadine Siebeck (Attorney, witness)]: Right, and it's hard because you have to build your case and I can usually, just talking about cause evictions because they are difficult, they're really difficult, I try to settle them by getting the tenant out and agreeing to leave, but if they don't, then you do have to get the neighbors. And I can usually get them to come together, I have my ways, usually promise them lunch and their witness fee and things like that. And I can tell you that it's very cathartic for them. I think in all the years that I've been doing this, I've only had one neighbor that just refused. We offered to put her up in a hotel, move her, pay for her move, it was that bad. She just wouldn't do it. So sometimes I pray that I have the police department, I have observations from the police, that's why this drug case I talked about was a year and a half, I pray. I didn't need any of the neighbors because I had police observations and evidence of drug activity at the apartment. If you don't have any sort of police activity, then it comes down to the neighbors, how often people are coming, how they disturb them, and how people are We have camera systems in a lot of buildings now, which have been great. I can use that and try not to blame the neighbors. But they're hard, they are the hardest cases. So, if we're talking about the you've mentioned and echoed what I referred in committee about the convenience of no cause when there really is a cause. And you just illustrated one of the reasons. But I thought I also heard you say that we could lengthen the notice for no cause. So how would that work with the person that like, in other words, you would be avoiding the court scenario and maybe the intimidation and having to build the case, but you would still have the person in there. They would know the date by which they would have to be out, would it not lead to the same problems? Or is it just, well, at least they'll be out by the end. And they may or may not leave at the end of the notice, and that's a whole other thing. I've had some tenants recently that have moved out at the end of a notice, shockingly, because for a while there nobody was leaving and all the cases were getting filed, but more are leaving because they don't want a record of eviction on their record. We try to work something out with them. I've had, I can tell you, more clients offering money for tenants to leave. Hey, I'll give you $1,000 give me the keys. Never taking it. And someone just digging in because they know there's nowhere to go, and they'll just ride it out for however long they can get in the court process. Yeah, it's challenging. So I have one more. I have one item left. We're doing so great, I can't believe it. This is awesome. So the last thing I wanted to talk about, because I think you covered everything else, was the trespass provision. Please, oh gosh, I'm begging. This is my beg. I've been trying to get this for years. Like years. So the trespass situation is gonna, and I would say, go a little bit further than what's written in July. Please, please give us some authority that if someone is evicted, I don't care why they were evicted, non payment cause, straight across the board, they cannot come on the property. They are a fan, period, period, because this is the game that goes on. Someone gets evicted, tenant moves in with neighbor. Neighbor knows there's a fourteen day gas policy. That tenant gets to stay there for fourteen days. Then they move on to another resident, until they finally, because then you've to deal with the tenant that's letting them live there, and you're like, Hey, this is a problem. They can't be living with you for more than fourteen days. It has gotten more and more of a challenge over the last few years, and I think my colleague, Angela Zajkowski, I think she referred to it as the Decker Towers effect. I represent Burlington Housing Authority. That was a challenging, challenging time for the housing authority. We had multiple evictions going and that was one of the major problems. Drug dealer, and I gotta tell you, not the tenant, but people coming in from out of state, staying with the tenant, taking advantage, etcetera. Tenant gets evicted, goes in with somebody else or the drug dealer moves to the next unit. It is like this Tostatin King funnel effect. The handler has already gone through an expense of having to go through the eviction process. We want them gone, gone, period, end of story. So, I would go a step further in what's proposed in July, which would be, if you have it written right, we could put it right in the court order, if it's in the statute that says, If you have been evicted by court order, you cannot period return to the property or you will be deemed trespassing. I don't support having them served with a trespass notice because if they're not there at the lockout, then we gotta find them and then it's this constant chase to try to get them down. I do have a Windsor County Sheriff, think is the only sheriff right now. And again, I cover 13 out of the 14 counties. And I think Windsor County is the only sheriff right now that has, when they do a lockout for me, they give me a form. It says when the lockout was completed, who was present, what happened, possession returned to the landlord at this date and time. Bam, right there. There's your notification that the eviction is complete, and then we could add something to that form or something, and it would be in the court order that would say the tenant can't come back after lockout. Because I can tell you the break ins are on the rise, they come back, they break in, we have to board up, and they do damage. And again, these are the worst of the worst. I don't want to be gloom and doom, but I deal with the worst of the worst. Know Sheriff Gayle is coming in next week. He has great pictures. What he sees is unbelievable and it's going to be very informative for me to hear from Sheriff Gayle next week. But things are bad. They're really bad. And it's the effect on the neighbors. So, in the cause case, especially for the trespass, if you can keep the tenants that have been evicted away, it gives solace and comfort from neighbors. Because how many calls do my property managers get? They're like, So and so was evicted. They're here. I'm scared. I represent, again, the non profits and the subsidized housing. I've got senior buildings. I've got seniors. I've got families. Cover it all. So, can you make them safe, keep them, or feel safer? Would you want your mother or something in a building where her neighbors got a drug deal and living with her? I mean, it's bad, but it can happen. Again, I want to preface, there are a lot of wonderful tenants. There are a lot of wonderful landlords. And it's like anything else, it's like 10% of the population. If it's not payment, we're going to work with them. We'll work with you, we'll figure it out. Just give us a shorter process. And we still have time to do it, we still have time to work with them, hook them up with programs, things like that, but shorter process would be great. I think we covered all the neat topics. Have any other questions? Are there any other questions? Well, you so much. Thank you. Oh, awesome. Thank you. And if I can help with any technical piece drafting and a camera. Yes. I don't know. So we're almost back at 01:00 to talk about Venus.