Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. We're live. Absolutely. Alright. Welcome back, everyone. It is still Tuesday, 02/17/2026, and we are now discussing seven seventy two, which is an act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures, creation of a positive rental payment credit pilot program, etcetera. We're hearing from two witnesses this afternoon, Thomas Zonay, who's chief superior judge of the Vermont judiciary, and then we'll hear from sheriff Gamblein. One of the things that we do to make sure that there isn't an undue conflict of interest is just simply to reveal them. So in this case, I want to reveal that a number of members of the committee have cookies, absolutely terribly delicious chocolate chip cookies that were baked by Terry Korsons, who's the court administrator, if that's, I think, I have your title correctly? Yes. And nonetheless, despite that, have assured me that they are willing to be objective.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: That's

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

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Chedonia, you're here. You very much, thank you for joining us. We appreciate it. We have a quorum, We have several members who are out sick. I hope you don't get what seems to be running around the kindergarten that is the state house.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Would it be permissible, Chair, if Terry Korsons, the court administrator, has information that I think relates to several of the topics within this bill?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If she's Terry, would you like to send the chair? Absolutely. You can both testify as a team. I

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: will let Terry take the kickoff.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Okay. Judge, I'm Terry Prasnow, State Board Administrator. And as Judge Zoe said, we reviewed H-seven 72 just in terms of the impact on the courts, any ramifications of the bill. And I was going to address two aspects of it, if that's okay. One has to do with the confidentiality provisions and the other has to do with kind of the mandated court hearing scheduling. So just in terms of how that would kind of impact the court. So the confidentiality of the objective of the record starts on page 18 of the bill in subchapter five. And I wanted to just make mention at the outset that confidential records in specific docket is very, very unusual. The default for public actions to court documents, whether it's court records or court hearings, is everything is typically open to the court. Any member of the public can look at

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: a court record, any member of

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: the public can talk on the court. There are only specific dockets where there is confidential. That's in the juvenile docket, in the mental health docket, in the family division, and the adoption docket in the probate division. Those cases are confidential. So they have no access to the court records. There's no access to court hearings. But that's it. Otherwise, there's complete access by the public to documents. There are specific documents or specific aspects of documents that might be confidential through the public license support weapons rules. For example, if it's a social security number, a first name and independent piece of information, that's confidential. But otherwise, to have a whole docket confidential would be very unusual and very much out of the mode annuity in our court system. So, starting with that then, I mentioned the juvenile mental health and adoption dockets where everything's confidential misproposes confidentiality to court records, but court hearings being open. Would not happen. Juvenile talk and hearings are confidential as well as adoption and mental health. So, this puts kind of court staff in kind of a quandary. Typically, if a case is confidential, you would say, the case does not exist. There is no record in that case. But then somebody says, well, can see that the hearing is at three. Oh, well, it doesn't exist except for the court hearing. I mean, it just would be very awkward and unusual and out of the ordinary to have that hybrid approach. So I just wanted to make mention of that at the outset. Otherwise, there were parts of the confidentiality rules that again, would make it, I guess, complicated and onerous for court staff. There is a provision about some parties having access to this confidential document. And it has a list of the different individuals. One of which is, one category is occupancy of the lease property. So I assume that would be tenants. Court staff would have no way of knowing who a tenant is typically, even if there was a written lease agreement that was an exhibit to the document, Cause they oftentimes don't have the tenants identified by me. So if somebody identifies themselves as an occupant of this and typically under this would have access, of course, that would have no way of knowing or verifying or being an occupant. Even if there was a written lease agreement, they're not necessarily listing. Or if it's a written lease agreement, there'd be nothing to verify court staff to follow through that way. It also has as a category an attorney considering undertaking representation of somebody in the case. So, family court staff person would have to say, Oh, okay, you're saying that you're an attorney for this case that I'm saying doesn't exist. And one of the qualifications is that the party has to have requested the attorney's representation and authorized it. It doesn't indicate written authorization, verbal authorization. How is the police that's supposed to ascertain whether or not this person is somebody that's entitled to access or not. It also identifies people if they're part of a work legal way or legal services involved. Same thing, the police staff would have to say, Well, do you work that way? Do you work thoroughly with servicing? How they kind of take that extra step. Often times there's a memorandum of understanding with an agency if they have access to what are otherwise confidential records. So whether that's contemplated by this, we don't know. Just kind of to let you know how it kind of will put court staff fielding usual questions that come in over the phone or at the counter. Another part of it is, in addition to those categories of people, there's also certain areas of inquiry where the person could get a court order authorizing access. That to me means, okay, we're talking about probably a hearing as to whether or not they are entitled to it. And the parameters for it is a person can make a request for a confidential objectment record if it's for scholarly, educational, journalistic, or governmental purposes. Again, kind of very broad and just would assume that there would probably be questions about that necessitating hearings, kind of further complicating who does have access.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Terry, I guess I just want to ask, you started off by saying we have these confidential records for juvenile mental health adoptions. Yes. I take it from what you're saying, in those cases, the hearings are not open. No. And in those cases, the only ones who have access are the parties.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Parties and the attorneys.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The attorneys, yeah. Attorneys, Of record, and nobody else, and there's no process for order authorizing access.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Not that I'm aware of, I mean,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you're muted.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: There are statutes under title, Tom's own a chief superior judge. There are statutes under title 33 that do provide access to certain information.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Juvenile or mental health. I'm just trying to

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It's not but it is not information that's available to, I'll say, the general public. Like, the ones here are pretty wide open.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. No. I get that. But I I understand that. I'm just trying to get a sense of the other model that exists with juvenile and mental health. Are there agencies that have you MOUs with the courts where they get access to these otherwise confidential proceedings?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Yes. For example, Department of Children and Families.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And are those are those memorandum authorized by statute or is it just within the discretion of the court?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Memorandum of understanding that go through the judiciary, go through the court for approval.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: For

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: approval. It spells it out very specifically because for example, there are a lot of reporting requirements to the federal government Yeah. For juvenile cases. It kind of addresses everything.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But is it is it in legislation or is

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: it just within the court's discretion? There probably is legislation authorizing them, but usually it would be a matter of going through our legal counsel.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure, yeah. I don't think it's in your discretion actually.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It's 33 VSA section 5,117 is the statute that refers to records of juvenile proceedings and it sets forth the specific categories of individuals, one of which is the court can anyone any other person who has a need to know may be designated by order of the family division of the superior court, but it has very specific identified individuals who are able to access. Great,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: thank you. Thank you, that really helps.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: It's another layer in terms of trying to ascertain who has access and who doesn't. It provides it out for final judgment. If judgment was entered for a landlord based on non payment of rent or breach of rental agreement, then it's no longer confidential. So it's then kind of taking that additional step unless the court orders, and that also just means okay more court hearings and calls for court hearings, unless the parties stipulate over upon intended choice of good cause within six months after final judgment. And then there's different categories that would constitute good cause. Again, whether the person is a victim of abuse, is that during the rental period? Is that for at any time during their life? Persons with a disability, members of a protected class. Again, broad. And we would just assume that there would most likely be challenges for this, or maybe we're just kind of looking at, okay, what's likely to prompt the need for additional work treatments and that would be the case. So those are just some of the, I guess, issues that come up in terms of what these proposals in terms of this docket being term confidential with all of these various kind of nuances for when it is and who has access and not, which is just unusual in court operations. The other aspect of it is having to do with scheduling court hearings. And I apologize, I haven't listened to all of them as seven seventy two testimony, but I couldn't tell from seven seventy two, I didn't see a reference to the rent escrow hearing process that is presently in effect. Does this contemplate the back end or?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your introduction there. Go back.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I didn't know where the current rent escrow process that exists now, how that interplays with the proposed seven seventy two, because I didn't see any reference to it. It talked about cases that have to do with not paying the rent being scheduled within sixty days, which would be much longer than what they're currently scheduled for if it's in conjunction with the rent escrow motion. So does it contemplate that? I think it's a drafting problem in

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the way it was addressed. So I think the intention was to leave the whole rent escrow process as is.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Okay, because that would not be consistent with some of Yeah. The Okay. Well, to me, because I feel like the rent escrow process was implemented in reaction to complaints that hearings were taking longer to be scheduled while people were able to not pay rent for whatever number of months. It was specifically implemented to allow persons to remain so long as it was being paid into court, so that there wasn't the possibility of no rent being paid for however long. And right now, every unit in the state has a fiscal scheduling block that's set up, Chittenden, for example, it's every three Thursdays of the month. So three out of four Thursdays typically rent escrow hearings, depending on the dizziness of the court and the volume of cases. Some counties have very few landlord tenant cases for example. So sorry, can I interrupt? Yeah. I think I misunderstood or misheard. Every unit in the state has a scheduling block for rent escrow hearings. In other words, depending upon the volume of cases. I mean, Essex had Not housing unit. They had more than 10 cases in 2025. So kind of depending on how many cases they would have it more frequently or less frequently depending upon the need. The idea being if you have a block, say in Rutland, for example, Rutland the block is

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: half day every other week. Okay, so usually when we say unit in this committee, we're talking about like a housing unit. So I just wanted, no, no, I just wanted, because I was like, that could answer a lot of other questions that

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: we have.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So I just wanted to be sure, and that's why I was thrown off. Thank you, I'm sorry.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Structuring of the judiciary in 2010, they identify each county as a unit. Okay, thank you. It's confusing. Each unit then has the four divisions, criminal, civil, family, probate.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We may get really excited for a second.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Okay. Los Cabral and county, it's a half day every other week. So for example, if a landlord tenant complaint comes in with a rent escrow motion on Monday, they would schedule it for the next whenever the next Renesco period was. So you get very quick hearing dates for example and this is probably anecdotal but a lot of times cases settle at the Renosco estate. It might be even that I will forgive your rent in exchange for you vacating, for example. Or if there's a renosco order, the person pays rent into court until there is the merits hearing. Then at the merits hearing, they would decide whether that goes to the landlord or it could go to the tenant, depending upon the defenses and whether or not they didn't pay the rent because of a habitability Whatever resulted, but you didn't at least have, you had at least rent being paid into court during the pendency. If there's a rent in escrow order and the person doesn't pay the rent into court based on the order, then the landlord is entitled to a writ of possession, because that's part of the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I assume they move for a writ of possession, right? Yes. Does that require a hearing as well?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: That typically, unless the tenant has a defense, if the tenant says, did pay rent into court. I don't have a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: hearing before. Debbie, you had

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: a question? Well, I think in some of our discussion, we talked about putting the hearing, like the summons, you have the summons to come into court, and then they basically set a time for the hearing to talk about things. But I thought we had discussion about putting those two things together and happening at the same time. Did we do that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Not that I remember.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay, sorry.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I drink it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Go ahead, please. Thank you.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Two questions. One, is that available to us the information on the list of when each Is that public information? Where can one find that information?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I'm happy to provide it to you.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: That would be so helpful. Thank you. For when each county has those hearings available. And then the second question is, the

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: The hearing, rent

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: does that happen automatically or does the landlord have to do something additional to require for that to happen? So at what point in the case does paying into court become an option? Or does someone have to, who initiates that? Like, is that

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: a, yeah. Typically a landlord, if the eviction is based on non payment of rent, typically a landlord would file a motion for payment of rent into court at the same time they file a complaint. And then it's scheduled at the next, when it's scheduled in block in that particular account. Okay. But there is a motion for payment to run-in court before it would be scheduled.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So they would just have to make the motion into the court to have that?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Yeah, and usually it's done at the

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: same time as the complaint is filed. Okay. Yes. Would it be the same whether it was rent arrears, if it was behaviors or damage or something that the landlord is saying the person needs to be removed?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: The renter's school hearing is only available if there's a penalty grant. If there's those other causes, that wouldn't be addressed at the renter's school hearing. It's strictly whether or not there's rent owing. And if so, the judge will direct what amount needs to be paid in the court on what date each month. And then actually the court is a repository for those payments. There's receipts, there's invoices, and then

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: there's So deposit wouldn't have anything to do with that?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: The other aspects, the other types of reasons for evicting, no, that's separate. That would be scheduled for a merits hearing. And then the timing for that, and I guess that's part of what I was getting to for mandating the scheduling, under this proposed legislation it would be within sixty days if I recall. Although it was also depending upon if it's based on the There were other reasons, sorry. There was criminal conduct?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If there is conduct that's endangering the health or safety of the other tenants, it's a separate process with a seven day, I think, show cause followed by, if there is still a dispute, a thirty day hearing within thirty days.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Right. So I guess from our perspective, that adds layers of hearings that aren't present now, which again, just to indicate that that's an impact on the court in terms of scheduling time availability. In the civil division, so in the larger counties, there are multiple judges typically. And in the very large counties like Chittenden and Rutland, Washington, you'd have a separate judge for civil division, a separate judge for the division, a separate judge for the family division. In the smaller counties though, there's one judge. We handle civil, criminal, and family. So their days are pretty much prescribed in terms of today's civil, today's criminal, whatever. So if you add additional criminal or civil hearing dates and times, it just impacts the overall court scheduling because of that one judge. We do have some flexibility, and Judge Lamoille can speak to this, in terms of we were able, we do have the floating judges in the different regions. You can on occasion pick up that, But otherwise it's very prescribed in terms of how much hearing time there is in the civil division. So if you're adding on kind of multiple other types of civil hearings, that will be, and if it's mandated, that's then to the detriment of whatever civil cases otherwise don't have emergency aspect to them. Right now in the civil division, we do have the Renesco blocks, for example, that's set aside for Renesco. We also have stocking where you have to have the stocking within a certain prescribed period of time. Otherwise, the other landlord tenant cases, whether it's foreclosure, collection, personal injury, contract disputes, boundary disputes, etcetera, that's all kind of lumped together. You might have, I don't know, one day a month, one day every other month, depending on what that schedule is county by county. So just to kind of be aware that it varies quite a bit in terms of civil judge availability for added on court hearings that otherwise don't exist today. So I just wanted to kind of make mention of that also in terms of two aspects of the bill and the impact that there would be on courts. We're just kind of anticipating. So Judge Soni, is that what you wanted me to cover or is there anything else? It works. Okay, all right.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Good afternoon, Tom Zone, Chief Superior Judge. My plan is to just walk through the bill, if that's okay, on some areas that there are questions on. On page two of the bill, section 4,451, if you go to line number four, it talks about actual notice. What this bill does is it removes receipt from being part of actual notice, and so that gives rise to the question of what happens if someone provides notice it's called actual notice as you've now defined it but they know the person didn't get it. In the current law, a receipt is the key. Here, is removed, and therefore it does actually bring with it the potential for someone to be deemed to have been served when, let's say, the landlord is aware that they actually weren't. They maybe were away, something was going on. If you go down to line 18 and line 17 through 19, it talks about a definition of immediate family. Within on line eighteen and nineteen, it defines it, but it says, or as defined or described in similar law in another jurisdiction. I don't know what that means. Similar law in another jurisdiction. Similar law defining a family for relief from abuse, defining it in domestic dockets. Does it have to be a jurisdiction that defines it only in landlord tenant and such? So that is not something that is generally familiar, if you will, within the courts. If you go to page five, this talks about termination for breach of a rental agreement on line eight line six through, 14 talks about failure to comply with the material term of the rental agreement or with obligations imposed under this chapter includes. So the word includes means that this is not exclusive, that there can be other things out there about that. The first one is it says repeated late payment of rent. Does that have to be in a set period of time? For instance, if someone has been is living in a location for a year and they're late the first month and they're late on the twelfth month, do they now violate B1 because they're repeated? There's it could be theoretically two years, three years. It doesn't say how many times or what the time frame is. On line nine, it says refusal to allow a landlord or landlord's agent access to the dwelling unit. There's actually a specific statute at nine VSA section forty four sixty that that discusses access for landlords.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Can you I've got a nine VSA forty four sixty. Forty four sixty. Yes.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: And so it's unclear if this is meant to somehow remove that or if that's the standard you that this is intended to apply. Lines eleven and twelve, also has it a failure of the tenant's refusal to sign a rental agreement renewal or accept reasonable changes to the rental agreement. It does not say that the new agreement renewal, has to be reasonable in light of all existing circumstances. So under this, it basically is here's the renewal, you need to sign it even if there may be circumstances that a reasonable person would say I'm not signing it because of X. Additionally, it is an or as far as accept reasonable changes to the rental agreement. The question of what is reasonable is one that reasonable minds may differ. For instance, we could probably come up with situations that around the table of your committee, everyone might not agree that this is a reasonable change to a rental agreement, and there is absolutely no guidance to the courts as to how, what this is supposed to mean, how we are supposed to interpret it, what is reasonable, is it financially reasonable, Is it societally reasonable? Is it reasonable for some other basis? If you go to line 20, it then says there's at least, it drops the notice from fourteen days to three days. We know that with our current postal service, three days if something is mailed is not going to arrive. And so that's going to give rise to a number of issues most likely with people who are deemed to have gotten information and can actually establish they probably didn't. On page six, lines one through four, what this does is this is a provision that says the actual notice required shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth particular facts in support of the termination with sufficient details to inform the tenant of the reasoning behind the termination. Again, it's unclear what level of detail or what this really means. Is it sufficient for someone to say you were selling drugs? Period. That's sufficient detail, but it also lacks sufficient detail to tell on this date, at this time, to this person to allow someone to be able to say no, I was not. We generally

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Tom, just a question here. Are you suggesting that you're uncomfortable with the idea that that's up to the judge to decide? He would like us to specify more specifically what level of detail is required?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That would be appropriate. When we look at in Vermont, in a complaint, we have what's called notice pleadings, which means you have to put someone on notice what the general factual allegations are when you're seeking relief. This seems to be something that you're looking for much more particular, but it's unclear at what level of particularity. Again, do they have to say date, time, location? Do they have to say the source of the information? Can it be hearsay? Can it be double hearsay? We were told by someone who was told by someone. You know, is that sufficient? On line 19 on page six, this talks about termination when it's based on compliance with a governmental agency. You may want to start the new clause off to say notwithstanding any other provision of this section, something like that, because there are other provisions that do have timelines, and if your intent is to have this provision override any other provisions, you should make it clear with that type of language. On page 10,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: hold on just a second here. Go ahead Doctor. Johnson, please.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Page 10 talks about affirmative defenses on line 17 to an ejectment action. An affirmative defense is a defense that a defendant to an action has the burden of coming forth to establish in a case. It says it shall be an affirmative on line 19, it shall be an affirmative defense of the tenant and the ejectment shall be dismissed if there exists a serious health and safety code violation. If this is a final hearing, it's actually not dismissed. Judgment is rendered for the defendant because it is a judgment on the merits if the plaintiff does not establish it and the defendant establishes this. So the word dismissed has a different meaning. That means the case is dismissed. This means no, if you will, you win on the merits of the case. We've heard the case and you have now won on the defendant. On page 12, line 10 has a new maximum rent increase provision. It says a landlord shall not increase rent on line 13 in any amount deemed excessive or unreasonable. According to who?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, we're aware of this issue.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Okay. It's unclear if this is intended to could it be excessive or unreasonable if the CPI that you're referencing in B2 says, well, it goes up one point and the landlord says, I'm going up two. Well, that would be theoretically excessive compared to the CPI.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I really appreciate the level of detail in which you're going through this. In order to give you time to do that, I can tell you, you don't have to worry about this. This is not gonna survive. Okay. We were unable to think of better language and we didn't want to put a number in because if we did, everybody would go up to that number, so we just didn't. Go ahead.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: On page 13, section 4,861, it talks about issuance of process. That's going to happen anyway. In other words, the rest of the proceedings all lead to the end. So I'm not sure, I haven't really analyzed whether or not needs to be as in there the way it is, but what I can point out is that there are other provisions in the statute that the committee is looking at, seven seventy two, and existing law that talk about RITs. Whether or not they're all consistent, I'm not sure, and I haven't done that deep dive on that aspect. On page 14, line one, it talks about the process for the action. It says the process may issue as a summons or a writ of attachment. The process would not issue as a writ of attachment. A writ of attachment is a lien. It's an encumbrance. And a summons is what lets the party know the lawsuit has been filed and that they are to respond in a certain period of time. Line four talks about it says in question describing them. Shall state the defendant is in the possession of the lands or tenements in question describing them. I think what the description of them is intended to mean is the land and premises and not describing the tenant, but it's unclear from the way it's listed. Line nine says that neither party shall have the right to a jury trial. There are provisions of the constitution of Vermont that provide rights to jury trial under article 12, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether or not, this would transgress that, but that is something that there are rights to jury trials in civil cases, and so that certainly would implicate the constitutional protections. But again, I am not opining whether it is or is not. Line eleven and twelve, it says the defendant shall file an answer within seven days after receiving the complaint. Well, when I started off and I said that receipt is not there? It's not necessarily clear when they receive it unless they were hand served and there's a sheriff. And also seven days is very unique. It's not a time frame that is generally utilized for responses in civil procedures.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I assume that the responses, and so you're referring to the length of the time, not the number That's of it, correct. Got it. All right, thank you.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Line 16, that section. It talks about the complaint if it's based on paying of rent, and it says that it has to be cured by a certain date currently when the answer is due. Currently, you have under the statute the ability under 12 BSA 4,773 to pay the rents and cure before the writ is issued. My understanding of the practical impact of that is that it often leads to situations where tenants and landlords get together, funding is found, and a lot of cases I'm told do resolve because the parties are able to actually find monies. I would suspect that this will take remove that. If that is removed and it is not and that is not able to happen, certainly that may increase the number of hearings. On page 15, line five, as Terry mentioned, it talks about setting a final hearing date not later than sixty days from the filing of the complaint. There is no exception for good cause. Think of it this way. If someone you know is a landlord or a tenant and they have a case and there is a trial scheduled for day 59 and they have a serious medical mishap where they have to go to the hospital, under this statute, the judge cannot continue the case and it's too bad, we go ahead. So good cause is something that should be here because there oftentimes may be reasons. Maybe it's scheduled for the sixtieth day.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Question about good cause, just the language. Is it sufficient to say to refer to good cause or is it good cause as determined by the court?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Absent good cause, I think it's the same thing when when you get there. If you say absent good cause, something like that. The other, Terry also mentioned what I'll call the the practical dilemma. On one hand, we try to schedule ahead several months to make sure that we fill the dockets so that we can move ahead on our backlog, have escrow rent in all dockets, have rent escrow hearings, have things set aside. This will cause us to have to move things. We can't leave gaps because that will not effectuate the timely administration of justice in our dockets. So we can't know if we have six rental cases that we have to bring in within sixty days and they all came in, we're canceling things. We can't leave open blocks like that and plan because there may be cases that take one, two or three days. And so the ability to schedule simply is not workable with hard and fast timelines like that. The other part I would ask is, if you have a deadline, what I often say in committees is, tell us the remedy if we don't meet it. Does it mean that the complaint is granted? Does it mean that it's dismissed? In other words, what happens if we don't get it? And that's why it's critical to have good cause, to recognize that sometimes despite our efforts to have prompt hearings and get things done, we recognize the importance of it, sometimes there are things that happen and there's other cases that need to take priority at that time. Similarly, on line 11, it says that I'm sorry, line six through 11 talk about default. We currently have rule of civil procedure 55 which addresses default, and it has provisions in there. You have to file an affidavit of non military service. You have to file something that says that the individual is not a minor or an incompetent. And that you have to actually show that you're entitled to judgment as a matter under the law. Here, that's not part of what is here. It simply says that if they don't file an answer, they lose. It takes away the protections that are otherwise recognized in the law for someone. It also it says the court shall decide on the motion within three days. Decision on motions is a core judicial function. It is not simply a rubber stamp that someone files something, no answer, and here you are granted your judgment. The court has to make sure that someone, that the stat, that the there has been proper the service receipt, whatever the rules are, we have to make sure that it's there as well as currently, we have to make sure that rule 55 is followed. This would say that, for instance, a case where a party might not answer, the plaintiff might not file for a default judgment for a month. And then let's say the Monday before judicial college, they decide to file. Well, says that the judge who's at training has to decide this issue in three days. Leaving aside the issues of core judicial function and timing for decisions, my question again would be if the if the court doesn't, if the judge is not able to do that, what is the result? Does it mean that it's granted or does it mean that it is denied? Again, line 14 is, as Terry pointed out, the issue of to show cause hearing, it's seven days. The timing is just there's just no way that we can do a number of hearings and move other cases out of the way on seven days. If that is what we have to do, we are canceling other hearings. It just cannot be done with long hearings. Lines seventeen and eighteen say that at a show cause hearing, the defendant shall prove a substantiated defense.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Not sure

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: what is really intended by that. That is not a phrase that is generally used in the law for defendants establishing a defense. Similarly, on page 16, it says on line one, the first words, it talks about a credible showing. That's also not a term that's generally used. Line three and four talks about in the event a final hearing is ordered, it has to be set within thirty days from the date of the initial complaint. These cases, this is B2. And what B2 talks about are the circumstances where it's trying to remove someone, for cause. Let me grab that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's for the actions that are affecting the health and safety of

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Criminal the other activity, illegal drug activity, acts of violence. So that is what this section refers to, and what it also says on lines three and four on page 16 is you have to have a final hearing within thirty days of the date of the initial complaint. Is that the date that is written on the complaint? Is that the date that the complaint is filed? Is that the date that the complaint is served? So it needs it should be clear as to which of those it is. On line 11 is the person if the plaintiff gets judgment, this talks about the writ of possession. And what happens is when a judgment order is entered for possession, a writ goes, it goes to the sheriff, the sheriff serves it, and currently the person has fourteen days to leave. And if they don't, Sheriff Gamblin I'm sure will tell you, they go out and they say that you have to leave. They remove the person. This says not earlier than seven days after the writ, so this cuts it in half. That's a policy decision, but it doesn't also under 12 VSA 4,854, the current writ language, that's not being removed. That statute stays, and so it appears that you have two statutes dealing with writs. It also appears that you might want to take a closer look to see if you want to split them out and make it clear that one does not apply to the other. On page 17, there's a new section 4,869 for trespass orders. It says that after the execution, the plaintiff may issue the defendant an order against trespass. And remember, the plaintiff is the owner of the property. And so the plaintiff certainly has the right to manage their property and say, you cannot come back on here. Generally, that's done by a law enforcement officer serving the individual. And line five and six then talk about it can be enforced with criminal penalties whether the defendant has been invited onto the property by another resident. So this makes it very clear that you're setting up a system for trespass orders and how it's supposed to work, and that if the owner says you can't come back on, the plaintiff, you cannot come back on even if one of the residents tells you. If you go to the bottom of the page now, the statute seven seventy two also is amending title 13, section 3,705, which relates to unlawful trespass. It says that you are the person can be enters or remains on any place subject to the order against trespass regardless of whether the person has the consent of the person in lawful possession of the land or place. If the landlord has the property back, they are the person in lawful possession of the land or place, and if they want to allow somebody there, this would seemingly say even they can't do it once they've already given the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I know the intent of this section, it was not the intent of the section was to deal with someone who was a tenant who was coerced. Yeah, okay, got it.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Page 20. This is, Terry talked about the confidentiality and she mentioned upon attendance this talks about a showing of good cause to keep it confidential after sixty days. It has a number of conditions, is deemed good cause for purposes of this subsection. Is it the intent that these are exclusive or inclusive? That On should be made page 20, lines four and five. This is for a showing of good cause to a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: state Got of it, okay.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: The first one, Terry mentioned also, defendant has been the victim of abuse and this is by self certification. Just this would not require any connection between abuse and the tenancy. It would not require any time frame for abuse. Theoretically, it could be ten, twenty years earlier.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Yeah, I understand these concerns both from our prior meeting and from Terry's testimony.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Section 4,874 on lines 12, starting there. The ejectment case underlying a confidential ejectment record is deemed to never have occurred. Does that mean that the public hearing that people are sitting in and watched somehow that the press or the landlord or anyone who is there cannot talk about it? It's unclear what it means when it says it never has occurred. In sealing or expungement in the criminal realm, it's very clear what it means because certain entities have the records. It doesn't follow that if someone saw it happen and was there and was putting records up online, which seemingly they could do, that it hasn't occurred. So that seems to be an overbroad statement that needs to be tightened up because there will be differing expectations potentially. It then says the person who was asked about the person's ejectment history may answer that there is no prior ejectment if the record is confidential. Doesn't say they shall answer, says they may. And if it said shall, the question then would be what mechanism do you have to let them know it? For instance, in sealing, everyone who is getting that everyone gets a copy of the sealing order is instructed what their obligations are under Vermont law. If someone comes into a confidential proceeding in our other dockets, are tasked with knowledge of knowing that it's confidential. So the question would be, if someone walks into a public hearing in the court and observes something, are they now going to be found that they should not have seen what they saw. Further on in this section, it talks about what the remedy is for a violation of subsection b on page 21. But subsection b only addresses what happens if a consumer reporting agency has violated this. And so in effect, there is no remedy for a violation of subsection a about it's deemed to have never occurred. No consequence, if you will. On page 22, if you go to lines four and five, it does talk about legal aid and legal services Vermont having blanket access. Terry mentioned that. But one issue okay. My only concern with that very quickly is conflicts.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, right. Okay. There's a lot of issues with that. Okay. Great.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: And then if we look at the access to confidential records, on line 11, it says upon motion subject to a balancing of interests. The courts aren't given any guidance of what the interests are. It says for and against disclosure. But we don't know what the legislature's intent is. Intent Is to further public access and transparency, which the legislature has taken great steps to do in the past several years? Or is it intent to further keep it closed? Keep it confidential and not let it be sent out. I would also note that the where it talks about scholarly educational, journalistic, or governmental purposes, that is pretty wide open. I can't imagine much that even with someone sitting in 2026, if someone has a blog where they're posting something, they're considered a journalist generally. So those are the comments. Again, I think there are a number of provisions that tie into existing provisions of Vermont law that you would need to go and do a very tight look at Title 12, Title nine, and see which ones are not being brought over when they should or whether it's your intent not to, for instance with access or with writs, how you're dealing with that. So there's a lot there that I think needs to be going over with a fine tooth comb. I would also be remiss if I did not note. We have established statutes, we have established terms, we have established law. When you have that, over the years, parties coming into court have, we'll say, a certain level of predictability. There are areas that the Supreme Court has rendered decisions on. There are known procedures, and there's a transparency that goes with that, that parties know how things are going forward. Things, if you will, settle. You should understand that any time there's new statutes, especially if there were to be a significant change to how things are going right now. If you decide that's the policy, there will be delays and there will be times of uncertainty where the courts will have to build that body of law. Once again, that is there. I just again note that because that is a natural byproduct anytime there are statutory changes, but especially when you have significant statutory changes of both language and the procedure.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do we have questions? Yes. And then you go on. Go ahead. Oh, no, don't know

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: if will. You sure? Yeah, because I'm writing my note.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay. I have two questions. But they pertain to the same thing. And I'm gonna go back, I know, all the way back to the rent escrow hearings. So, question about that. When those take place, and there is the, they default on the payments to the court, then that activates the landlord's ability to have them removed from the premises.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Right, they can seek a right of possession on the basis of a third the payment in the court on the prescribed date. Okay.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And so, the rent escrow hearings, do landlords ever get denied those? Because that seems like a good vehicle to, a good remedy towards this process and when people are having trouble, and it seems move things faster. So I'm wondering why is it so underutilized? Because it doesn't seem like it's utilized. It

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: is. Yeah, in fact, I just have the data in terms of, it's almost fifty percent of the cases involved in motions. The lowest was in 2021 when we hit the end of the COVID when it was thirty percent. Highest was last year in 2024 when fifty one percent of the cases involved in escrow So it is, I think, a useful vehicle. And there's also provisions. The Vermont Bar Association has a program where there are lawyers who provide assistance to low income but against that most coherence, they will represent that. And again, I don't know, again, anecdotally, what the percentage of cases that actually settle at the rent escrow one way or another, But that's oftentimes, when you said, is anybody ever denied? Presumably if a landlord claims that there was unpaid rent and a tenant proved that there was an unpaid rent, the motion would be denied Okay. In that And you do have sometimes, whether a property manager's involved or something, there could be circumstances when it's not proven.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Well,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you, Abel, Carrie, and Judge Nale for being here walking us through this. I do want to take the time and appreciate that currently, we have a certain way of doing things. Parties can go in, kind of have, like you had said, the predictability. The problem is that it's not working. It's not working for really either parties at this point. And I really am very grateful for you walking through kind of to every issue. But what would be your recommendation? We're hearing from landlords and from tenants that things are taking too long. We heard last week that sometimes a hearing can take two to three months. Like it's just not working. We're hearing six months. Exactly. And so what do we do? What, as somebody who is doing the work, do we need to make a rental court? Like, what do we do? What is your recommendation? Not just from this language, but if we are going to address it, we have to actually address it, not just kind of go around and nibble out on the outsides. We have to get down to it. And part of it is how long it's taking in our court systems. So we'd love to hear from you what you think should be done.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I guess just, I'm sorry, Joseph.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Teri, go right ahead.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I was gonna say in terms of the data, the disposition guideline for whatever return of cases is six months, that it be disposed of within six months. And according to the data, eighty percent basically of the cases are resolved within the six months. But that is taking too long, like from both sides. Because being that those eighty percent of cases are taking up to six months, it's within six months. It could be within one month, within two months. If it settles at the stage, it would have been And I guess I just wanted to let you know that's what the data shows in terms of the disposition phase. One

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: of the things that's important to keep in mind is that when you mention six months, I don't know what kind of case that was. Was it a lack of payment of rent? If it's a lack of payment of rent, we are trying to get those cases in. We're bringing them in sooner. We have the rent escrow. If people aren't paying their rent escrow, that's just you get rid of a possession. It's not may, it shall. You shall get rid of possession, and you get the sheriff puts you back in seven days. That process is there. So what I understand happens in, oh, I'm sorry.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I was just gonna say, so what I'm hearing is that you think from the court's perspective that things are okay, they're working just the way they're supposed to be. Am I misunderstanding that?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That's not my intention.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I'm saying is when we look at the numbers of how long something is going, the court is designed to have things go as quickly as possible and to get things going. If it's a landlord tenant case for lack of rent and we have a situation where there's a payment of rent into court, what we know is that many counties, in several counties at least, if it's some of the tenants, some of the landlords are self represented. And my understanding from the judges in those counties is that even if they get the rent escrow hearing, one of the problems and order, one of the problems is sometimes they don't have it served. And so that speed that could be tightening things up is not able to be utilized if that tenant does not pay rent because the landlord hasn't taken a step. One of the other areas that we hear about is the 4,467 b two secondtion, criminal activity, and those types of cases, and that it takes too long for those cases to come in. But what we also know is that this is not something that's been new, and there was actually some testimony on this a couple years ago in senate judiciary and other committees since then. But what we know happens sometimes is that the landlord's attorneys are asking for additional time because they want to see what happens with the criminal case because it's very difficult for a landlord's attorney to prove a criminal case and a civil matter in that time frame because of getting witnesses and things like that. And so I'm not saying that things are running perfectly, this the greatest system ever, and that no changes are necessary. What I am saying is that there are times that the existing procedures aren't being followed, and that can give rise to delays that we would all agree we don't want.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So what changes would you make?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That those are generally directed at policy decisions for the legislature. The changes we have made in the judiciary with those recognitions is we have assigned extra judges to be available to assist in certain courts. For instance, in Chittenden, we years ago did not have a second judge in the civil division. We now have a second judge in the civil division and we're holding the rents escrow hearings, which used to be spread out more. They are on a weekly basis. And so one way to address it is we bring things in sooner. When we have the cases involving the criminal activity, the judges are aware that those cases take priority on the docket and those cases need to be scheduled sooner.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What happened at the witness?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: And so, you know, what we're trying to do is recognize that there are timelines. I think that certainly if you have the stakeholders and you listen to all the testimony, there may be areas that you look at and say, okay, we can tighten this timeline up a little, but there's questions about what happens if you tighten it up too much or unintended consequences. Because if you're tightening something because you believe it's going to help the landlord and the landlord has a circumstance where they want to extend it and they can't, that's not helping them. Likewise for tenants. And so as far as a fix that I could say, here's the magic fix, I'm sorry, but I don't have that. All I can tell you is we need to continue to move the cases as expediently as we can with a recognition of the important due process rights that both the plaintiffs and defendants have.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Saudia, do you

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: have a Yeah, just about moving the process, is it possible to move, if there's a case that is for, is the language, criminal, illegal, or violent behavior, would that be possible to move through a criminal court versus civil court? Because I'm trying to see if the holdup is the civil matter in the civil court's timeline, but if it's for eviction for criminal reasons, would that Do those cases go to criminal court or no, they have to be civil?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: If someone is arrested for drug If you have an apartment Let's say an apartment complex If you have someone who is alleged to have dealing drugs and they are arrested, that's a criminal charge. And the tenant, the landlord can also say, wait a minute, you were arrested for dealing drugs in this apartment under 4467 b two, I'm filing an action to get you out of the property. The criminal case is taking place in Costello Courthouse with the criminal division. The state's attorney is in charge of how that case goes forward. The civil case is taking place in the county building down the street, and the plaintiff is in charge of that. They are not connected, although they could be information could be utilized. And if I can mention quickly, this topic was discussed two years ago in the legislature, and there was actually some changes made to make it very clear that you that the legislature enacted to say that if someone is arrested for selling drugs in that location, the state's attorney can be notified and can and get a condition of release that they can't go back to that property. And that would actually be something that prevents them from returning to the property. And similarly, I'll leave you with this one final point. I know there's a lot of discussion and we hear about people who are in the property selling drugs, they're not the tenants, and they're living there. The legislature already has a very speedy process for that under title 12, section forty eight fifty three b for unlawful occupants. And we don't see a lot of those cases though.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Madam Chair, thank you so much. I particularly appreciate the attention that you've given the draft. That you've had specific comments that we could address, I think any of them, and we couldn't address them if we didn't know them, so thank you very much for what you've done. It clearly shows you spent a lot of time and did a lot of work. Thank you.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I did check the Hampshire law and I said to you, how could they feel in thirty days? Basically, they shortened up a lot of the time frames. Seven days for nurse to vacate instead of the fourteen days. Seven days to answer instead of twenty days, seven days for motion to reconsider instead of ten days, a hearing schedule within ten days, which I don't know that we could be able to do that, but that's what they have. And the landlord keeping the property, seven days, we have sixty days.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, you know, I think out of consideration for our next witness, what I'm going to suggest, I think that's really interesting work. If you could summarize it in writing in any way, and submit it soon, I would really appreciate it.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Be happy to. Thank

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you so much, both of you. Thank you. Really, thanks. Alright. Our witness is Dan Gambelin. Dan, thank you for your patience. We're not always in control of our situation here, but you want to tell us your name for the record? Oh, Dan, Daniel, Gayle, Okay, Chittenden well I'll tell you what, we're going to introduce ourselves to you because you don't know us. Debbie?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Oh, I'm Debbie Dolgin. I represent Saint John's Ray at Caledonia and Curry.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Good to see you.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm Tom Charlton, Athens Chester, Grafton, England.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Richard.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I'm Sheriff Leonora Dodge from Essex County, city of Essex Township. In my counties. That's right. I'm sheriff Ashley Bartley, Fairfax and Georgia.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Nice to meet you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I'm Marc Mihaly, I represent Plainfield, Alice, Marshfield.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Saudi Omar, we want to Washington, which is Morristown, Elmore, Worcester, Woodbury, small parts.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Me

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: too. Welcome, Gayle Pezzo. I represent Chittenden 20 in Colchester.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: You're my state rep. That's right. I'm not in Colchester.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just by way of kind of setting the table for you, as we went through the committee is slowly but surely learning about the whole landlord tenant process, and as we walked through sort of particularly the end game, the word sheriff kept coming up. And so, we kept wondering, well, what's happening here? What's happening there? Is this realistic? Is that realistic? What happens? And so we thought maybe the horse's mouth would be the right thing to do. So here you are.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: So I'll give you a little background. I've been with Chittenden County Sheriffs for forty four years, three years as a sheriff. I've been doing evictions for forty two of those forty four years. I've done probably, I would say 15 to 1,800 evictions in my career. The last few years, they really are excessive. Example, I can give you January 1 to February 1, we've done 22 executions of repossessions. We almost do them every day. We did two today. We have two tomorrow. We have two Friday. They're pretty bad. And I would say 95% of them for nonpayment of rent. I did send a a video. I don't know if I think it's it was Angela just here this morning? No. No? Okay. There's a I sent a video to play it here that did last year. I don't know if any of you have seen it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But if you sent it did you send it

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I did send it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: To Miriam?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Well, then it's on our website. Okay. Get

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: it. Okay. Yeah. I'd like to answer any questions you guys and you ladies have. Debbie?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I know one thing in our bill that we were trying to get through was that to get that TAC order, to have it follow throughout the whole case. What is your process in your county where they decide a TAC order is necessary?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I would say 97, 99% of the time the court judge issues attack order for the summons of complaint and all pleadings including the writ of possession of judgment. I know that there were some courts in the state that would only issue it for the pleadings you were trying to serve, like to summons a complaint, then you got that served because the person more likely when we get these taco orders, they're avoiding service. And we present an affidavit to the court stating why, we made a dozen attempts. They're looking through the peephole, they won't answer the door, you're identifying yourself.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: A tach order just is you get to put you tape or Right.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: We get it as an order for alternative service.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's the that's the legal Right. Do you do? You just tape it to the door? That's correct. Yeah.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yes. What is the time frame once the there's the rip and the sheriff is

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: What?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. The time frame for Yes. Service? Once oh, let's say the court this has just been an area.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Yeah. I know.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's very that's very

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I can answer.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We all read the law 10 times and hear different things. So what's your interpretation of, let's say the judge issues, they issue, they issue the judgment and writ of possession. You serve the writ, right? How much time usually between the time the judge issues it, you serve it?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: When I get it from the attorney and we get it served? Yeah. Our practice in Chittenden County, and it's probably every sheriff in the state, is when I serve a document, I tell them they have fourteen days to vacate. On day 15, which is 12:01 on that morning, you know, when the bell hits 12:01, the plaintiff has possession of the apartment. So on day 15, the sheriffs can execute the court order to remove you from the apartment. And does

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: take you very long from the time who who when the judge issues the writ, who gives the writ to you?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: The attorneys that filed for

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the plaintiff. Yeah. And how long does it take you to serve it? Oh, it

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: all depends. Our office, we get our most of our our civil process that we get is within four days, our office. I have four full time people serving civil process in Chittenden And

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: again, if there's a TAC order, you stick it on

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: the door. That's correct. Yeah. Which makes it realistically, if the person avoiding on the summons a complaint, it makes the whole process faster because you don't have to knock again. If the court issues an order for all pleadings, which is a lot easier for us, for the numbers we get, the stuff that we serve. Is the, then,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: so day 15, it's day 15. What happens to their stock?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: A lie is, what I explained to the tenants, if we have to come back on day 15, there's no liability on the plaintiff to give you their stuff back. They can have a garage sale, they can dispose of it. That was a lot past, think in 2000, if I remember right, 2012 maybe, where they released the liability from the plaintiff, the landlord. Because back then the landlord had to hold onto the property for sixty days and they took that liability away from them. So the landlord has no liability for the problem.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So when you show up, let's say I'm the tenant, you show up at my house,

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: and

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you say to me, now you got fourteen days to get yourself and your stuff out. Correct. Right? And on day 15, you can go in and eject me. Right? That must be a fairly ugly scene if they're still there and it happens.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: It can become Yes. We've made arrest when they refused to leave. Couple of places we've been to, including just this past summer in Essex. As we approached the driveway, we had somebody take their life in that apartment that we were going to vacate. Mean, we'll give them an hour. And one of the things we tell them is please get your clothing and any medication that you need. 95% of the landlords will let you back in at a meditate as a specific time that they make for you to get the rest of your stuff out. I would say 95% of them do that. There are a couple of landlords that refuse to do it. You owe me $15,000 you're not getting your stuff. But majority, the landlord will work with the tenant to get their stuff out because they don't want it. They don't want it, right? I mean, but it also has some landlords who have a U Haul sitting right outside, a Haul but a roll off sitting right outside in the driveway ready to toss it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, but Yes, Ashley?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I have a few silly questions.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: No, but I'm sorry.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: They might be. No.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Do you automatically go back on day 15? No. So like the landlord has to say like, hey, they're still there. Okay. And then my other question is, and this might be more of a maybe question. I, at what point does somebody not pay their rent becomes squatters rights?

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Have we talked

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: about that in committee?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I'll tell you what I was told by a judge who passed away last year, Judge Katz, that there is no squatters rights in the state of Vermont. There's no such thing. If you own an apartment and you've got a lease that says you cannot sublet, right? You don't have and you're there more than thirty days, you don't become a tenant. That's the way I look at it as the sheriff and in law enforcement. You're a trespasser. That's the way I look at it. That's my opinion. That came from a judge that told me a long time ago, there's no such thing as squatters in the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: state of Vermont. It may be that it's real property law, and that a tenant has an interest in property just like an owner. It's the tenancy. And if it if you have an interest in property, excuse me, if you're on property for a long period of time openly and notoriously and there's no objection to it, you could get adverse possession to the tenants.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: That's correct. Wouldn't But that's different. Yeah. The the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I mean, it would have to be a long time, and it would have to be you'd have to have actually the landlord know you're there and be okay with it. Yeah. Either virtually or There

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: was always a hotel thing where it's saying you're more than thirty days, but that's for hotel and sales and room and numerals tax. Where if you're in a hotel more than thirty days, now you establish tenancy. Now you're gonna go through the eviction process. But if you're in somebody's apartment and Jane Doe gets evicted and you've been there two months with her, you're going along with her. You don't have squatters rights to move. That's the way I look at it. I mean, when I go do an eviction and there's somebody in there that doesn't belong there and the landlord doesn't know who they are, they're gonna go with the tenant at the same time on the writ of possession. Saudia?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. So, in the instances So, do you only remove people in instances of eviction? Because we're hearing stories of people staying in other people's residences, and engaging in illegal activity, and not being able to be removed from that residence. And like that, the landlord then has to evict that tenant, but the person is not on the lease. And so I'm just curious as to how that plays out. If there's no such thing as squatters' rights, the person's not on the lease, the landlord doesn't know they're there, why can we not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: remove those people? We've had, just to sort of give you a little background, we've had a lot of evidence about two situations. One is where a tenant is selling drugs, say, or doing something that's endangering the health and safety of the other tenants in the building, the landlord, or whatever. So the landlord evicts them, then they come back into another, somebody else's apartment and start doing the same thing, that's one type. The other is that a person who never was a tenant lands on a tenant and either because the tenant is addicted to drugs or because they scare the hell out of them or whatever, they engage in the activity there, and we're being asked to address those kinds of trespasses. And so I would think the question is, do you ever run into enforcing trespass orders and do you ever deal with these situations? All the time. Tell us more. So

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: if tenant John Doe decides she's gonna have a woman or a man live with them and that person is dealing drugs, right? The landlord doesn't have the right to remove that person that's dealing drugs. He's gonna have to evict a tenant who's dealing drugs, who's letting that person stay with him. So if the landlord calls law enforcement to go remove those people, right? They're not gonna remove them because he's an invitee, right? Of the tenant. That's gonna be a landlord issue where he would have to start eviction proceedings for criminal activity in his apartment.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: If the tenant wants the person removed, is that allowed or would the tenant have to do a no trespass order?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Well, I've seen evictions where the tenant had to start the eviction proceeding to get the roommate out. Because the landlord said, well, I didn't allow you to I didn't allow you to let him stay here. Right. This is on you.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Right.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: And if she refuses to leave, that's on the tenant that's gonna have to and I've seen that.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay. That's thank you.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: That's Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So you deal with these situations only post eviction? In other words, you you if somebody walks in to a place and starts dealing drugs in somebody's apartment and they don't want it, they don't want them there, you can't get them out.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: If the person that lives in that apartment, they ask them to leave, they gotta leave. It's their apartment. If they don't Then they can trespass.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. That's trespass. How about if a Lamoille if a drug dealer just comes somebody who's not a tenant comes in and sells drugs in the hall, and the landlord asks them to leave. Same thing? Yep. Right. Yeah. And the problem is when it's a tenant is there, and they don't say they don't want them. They're an invitee. Right. You can't get them out just because the landlord tells you to get them. That's correct. Okay.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I I think I think

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the situation what Ian's bill was designed to address. Right. I think it's go ahead, I'll answer. Well, actually Debbie's next and then-

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Sorry, oh, well, I had a two part question, because lately we've been given seven day writ of possessions, but it's still fifteen days that you

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: need to keep there. The seven day rid

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: of possession comes on a rent escrow order when they failed to pay on the court.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: But it is a check.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: That's the only seven day rent out

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yes, well that's

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: There's a thirty day rent for mobile home parks and that's a mobile home park where it's the lease property, the lease land that you're not paying, not the tenant that's not, if it's a mobile home and you own a mobile home and the person that you're leasing to doesn't pay rent, that's under the fourteen or seven days.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There's the seven days.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Within the seven days, you have to keep their stuff in fifteen? Yes. Okay. The second part is, would you ever be at the landlord in your lot?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I've told a lot of people this, I don't care how rich I would be, I would never be in a landlord in Vermont ever. Why? Personally the process takes too long. I live it every day. I live it every day. I've seen a landlord in Burlington and this goes back a few years, had two units on North Champlain Street in Burlington. And both of those tenants didn't pay rent and he didn't have enough money in his bank accounts to pay that mortgage. He went under foreclosure and he lost that building. So that's why I would never be a landlord because it just takes one. Now when you got hundreds of apartments, that one or two doesn't hurt you. But if you got just like duplex and are both not paying, you're gonna have an issue. Yes.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So I may have missed it, you may have said it already, but if a person that was renting is evicted and his girlfriend happens or boyfriend or whatever lives there and that person is staying invited to that person's home. Is that trespassing now?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: No, not right now. So I'm give going you an example in Burlington. Decker Towers, you guys probably all heard about it. Decker Towers had last year and the year before a major drug issues where there were drug dealers in departments living with the tenants dealing drugs. So you go evict Jane Doe from Apartment 311, right? We move her out. She's got a friend that lives in that same building with 100 apartments and moves down to 111, right? And brings her friends over to 111. He invites them in. Burlington Housing Authority, I personally think should have the right to remove those people that were evicted out of that complex, out of that building. And right now you can't do that. So that applies Burlington PV because the first call they get is from a Burlington housing saying, I got somebody at Decker Townsend we just evicted and they're now in Apartment 111. And Burlington's gonna tell them, we can't help you. That's an issue. That's an issue.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: One last question, sorry, another I'm just trying to understand.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, this is, so

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: eviction when and trespass aside, at what point is someone like allowed to be arrested for violent, or criminal, or illegal activity? I guess my brain is not processing, that if someone is actively engaging in harmful behavior and the law enforcement is called, that they can show up and do nothing.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I mean, obviously you're a tenant dealing drugs, right? It's just rumored that you're dealing drugs unless you are arrested for

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Well, that's what I'm So there's no I guess I'm missing on how arrests are not taking place.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Let's say your arrest did take place, right? Then it doesn't mean that

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the tenant has to leave. The tenant is still

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: gonna get evicted for criminal activity. You see what I'm saying? They still have to go through the eviction proceeding for criminal activity.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Okay. If

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: the person got arrested his lodge and is in jail and he's been held by the court for, let's say, on $100,000 bail, he isn't going anywhere. The landlord still has to go through the eviction process to get him out of there. Right. Unless the tenant signs over the lease.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Right, but the person is not on the property because I'm just showing all the people still being present on the property with the ability to continue the behavior physically in the space. That was where the disconnect was at.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Yeah, but still, presume have to trust them.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay, so two different things, okay thank you.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well that's, I'm going to piggyback off of that, we had in February 21, we had the largest drug bust in St. Johnsbury at one of our apartments, at which I reported to the police that I suspected it, and 08:00 in the morning was the police were there, they had their day in court and were released, and they all went back into the apartment and they started dealing at noon, out the kitchen window. So of course I called the police, they're out the kitchen window and we could not do criminal activity because the police would not give us a report because it's an ongoing investigation.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I understand that, But you know they got arrested. So to me, got arrested. So I think the judge mentioned that as long as you got arrested, right? Criminal proceeding through the criminal courts can take nine months to a year. The eviction proceeding for a criminal activity is a lot shorter than that. I would say you still would have the opportunity to evict them for criminal activity. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think you would have the ability to evict them.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And the issue we're facing with proof. Right? Right. Any other questions of the sheriff? Tom, you're looking thoughtful. I know that you don't always wave your hand around. I know. It's better not to patient. I I think

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: through the I I'm remembering comments from the legal aid to the effect of, well, they've been arrested, but they haven't had a trial. We have proven anything. It didn't which makes getting them evicted on criminal activity where legal aid is concerned.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: If they haven't been arrested?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: If they have been arrested, but there hasn't been a trial.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Right. I I would that'd be a a question for an attorney, I think. But I would guess that's still criminal activity. That would be a

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: has to be some body evidence,

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I feel right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. What we've been talking about in here, Tom, is not to use the term criminal activity, but simply because it's landlord tenant to relate to any activity that is dangerous or to the health or safety of the other tenants, the landlord, the the landlord's agents.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other questions of this guy? Hey. Thank you. You know, can I say

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: one thing, Charlton? Can. I will I will tell you. The evictions are sky high. In 2025 we did 155 walkouts in Cheney County. That's a lot. That's a lot. And the year before was 01/1980 and we're at the pace right now for doing 20 a month, do the numbers. That's how bad they are. And I said again, that they're for non payment of rent. We did one two weeks ago, they were $28,000 behind. That's a lot of money. I mean, the landlord felt sorry for this person and let him go that far, but that's a lot of money and it's bad right now.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Yes. I'm gonna be really annoying because I really appreciate your final thoughts, but I just thought

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of another question. Shall ask?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Have you had a chance to read the bell or are you just

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: I was following some of it on it. Okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: From what you've heard, do you think that this will lead, from what you know, what you've heard, will lead to more evictions or do you think that there is a path forward that for collaboration between tenant and landlord to, I just, we know the status quo is not working and we keep hearing this is gonna lead to homelessness. And I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. I think, you know, I just would love to know your thoughts.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This being some sort of bill that includes, it's an entire package of things, some of which benefit tenants, but in terms of process, it's designed to shorten the process. So some people say, well, it's just going to shorten the process. Other people say it's going lead to a lot more eviction.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: Opinion? I don't know the answer to that. Really, I mean, I've been doing this for forty four years. I personally think the process takes too long. That's my opinion, but that's an opinion coming from a sheriff. I mean, somebody else would have a different opinion on that. I live it every day. I see what goes on every day. Do I love doing this? No, I don't. But the job of the sheriff is to affect and execute court orders. And that's what we do. And unfortunately, I'm the sheriff of the biggest county with the most tenants in the biggest city, with 75% are all multi family housing. Sometimes it gets, it can get to you, you know, I understand. Yeah.

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Do it. No? Okay. Won't.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm so sorry. You have to appear.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yes. I just, and this totally random and arbitrary. So if you haven't noticed, I look at the whole picture and like just how everything plays out and affects everyone. And I'm just curious, side note, as a sheriff, do you know do you do you see any correlation between the locations where you have lots of evictions and increase or decrease incidents of general overall crime or, you know, 09:11 calls, police calls or anything like that. Are the areas, do you think the areas are impacted? Are you seeing that or no?

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: No, it's everywhere. Mean Burlington obviously is the biggest because it's got the most apartments. But Winooski, Colchester, Essex, Milton, I mean we go out to Hinesburg. It's everywhere. So it's not based you know, where, the, you want to call it low income area, it's not.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sheriff Dan Gamelin (Chittenden County Sheriff)]: It's not.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Yeah. I really appreciate it. Yeah, you're welcome. Anytime. Sure. Okay. Members of the committee, can we just take one minute? I wanna just sum up and talk about this bill for just a minute. But I won't keep you to more than, it'll take me one minute. Okay? I just want to tell you that actually I'm very pleased that Judge Zonie went through the bill. I think that my feeling generally is that almost all of his comments can be addressed. That is, in the next version of this bill, clear up ambiguities, eliminate certain exceptions, etcetera, almost everything. We also can put except for good cause in front of the deadlines so that there is a little flexibility. I think we can In other words, I wouldn't be overwhelmed by the detail, the detail is welcome. It helps. I think some of the deadlines that we would have liked to see, my own personal view is he makes a case that they're a little too short. But I think the overall deadlines, myself, I'm going to keep in the bill because of what you just heard. It just takes too long. I think, you know, it's just whether that causes the court, as they learn to live with those deadlines and shift things around, is an open question, and it's one that we're just going to have to watch. But I'm not saying that the bill will pass out of this committee or that the bill will satisfy everybody and even pass the House, but I'm just saying many of the concerns that Judge Zoning has and that Terry mentioned can be addressed in the next draft, without compromising in any way the overall goal of the bill. But I don't think, I mean, think. You know, there are, I'll give you an example, Judge Zoni and Terri Krasnow, they focused on the law, what the law says and the red escrow law has this process, which appears to be an accelerated process. We have testimony from the Landlord's Association that it takes six to eight weeks from the date of filing to get a rent escrow hearing. And that sometimes ten to fifteen weeks to get, just get the rent escrow hearing. We have some testimony that regardless of what the law says, there is often no order for the rent from that day backwards. And also, that the rent is what is negotiated, it's what the landlord, what the tenant tells the judge the tenant can pay. And that for that reason, landlords are just not bothering with the rent and escrow process. I'm just trying to explain to you the contradictions that we're facing. I'm not saying who's more credible, etcetera, I just think that what you heard today is the law. The question is, how is it? How does the law

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: play out? The accountability and the follow through.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it's everything, isn't it?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: And Anyway it's not what Ashley said, it's not working the way that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it is right now, so there needs to be changed. Right. So anyway, I urge you to read, we asked both legal aid and Angela Zakowski, Jean, we asked them to submit evidence to the court on the, or I did, on the rent escrow process precisely because of the importance of the issue, and they did. And it's rather extensive, a couple of pages, I urge you to look at it, but we're going to work on it. Anything else?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: No, thoughts.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, what? Thoughts. Yeah, thoughts. So, we knew it wasn't going to be easy, not going to be easy. Thank you everyone, and we are adjourned until tomorrow at

[Teri K. Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: 09:15. And it is Wednesday tomorrow.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: 09:15, in which we mark this up. I have to talk to Cameron. It will obviously be a partial markup because Cameron didn't hear the testimony.