Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live.

[Marc Mihaly]: Welcome back, everyone, to House Committee on General and Housing. We are now turning back to 8007 100 '72, the landlord tenant law. We have been yesterday walking through the bill as redrafted by our counsel, and we're going to continue that process this morning until noon, and then if necessary, at afternoon. Then we can move on to discussion. Is there, where were we counsel? And let us know also, I know you were working on some sections.

[Cameron Wood]: Yes, sir. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. I am just getting ready to share my screen, and then I will bring us right back to where we were yesterday. We are discussing page seven seventy two, strike all amendment from the committee draft 1.1.

[Marc Mihaly]: And if you all recall where we

[Cameron Wood]: left off, were talking about

[Marc Mihaly]: termination periods and we left off on page eight, so let me get us there. Just to remind, I'm reminding the committee to refresh your memories, which you probably don't need refreshing. The law is divided into two parts. One part deals with what's in a document, a lease, or whatever. It regulates the relationship between the landlord and tenant. And in that piece, one of the things that it talks about is the notice of termination of the lease. The second part deals with ejectment proceedings in court. We're still on the first part, right? Yes, sir.

[Cameron Wood]: Okay, go ahead. Okay, so yesterday, towards the end of the day, I think it was, we walked through subsection A about non payment of rent, we walked through subsection B about when the tenant breaches the lease agreement or doing acts of violence, etcetera. Then we got to subsection C, where seven seventy two is proposing to just change it to say that if the tenant provides actual notice of a date they're going to terminate or vacate or the government provides, you know, or the person needs to vacate, then termination is whatever that day is. So now we're in sub D. Currently this is when a property is sold, and it's when a property is sold there's thirty days, the termination notice period is thirty days. What seven seventy two is doing is it's saying sold or repurposed in the event that the property is contracted to sell the building, needed for the landlord or the landlord's immediate family to occupy the premises, permanently withdrawing it or demolishing or renovating it, you have to provide ninety days notice. And then when you get to Subdivision E here on the bottom of page nine, if you all remember

[Elizabeth Burrows]: currently Yes, go ahead. Sorry, in current law, what happens if a landlord is not truthful about

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: these uses?

[Cameron Wood]: So in current law, this is not spelled out. Not all of this would be new language. So under the current statutory language, you can if the property is sold, And then you can terminate if there is no written rental agreement as long as you're providing a certain number of days notice. And that's actually where I was going to get us to is if you remember, the current law is it's either sixty days notice or ninety days notice if you don't have a written rental agreement depending on how long you've been there. And then those dates are actually different if you have a written rental agreement. It's less. If you have the written agreement, it's thirty days or six days. So The issue that you run into, I guess, is if you're trying to imagine a scenario where the landlord may not be telling the truth, if you will, is that keep in mind that the landlord doesn't need a reason to terminate

[Marc Mihaly]: your agreement. The current law doesn't deal with it. It doesn't come up because the landlord can only just not renew the lease, and the notice periods are less. It doesn't matter why they're not renewing the lease. They also can't, just to be really clear, under current law and also under this bill, a landlord can't repurpose for any other purpose until the lease is up. In other words, it's not like, let's say you enter into a twelve month, correct me if I'm wrong, under both current law, I had to ask him this question, so I'm just repeating what I've been taught here. Under current law, let's say you get a twelve month lease. A landlord can decide not to renew the lease for any reason, including they want to repurpose the building, they want it for their family, whatever, but they can't do it during the lease. The lease is the lease. So that's true under the new law. The difference is, as Elizabeth was mentioning, is that they can do it for any reason, so there's nothing to lie about. They just do it, and if they do it, they don't have to say why. Under this bill, as you will see, it's all spelled out what are the different reasons they can do it, and they have to explain why. But what if they're not truthful when they I explain

[Elizabeth Burrows]: guess my concern, just to say it, is that if we take away no cause, then we'll have a bunch of these popping up that or my family's moving in popping up, where it's not necessarily truthful, that just winds up being the default. And so what are we doing it for?

[Marc Mihaly]: So a few thoughts and comments. Currently,

[Cameron Wood]: as was mentioned, if you have a lease, you have to wait till the end of the lease. You have to provide a notice before that if you're not going to allow the person to stay.

[Marc Mihaly]: If you do not have a written agreement,

[Cameron Wood]: then you need no reason whatsoever. You just have to comply with the time frame, which is sixty or ninety days. Under this bill, there is a slight thing here to be aware of. You're adding in these specific reasons to potentially terminate an agreement. And the question you're asking, reparos, is, Okay, well, what do we do when someone is lying about this if you're saying that I'm terminating it because I need it to rent it to a member of my immediate family member, but you're not being truthful? The issue with this amendment right now is that's not going to matter. It's not going to matter because the notice periods are the same. So under this subdivision, if you're going to terminate because you want someone for your immediate family member to move in, it's ninety days. The same period exists to terminate for no reason whatsoever. So even if you're lying about it, even if you as a tenant or excuse me, even if you as the landlord are telling someone, hey, I have somebody from my immediate family who's going to move in. Maybe you're just not good at you don't want to kick somebody out, so you're fabricating some reason to try to make it more palatable to the individual.

[Marc Mihaly]: It's not going to matter because the periods are the same. I want to illustrate this. There's a policy question buried here that we've had a discussion about, okay? Under current law, there is no such thing as for cause. I mean, a landlord simply doesn't have to renew a lease, period. So there's nothing to lie about, okay? I felt that it was one thing that should change was, we should spell out the different reasons that landlords can act. And one is, for example, they remodel. But for defining, it has to be a remodel at least 50%, etcetera. You know, it has to be a serious remodel. Another was that it's necessary for the landlord or a member of the landlord's immediate family, and that's defined as well. So, hear me out now. And I felt that the landlord should have to explain why. Which one of these? It's for my immediate family, whatever. Aside from the, this is part of civility argument, I felt that there ought to be a consequence if the landlord lied. If the landlord said, oh, I want to move my family in, and then just didn't for no reason, or if the landlord said, I want to remodel, but it didn't happen, etcetera. Counsel's reaction so I said, I want a consequence, you know, like to have to pay moving expenses or something if they lie, unless, of course, they demonstrate there was a good reason I was gonna move my son in and it didn't happen, you know, whatever. But if there was just no reason, if it was in bad faith. Counsel responded to me by saying, why would you do that? Why would you have a consequence if they can always terminate the lease without any reason? In other words, they can, when the lease runs, they could just wait till the lease runs out. The only reason in the first draft of this bill that we differentiated between all these things was because they had different notice periods, but they don't anymore. They're just all ninety days. My own view, personally, is I would like to see a requirement that they have to say why, and the consequence is if there's just total bad faith. The only remedy would be, I gotta tell you, would be that, let's say I'm a tenant. The landlord says, Marc, you gotta go, because I'm remodeling the unit, okay? And then they just don't. So let's say the remedy would be, well, then they have to pay a month's moving expenses, month's rent. Well, the burden would be on me, Elizabeth, to sue. I'm out. I'm gone. We don't have a landlord tenant relationship anymore, so I would have to sue, but I could, and there would be a remedy. But it's not in the bill now. There's nothing in the bill.

[Cameron Wood]: And I will 100% agree with everything the chair said. I would say it this way, it's a policy decision. If you're going to make this under the sub D, if you're going to make the notice period different, if you're needing to remodel, or you're needing to move in an immediate family member or you're contracting to sell the building. If you're going to make that notice period somehow less than the notice period Or more. Potentially, but you could run into a separate thought there. But if you're going to make it less, then it's an incentive for the I don't want say an incentive. It's a reason a landlord may at that point utilize it, because I can move you out of the unit sooner. At that point, I do think there is an argument to be made to include some sort of consequence if you find that the landlord is somehow willfully lying or falsifying the reason for the termination. And Mr. Chair, however, you all in the policy would like to set that up. It's either moving expenses in a month's rent or something to that effect. I do think that it would make sense in that scenario. As the scenario of this amendment as it's currently drafted simply because the termination periods are the same, I don't imagine a landlord ever telling you any of these reasons because they don't have to. I'm just going to terminate it under the sub e. I don't have

[Marc Mihaly]: to give you a reason. Okay. Do you guys follow what he just said? Fuck. I do have it, so.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Okay, so you have an apartment building, let's say it has even eight units in it, everybody's lease is starting at a different time, so let's say you did want to renovate the building, it could take a long time to, you know, giving, what do we do, ninety day notices to, you know, let's say we're gonna renovate to get that building empty. So what kind of timeframe are you gonna put in there? After the last one is out, then you have three months to start your project.

[Marc Mihaly]: So, you're arguing, let me just try to rephrase this, this is important. So, it seems to me, I'm gonna try to put, I'm gonna reflect back the argument as your argument as I hear it. What you're saying is, the problem with trying to have a consequence is that you'd have to put a reasonable time limit on it, and you'd have to define it further. In other words, it may be that you give notices on, I'm just gonna pick a date, June 1, but by the time everybody actually moves out, the building's clear, it's already August, and then you start work, or September, or whatever, and you start work, the building's empty, you start work, you wouldn't want someone to be able to sue you for lying in July or August or September because it's not reasonable. So, we would have to define it, right? Well, I feel

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: like that's If you wanted to go this route, which I don't wanna go, if you wanted to do this, just feel like you have to put even more in there. We can't come and do that project right now, we can't come for another six months. Then

[Marc Mihaly]: that would be a defense to any bad faith plan. You would go in and you would say, Look, your honor, the building's empty,

[Cameron Wood]: refusal to come back if they've been removed due to a renovation, not for any of the other circumstances, but due to the renovation. Mr. Chair, I agree with you, that would be a defense and some

[Marc Mihaly]: sort of claim brought. Mary and then Elizabeth.

[Mary E. Howard]: So if they had the right to come back,

[Elizabeth Burrows]: normally the landlord would raise the rent if they have done all of the renovations. I don't think that a tenant who moves out of the apartment and has to find another place to live away from first month, last month, is going to want to spend all this money going a corner. I mean, what's the point? If they're in another apartment, you know, it happened.

[Cameron Wood]: You do bring up another key point. I should just pull up the language. It does specify that the, so this is in the sub deed here. So provided that the tenant shall have the right of first refusal to reoccupy the unit at market rate following So the you brought up that point, they may raise the rent after you've done the renovations. They may not. They may not, right, but the language

[Marc Mihaly]: But they may, it just gives a right that they might. Elicit it?

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Why would your whole building need to be empty before you could start renovating?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Oh, you haven't looked at her loss.

[Marc Mihaly]: Explain. So it's just you don't have to just explain it to her.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: The blood loss? Oh, Maggie. Yeah. There's a lot of plastic involved, and you have to renovate the building according to our blood loss in Vermont. Like so complicated.

[Marc Mihaly]: You can't, in other words, you cannot expose one tenant who's still there to the dangers of renovation.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: We we've only notify every tenant of seats, have about sixty days beforehand, everything is encapsulated in plastic. Those renovations can only happen when the supervisor is on-site, so if he can train the people that are going to be doing the renovation, but if he has to leave the premises, everybody has to stop working. It can turn into a long process, you can't do outside work if it's windy. I don't know if you've ever seen buildings done. I mean, that's what they did right in St. Johnsbury. We had Eastern and railroad, they emptied the entire building and totally gutted the whole thing, lead safe practices.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: We had a proposed bill last biennium that included, I believe, updates to lead removal, lead paint laws, so we heard a lot from the landowners about that.

[Marc Mihaly]: I mean, conceivably, a landlord, though, wouldn't a landlord have, if they're not doing a total gut job as a total rehab, but they simply want to rehabilitate one unit because it's damaged. They could do that, and presumably would have an incentive to keep as much of the building rented as they could. I

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: guess it could depend. I mean, we would talk about a total renovation.

[Marc Mihaly]: Go ahead, Gayle. Just a sec.

[Cameron Wood]: Go ahead. Okay, so to bring us back here, we're on page nine moving to page 10. So the proposed amendment here would make those termination notice periods that are in the sole control of the landlord. And then Mr. Chair, you phrased it in that context. Some of the terminations are due to tenant activity A and B. Some of them are due to the sole kind of the landlord making a determination that they want to do something else with the unit, not renew the agreement. This proposal when D and E makes the termination period when the landlord is the one initiating it in that sense ninety days or close the period, which is different than the current statutory framework, which is dependent on whether you have a written agreement, not a written agreement, whether you've been there two years, whether you're not, two years less, two years. Okay, so now top of page 10. This includes the language about the week to week rental agreements. I think at one point it was struck in the bill as introduced, but we did hear some comments that there are some week to week rentals that still exist, so it is probably worth keeping in that event. This says if there is a written week to week and this is current statute, this doesn't change it there is a written excuse me, if there is this is the current law if there's a written week to week rental agreement, this is taking that out and saying if there is a week to week rental agreement, whether it's in writing or not, the notice shall be at least seven days. And then it states, however, a notice to terminate for non payment of rent shall be as provided in subsection A, and I'm just highlighting that for a policy decision for you all. If you're making a week to week rental termination period seven days, the notice to terminate for non payment of rent is ten days. That doesn't make sense. Yes sir, it just seems to be a little bit, it would be an inconsistency, it currently exists.

[Marc Mihaly]: Don't we just make it ten days? Is that okay?

[Cameron Wood]: Then we move to sub F. I don't want to,

[Marc Mihaly]: if someone disagrees with me, say it. I'm just trying to move on here on something that's pretty simple, yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Well, you know I always like the lesser number.

[Marc Mihaly]: The lesser, I saw your face, Debbie. So That's why I said what I did, okay, minor descent registered here. The next draft, will have

[Cameron Wood]: 10, So for sub F, Mr. Chair you kind of alluded to this a bit ago, what I've added here is currently You're on page 10? Yes sir, page 10, line five, the sub f. It currently says that it has to include the termination date for every dose and I'm slightly tweaking this to say that in all cases, the termination date shall be specifically stated in the notice as well as the reason for termination. So now moving forward, we have conversion to condominiums and that's a separate title 27 dealing with property and a separate chapter that has a lot of information about timelines of notice, etcetera, when you're converting a building to a condominium so that there's no change there. Sub H is about shared occupancy. And what this would change it to is currently there is a difference in whether it is monthly or weekly, and this would make it consistent if you're in a shared occupancy, the notice to terminate would be seven days after the date of actual notice. So there's no change from the bill as introduced. Sub I is about multiple notices and no change from the bill as introduced. We get to subsection J, no change here. If you all recall, though, this is about payment after termination, so if you've provided a determination notice for acceptance of full or partial payments for reasons other than nonpayment of rent. So if you're providing someone notice because they breached the terms of the lease agreement and you're moving forward with the termination on that basis and the person pays you rent because they're still living there, that doesn't somehow negate your termination notice. You can still move forward with the termination notice, even if you accept partial or full payment of rent. Then we get to sub K, which is commencing the ejectment action. There's no changes to the bill as introduced, but just as a quick reminder, this is the section that says if you've provided a notice, then you have to bring the ejectment within a certain time frame. And so what this proposal would do is actually shorten the time frame in which you have to bring the ejectment action for an ejectment under sub A or B, which is non payment of rent or failure of the tenant to comply with the material terms for violent activity, etcetera. So if you're terminating because of one of those reasons, this proposal says you have to bring that ejectment action within thirty days. Currently, section is sixty days. So it's putting more onus on the way to move that ejectment forward within that time frame. Yes, Elizabeth.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: If we are going to terminate even if a full payment of back rent has been completed, then why are we setting up a program to help people pay back rent? Why do that?

[Cameron Wood]: Counsel, if you pay rent, if you tend to rent, if you're late, they can't terminate you. Go all the way back to the sub A.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: I thought you just said even if it was paid in full, that

[Cameron Wood]: rental Accepting it doesn't stop the termination? That's if it is for anything other than non payment of rent.

[Marc Mihaly]: And my apologies if that

[Cameron Wood]: got confusing from how I phrased it. What it says here is I totally misunderstood that. No, no, maybe I may not have Let's make sure it's clear. Right, I may not have articulated it in the best way. So this is saying that for any reason, this is on line eight here, so for reasons other than non payment of rent, so if you're dealing with non payment of rent that's separate, but if you pay, you're getting a termination for non payment of rent and then you pay rent, that termination is made null. So this would be for any other reason, if you're terminating because the person has breached their rental agreement terms or you're terminating the person that's still paying rent, that doesn't somehow negate the termination.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Okay, thank you.

[Marc Mihaly]: Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, go on, I was actually reading instead. Yes, Debbie? Well, I was

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: just wondering why, because By the sixty days.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. Why you know what? Do you know this came from Angela? Yes. I don't know why. I think the theory think the theory you have not had any communication on this subject, but I think the theory, and I'm guessing, is when you're dealing with nonpayment of rent, it's kind of like something that we can provide for the tenant. We're getting this over with. But then most landlords will want to do this. I mean, they'll want to move quickly. That's all I know. I really don't know anymore. Do you want us to put a sort of a check on this and check back as to

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Well, can I tell my reasons for Sure? Not to make 30 I feel like it gives more time for the landlord and the tenant to resolve the issue. If we give a termination notice, it starts the conversation. They get a termination notice that they can take places to try to help them, really, you know

[Marc Mihaly]: And it's true that the termination notice Well, actually, I think it's an encheckment action. Yeah, but no, you're right. Mean, Mecca, any Northeast Kingdom community action provides back rent help and stuff like that, and they you're right. They would need they would need that. Yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Well, NECA, if you if you're a a vulnerable person and you have issues with your rent, you take the termination notice and you bring it to them in forty eight hours, they will know if you qualify. In two weeks, the landlord will have the money in hand.

[Marc Mihaly]: Do they let the landlord know if you qualify?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Oh yes, oh there's communication, yes.

[Marc Mihaly]: So you think sixty days is better because you think it gives more time for negotiation?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Yeah, I do. I mean, even if it's somebody that like, I wasn't able to work for two weeks, I'm gonna get behind in my rent, they get a termination notice, not gonna qualify for NECA, but they could take that notice and maybe take it to a church, I just need one time help, that's all I need. So I just feel like it gives more time for negotiations, for setup of payment plans, and I mean, that's the way I see it. Okay. It's not good the program where they won't provide rent if you're three months behind

[Elizabeth Burrows]: and also you have to show that you would be able to pay your rent regularly.

[Marc Mihaly]: I don't know what NEC is doing. I don't know if they're still doing that program, but they did have that program. They do it. You have to be careful as

[Elizabeth Burrows]: far as being so granular because

[Marc Mihaly]: Right. NECA has a program. It's up to them what the program is. Check of the company is Did NECA write us a letter here? I asked NECA to write us a letter describing their program, okay? But I will tell you what my inclination is, and I just want the committee's reaction. I think Debbie makes a good point. I kind of am inclined to get I mean, the landlord can always choose to bring it after five days. Exactly. After ten, but if there's any chance of negotiation, I, at this point, kind of inclined to go with the 60. I don't know what other people feel. We could do 45, we could do 60. I mean, on his next draft, we can ask Angela what she was thinking. This is the only time I want more time. I'm listening. What do you think? What do people think, guys?

[Elizabeth Burrows]: My concern is just that not everybody is eligible for the programs. Right.

[Marc Mihaly]: That's a fact of life that we're dealing with across the board. And that's one reason that we're putting a million bucks in the bill for the back rent, the state housing authority back rent. I mean, we're asking for a

[Cameron Wood]: million from appropriations. Going back to 'sixty would, the consequence there is it could give a tenant more time to find rent. Going back to how the statute's currently reviewed.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: But if they can't, then that just lengthens the

[Marc Mihaly]: Well, it lengthens their time in the

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: building. Not necessarily.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, I mean, it's up to the landlord. Gives the landlord, I think as a practical matter, the landlord's gonna just move forward unless they think that this is the kind of tenant that they can work with. Are we okay with leaving it at sixty? In this draft. I'll tell you what, let's put it for sixty in this draft, Cameron. I'm gonna put a note here.

[Cameron Wood]: So next they are on page 12. This next subsection is about an affirmative defense to an ejectment action. If you will recall, this was a section that states that if an individual landlord brings an ejectment based on nonpayment of rents, then it can be a defense to that ejectment if there are certain code violations that exist giving rise to the reason that the individual is not paying the rent. There were a few tweaks here based on feedback from the judiciary. And so for an objectment action based on a failure to pay rent pursuant to subsection A of this section, it shall be an affirmative to the defendant, and judgment shall be issued for the defendant. And initially said that the case would be dismissed and my understanding is the recommendation from your judiciary testimony was to say that judgment would be issued for the defendant if there exists a serious health and safety code violation, and then there was the request to ensure that there had been a citation issue to the landlord, that remain uncured. And so that's what I've added here. Safety code violation issued to the landlord under 20 BSA two six seven seven, which is the section that gives the Division of Fire Safety the authority to issue those violations. And it's uncorrected as of the date of termination. And so then it gives a list of possible violations that this could include. Then you get down to page 13. What I did here under the sub two is I just mirrored what currently exists in another section. This was similar but just worded slightly differently. It's just stating that the tenant can't take advantage of this remedy if the violation itself was caused by the negligent or deliberate act or omission from the tenant or a person on the premises with the tenant's license to be there. Just to clarify, this section, the changes to this section, are

[Marc Mihaly]: a result of a number of pieces of testimony and correspondence that we received. The entire concept came from legal aid. They felt that this was a case in other states and that it should be here. I put in a list of major violations, because I didn't want a tenant to be able to defeat an ejectment action on the basis of some minor code violation that wasn't important. Landlords had two suggestions. One is the language you see up there that, hey, it shouldn't apply if the tenant causes the damage, which unfortunately does occur. But the other was landlords sometimes testified, and by testified both orally, but in writing, they don't find out code violation until the ejectment action, when suddenly they're told, and the feeling was this should be limited to a situation where prior to the filing of the ejectment action, there was a ticket issued and it was uncured. So in other words, it's not just something that occurred. It's not the tenant cannot allege a code violation during the ejectment action that didn't exist prior

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: to eject. Okay, so this is even for non payment of warrants?

[Marc Mihaly]: This is just for non payment.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Okay, well, I mean, I'm thinking of a situation, mean, code is fluid. So it's like, you have an inspection of the building and it's like, oh my goodness, your egress window, it has to be bigger, it has to be large now. So now you have eight windows that you have to replace. They have to be special ordered. So you've got a timeframe, like they say fix this in two weeks. We can't fix it in two weeks. We have to order the custom windows, and then we have to install each one one at a time. We have to make arrangements with it, the whole shebang. And it's like, where would that fit in?

[Marc Mihaly]: The way that would fit in is if it didn't say just uncorrected. It said uncorrected or in the process of substantial correction, or something like that. In other words, I think that if the landlord is in good faith, it's in the midst of, you know, it's just the windows have to come in.

[Cameron Wood]: Yes, I'm just trying to play it out as the language is written. You're assuming that you get an inspection that says the windows need to be

[Marc Mihaly]: expanded. Right. Which is not, by the way, I know from my own experience, it's not crazy, it happens.

[Cameron Wood]: But then the tenant is not paying rent because of that?

[Marc Mihaly]: Well, it's just the tenant isn't paying rent anyway, for some other reason.

[Leonora Dodge]: But if that's not listed here

[Marc Mihaly]: It is. Well, H.

[Leonora Dodge]: Oh, very nice.

[Marc Mihaly]: In other words, what Debbie's saying, just to frame it, what Debbie's raising the hypothetical, which is the kind of thing we have to do here. She's saying, what happens if

[Speaker 0]: and the ticket is

[Marc Mihaly]: she's fixing it, or someone is fixing it, not to put it all on her, is fixing it, but it isn't done yet. So it's not cured yet, but not fully corrected yet. So, in that scenario,

[Leonora Dodge]: it was a code that was suddenly that you're suddenly in violation of code.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Well, you're told that there

[Marc Mihaly]: was an inspection for some reason, and once they come out, they look around for whatever.

[Leonora Dodge]: Right. And so, there's got to be something, maybe we can create language that is something like, this is a brand new, you've just been made aware of something that you didn't know before. Either we have a contract ahead, like when you're signing the lease, that clarifies the conditions of the property, and then you can check back later to see if that was acceptable or not.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Yes. Does that align with if the tenant somehow reported that there was some kind of a violation, and that's what triggered

[Marc Mihaly]: the Could be that. Just the Could be that. There's lots of reasons why somebody usually In Vermont, someone has to file a complaint. So it's gonna mean, I don't think Does the landlord, in your experience, have you ever asked affirmatively for a code inspection? Yes,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: but who we're more afraid of is the insurance companies.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yes, okay. This is not about them. I would ask counsel that you come up with some language in uncorrected that doesn't require that the correction be either completed or substantially in the process of completion or something to your satisfaction in the next draft. Is that Okay?

[Cameron Wood]: I would potentially propose maybe moving it, moving it from here. So there is a current section that authorizes a tenant to not pay rent due to habitability issues. And it states that your landlord fails to make repairs within a reasonable time. And so if that's what you're thinking you want to include, some reasonableness in the time frame, I would potentially just move the entire section here. Well remember, it's

[Marc Mihaly]: a defense to an ejection of an action, so it's about ejecting, it's not about habitability.

[Cameron Wood]: Right, right.

[Marc Mihaly]: It's not about withholding a rent, it's something extra.

[Cameron Wood]: Well, but it is, right, because it's saying that your withholding of rent shall not be the basis for an ejectment for nonpayment. So I would potentially add it here. So it's if the landlord fails to comply with the obligations of habitability and after notice from the tenant, government entity, qualified inspector, the landlord fails to make the repairs within a reasonable time and the noncompliance affects the health and safety, the tenant may and I would leave probably all of this the same, and I would just include something similar to say that it would be a defense against failure to pay rent or an ejectment action here, and that way I don't know that you need to specify some of this stuff to get the story.

[Marc Mihaly]: Look at

[Elizabeth Burrows]: this. I don't like reasonable time. I think it's too vague.

[Marc Mihaly]: I think you should just put, where it says uncorrected, just add something like where the uncorrected as of the date of termination or correction is underway, substantially underway, or something like that.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: In the process, not thinking about it.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, yeah, that it's substantially underway or whatever, and give it, I can see our lawyer is skeptical, so you have to come up with the language for the next draft.

[Speaker 0]: Gayle does. Know. I do.

[Marc Mihaly]: You know, Gayle just shot down just shot down his approach. I don't know. Are you used to that, counsel?

[Speaker 0]: He's still smiling.

[Cameron Wood]: I will get the You'll give it the Yes.

[Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Alright. What's next? Okay.

[Cameron Wood]: Next, we are done with the termination notice section. So we are on page 13. Okay, this is the section in the residential rental agreement chapter which is just referencing to where the ejectment case is brought. So Mr. Chair, if you mentioned in the beginning, right, we're dealing with two separate things. You have the termination period, termination notice period that exists in the residential rental agreement chapter. And then if somebody remains after the termination notice date, then you have to bring the ejectment case against the individual. So this section is referencing that. If the tenant remains in possession after the termination without the consent of the landlord, the landlord may bring the ejectment action. And this is adding in the new sub chapter that we've included later in the ejectment section, which is where we're moving to now.

[Marc Mihaly]: Okay, so everybody there, in other words, now we're changing. Paragraph was an existing law. They stay after you've terminated, then you have to bring in the check. Okay, and now we're at that action, yes. Okay, so now we're moving into Title 12, which is about court procedure.

[Cameron Wood]: This is where we've added in, or the proposal is to add in the language from June.

[Marc Mihaly]: Where are you?

[Cameron Wood]: I'm on top of page 14. So this is the section that states that when the court orders the alternate service of process be made.

[Marc Mihaly]: This is Debbie's language, right?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly]: Okay, all right.

[Cameron Wood]: So the order is in line four. The order remains in effect and applies to all subsequent service of process in the same proceeding, including post judgment proceeding. So if the court orders that you can provide service via attack order, for example, you don't have to ask for that every single time you have to serve documents. It would apply for the remainder of the visit.

[Marc Mihaly]: By the way, just so you all know, I did have a conversation with counsel again in which my idea was shot down. I was saying, why do we need attack order at all? Why do we need any order from the court? Why can't remember that section way in the beginning, what we provided what notice was? Why don't we just say that's notice, and that's enough? And he persuasively argued to me that we were buying into a whole hassle of trouble that we were going to do that, because this is civil law and civil proceedings, and it has its Now you're not just in the private relationship between the landlord and the tenant, but in the courts, and then if we mess with that, it was at our peril. So, I backed off.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Yes. Elizabeth's not here, but she brought up an interesting point about being able to serve that by someone other than the sheriff. Right.

[Speaker 0]: Right. So her whole thing, and I said, talked about it, is in her county right now, oh, and yours as well, Tom. You have a situation with their sheriff. So what happens when those types of situations, who else is able to fulfill these obligations if I assume folks in the committee know the Windsor County Sheriff situation?

[Marc Mihaly]: Yes. So,

[Speaker 0]: she raised a good point, which I thought was a good point, is what happens then?

[Marc Mihaly]: You can use other County Sheriffs.

[Leonora Dodge]: Okay. Now

[Marc Mihaly]: you can. You couldn't. You didn't use to. Last year, if you changed that.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Maybe she she didn't note that.

[Cameron Wood]: Staff. It doesn't have to be the sheriff that

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton]: Goes out and does this. It has to be somebody

[Cameron Wood]: on the staff.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton]: So there's other officers that's still functioning.

[Speaker 0]: So they they do the stuff

[Cameron Wood]: I can do this.

[Speaker 0]: Can do it under this. Right? Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. Other deputy sheriffs, whatever they're called. I don't know. What are they called? I think that's a Deputy sheriffs.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, so we're good.

[Marc Mihaly]: Thing we're all

[Cameron Wood]: Maybe not, but yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, so we're good.

[Marc Mihaly]: I was persuaded, just on this subject, Remember earlier, I don't know if you remember a conversation a while back where I was asking the sheriff, and I think I asked another test again, was, do we really need the sheriff to do this as opposed to the parties? And everybody was telling me, no, you don't want to do that. It's too It's not safe. It requires training. And so I it's the think that was doing the preventive session. Yeah, right. I was

[Cameron Wood]: just gonna say, so keep in mind that there's, the rules of civil procedure do not require a surplus from the share. The only thing that's my understanding, and let's go through the language again, the requirements of the sheriff is in regards to the writ of possession, as Dolgin just mentioned, which is required to be delivered Okay, to the so you have the authority here that when the alternate service of process is ordered it applies to the entire proceeding and then we have a cleanup this is on the bottom of page 15, regarding service of process for current ejectment actions, and this is just saying unless otherwise provided by law to cover the fact that we just authorized it in the section above. So that's just technical cleanup. Now we get into this next piece on page 15 starting on line three. Payment of rent into court. This is a current section that exists. You all have walked through it about when you're bringing the ejectment action, you as the landlord can file a motion to have payment issued into court during that process, during the ejectment case. I mentioned this a while back. Currently in this section, there are two subdivision As that exist and are technically both law. There is a slight, slight conflict, not a big conflict between them. But I'm including them both here because my ask or recommendation to you all is to take the opportunity to fix it.

[Marc Mihaly]: Is there any objection to counsel fixing this error in the statute?

[Speaker 0]: No, I vote for counsel to fix it.

[Marc Mihaly]: I would You're going to have to resolve inconsistencies.

[Cameron Wood]: Yes, so when you're looking at it, the second section is just more detailed and limits the ejectment, the references to the termination specifically. So I will go with the second sub A versus the first sub A because it is providing a little more specificity as to what ejects on superheroes. Okay. By

[Marc Mihaly]: the way, so this is 4853A, small a, not in parentheses, right?

[Cameron Wood]: It's just when we run out of room in our statutory section numbering, we go to lowercase.

[Marc Mihaly]: Because there is already a 40 three-fifty three and there's a 40 three-fifty four. Yes. I got it, okay.

[Cameron Wood]: Okay, so the next, thing to focus on for this section is the sub D at the bottom of this page, because the proposal in this amendment, which is similar to what is in six eighty eight, is to remove the ability to order partial payment into court during this process. So you as the landlord, you're going in, filing a motion. I want payment provided into court during the ejectment process. Currently, the court can order full or partial payments, and this change would remove partial and would only offer us full payment into court. Now,

[Marc Mihaly]: I'm going to summarize some testimony, but I'm going to also ask some help from people in the room. What we've done here, to few changes, is just taken the whole payment of rent into court and just put it in here, okay? So the payment into court option is here, and as you remember, under the payment into court, we've had testimony that it's an option. The landlord files, they can file it with a complaint or request for payment of rent into court, and then theoretically, the way it works is rent is paid into the court, and then if it isn't, there's a rather accelerated timeframe, the landlord is entitled to possession. If it is, then there's a trial. If whatever happens goes one way or the other, somebody, if the tenant wins, I guess the tenant gets the rent back, if the landlord wins, the landlord keeps the rent. We had testimony from a number of people, and in writing, of problems with this process. One problem is that it takes a long time to get to hearing. Right. Four to six weeks or longer. Another problem was that there tends to be, sometimes courts do not, they just choose to award some arbitrary defined number that doesn't reflect the rent, and the other concern is that very often they don't order back rent. In other words, you bring the action on January 1, well, I'm just using that, you put January 2, and that by the time the rent hearing, payment of rent into court is in March, that they'll award rent from March on, not March back. So just summarizing all that we've heard. So this here is addressing this change to eliminate or partial, is eliminating one of those issues. The question I want to ask is whether the partial is useful for negotiation purposes, will we see a big drop off in payment of rent into court, you know, what's the real thoughts on the real world implications of this? I mean, I understand the reason from the landlord's perspective, but Right.

[Speaker 0]: So, where I wanna know what the committee I see there's some head nod no over that side. What are right? You don't Me? Yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Oh, no. I

[Cameron Wood]: You are on

[Marc Mihaly]: the committee. You

[Leonora Dodge]: don't want it.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: I like the partial being out.

[Speaker 0]: You don't want the partial? Okay. Is there advocates for the partial out? I think we heard why partial is important from some people. Leonora, can you?

[Leonora Dodge]: I mean, I think that if we can help with the parental arrears and if there's an inability to pay and we're trying to shorten everything for people to get the help that they need, I could see why partial is important in that situation, right? That we're putting up more time pressure, more of a constraint on the steps.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, and I've talked to some landlords who are, again, this is anecdotally because they're not here to testify, but are comfortable with that. It's not. Okay, so it's

[Leonora Dodge]: And we're leaving the court We are leaving it up to the court to say full or partial.

[Speaker 0]: Right.

[Leonora Dodge]: I mean, that's the way it's been.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. I Which is why it isn't used a lot, apparently. It's one of the reasons that landlords elect not to use just one.

[Speaker 0]: I'm comfortable with it, but

[Cameron Wood]: Which way? Partial.

[Marc Mihaly]: Partial. Or full or part,

[Leonora Dodge]: I mean, in the way that I think that's not the biggest Okay, go on. Don't see that as a huge impediment for somebody who's already

[Speaker 0]: And like I said, I have consulted with people who are okay with that too, but beyond the landlord side.

[Marc Mihaly]: On the landlord side,

[Elizabeth Burrows]: yes. I think if it's only full and not partial, then I mean, partial is better than zero. So I'm very comfortable with partial.

[Marc Mihaly]: Is what happens, counsel, I'm wondering, if the landlord ultimately wins, do they get the rent that's paid into court? They can ask for it during the proceeding. During the proceeding. If they win, they, am I right, they get possession, they also theoretically get back rent, but in fact, all of the tenants are judgment proof, and so they don't get the back rent. Is that right?

[Cameron Wood]: I think that's a good assumption.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, okay. So, any payment into court is a plus if the landlord wishes to use it. I think the sense of the group at the moment is to leave it in. I'm going to put a circle around this. Okay?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. The majority sense. No. I'm just gonna still I'm gonna remember,

[Marc Mihaly]: we are just redrafting. Okay. Alright.

[Speaker 0]: But there's a star for continued discussion.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. Okay. So then when you get

[Cameron Wood]: to the top, page 16, a subsection G, it goes along with the same discussion we were just having because this subsection authorizes the tenant to file their own motion to reduce the amount that's asked. So if you're going to remove partial, then you should remove the subsection G at the same time, they go hand in hand. Right.

[Marc Mihaly]: So if we leave it in, we leave it in, right?

[Leonora Dodge]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly]: Okay, all right.

[Cameron Wood]: Okay, so now we're moving to the next section, which is 48.54A. This is about property of the tenant remaining eviction. If you all recall, this was the discussion that we were having about the landlord has issued the writ. It's served by the sheriff, and then not earlier than fourteen days after it's served, the sheriff can come back and remove the individual from the property. And then what does the landlord do with the property after they're put into possession? And they have to maintain it for another fifteen days according to the statute. And so the proposal in this amendment, based on the discussion you all had, was to go with the 14 plus zero option. So when the landlord is put into possession of that property, at

[Marc Mihaly]: that point, they can immediately dispose of the property without there being any liability for it. So what's really happening here is that counsel is redrafting the law to clarify that the Leonora Dodge interpretation of the prior law and the sheriff's interpretation of the prior law was correct, despite the fact that counsel and I disagreed. Right?

[Cameron Wood]: Technically, I didn't change any of the language that people seem to find confusing. I just change it to immediately. So it's just

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, okay. When they Right, you took the fifteen days out. Right,

[Cameron Wood]: so it's

[Marc Mihaly]: just when the landlord gets So all teasing aside, so the evidence that we have heard from a number of parties has clarified that this is in fact the current interpretation of the law, which is that a landlord is entitled to possession of the possessions immediately upon being put into legal possession of the unit. I mean physical possession.

[Leonora Dodge]: I thought the confusion was like, what is the difference between the judgment being made when tenant is informed that the judgment has been made and now you must vacate.

[Marc Mihaly]: Right, it was physical possession, is later and all of that, and that's all taken care of by the ambiguity, it's gone.

[Cameron Wood]: So what I could do is

[Leonora Dodge]: So after it's served.

[Cameron Wood]: Okay, good. So what I can do to try to further clarify this is remove that language that I on And just it would just be immediately upon being legally restored to possession of the dwelling, and then I would also strike whichever is later.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, whichever is later, I think you should. I think it should be, all we're saying is the current interpretation of the law, I'm going to restate it one more time, Current interpretation of the law as interpreted by a number of our witnesses was whatever it said, it was interpreted that the sheriff the writ issues from the court. The sheriff serves it. Fourteen days at least after the sheriff serves the writ, at that point, the sheriff goes into the apartment and removes the tenant if the tenant has not removed themselves. The next day, that's called the landlord being legally restored to possession. It's not the writ issued by the court, it's not the service, it's when the landlord is legally restored possession, I could say physically, but whatever. Then the next day, the landlord can remove the possessions. That is the current law. Right. Right? Is that right? No. What do you think? Didn't we hear testimony from the sheriff, etcetera, that that is in? Didn't we decide 15 plus zero?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Right. Not immediate. Fourteen.

[Marc Mihaly]: Well, it's the end and close of business on the fourteenth day. You want to say the next day?

[Cameron Wood]: There's the separate section, not in this bill because you're not amended, which says that the sheriff serves the paper, the writ, and then not earlier than fourteen days comes So there is a maximum of a fourteen day period. That's not a guarantee. The sheriff could serve the paper, and the Senate says, okay, they leave.

[Speaker 0]: But no more than. No more than.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, well, and the sheriff can wait twenty days. That's their prerogative.

[Cameron Wood]: Right.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: In So essence they have fourteen days to remove a minimum of fourteen days

[Marc Mihaly]: from being served.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Under current law

[Cameron Wood]: this change would be a saying at that point after that fourteen days when the sheriff comes back and physically secures the property against that individual, the landlord can dispose of that property immediately thereafter.

[Marc Mihaly]: Debbie, you look Well, I thought it was I almost a barn

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: just saw the barn If it's a writ of possession for nonpayment of rent, it's seven days.

[Marc Mihaly]: It's seven days for nonpayment of rent when it's in the court, payment of rent into the court. There is the separate It's not nonpayment of rent. It's if you use that court payment of rent into court, and they don't pay the rent, it's seven days. We don't want to change any of that. No. We just want to say, whenever it is that you are put into possession, then bam, the next day, you can take the stuff.

[Speaker 0]: And you don't like that, Debbie?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Oh, I'd like the shorter time.

[Speaker 0]: I think this is reasonable, though.

[Marc Mihaly]: I think what she wants is, we went through before, well, we discussed it before, it doesn't mean we can't discuss it again. That doesn't have to do with when the landlord is entitled to. This section just says, whenever it is the landlord gets possession, then they're entitled to get rid of the properties. Okay. The other issue, which Debbie is alluding to, is, well, how much time from the time that the writ is served should the tenant have to get their stuff out and move? Debbie is saying she would prefer shorter, and I think we had the discussion once, and we decided to leave it at fourteen days as reasonable.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I am still advocating personally for that.

[Marc Mihaly]: The theory was that tenants need time to get their stuff out and move. Debbie's theory was seven days is enough.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: They they haven't. They know what's coming. I mean, they're going through this whole process. So it's There's time built in.

[Speaker 0]: Agree, disagree.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, no, that's okay.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: I just want to have one more discussion. Now? But if somebody is working,

[Marc Mihaly]: that's

[Elizabeth Burrows]: not a whole lot of time for them to get their stuff out, and where are they gonna put it?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: You know, they have to How many days? I mean, how much time?

[Speaker 0]: No. Fourteen.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Fourteen is I think fourteen is

[Speaker 0]: Is that a deal breaker for you for the bill?

[Marc Mihaly]: She hasn't decided.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I'm putting her on the spot.

[Marc Mihaly]: Oh, go ahead. If she

[Speaker 0]: can

[Marc Mihaly]: say if she hasn't decided.

[Speaker 0]: The overarching goal, we're trying to find compromise where everyone gives a little bit. If this is, like, the one that is, like, the you know, I know that we're all sent to do what we believe in and want the most, you know, like, of course, your perspective, like, can you live with that or you don't know yet on this provision?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: I'm just trying to bring balance to the tenant pendulum laws.

[Speaker 0]: Right. So this seems like a reasonable balance. I think if you were to ask a tenant advocate, they might think this wasn't good enough. Right? So I think that the consensus of a lot of folks on the committee was this was the balance, was this fourteen days. You, I get, would like it to be less. But I think others on the committee think this is if I was fighting for what I personally wanted, it might look different than that, but I'm here to find the balances. So that's why I'm okay with the fourteen.

[Marc Mihaly]: The question, I think, I don't want to put anyone too much on. Don't mind. Just feel like people have to decide that in the next day or two. Where

[Leonora Dodge]: their hard lines

[Speaker 0]: are in the balance. Right? We all are going to be I think we're all giving here in this bill, which has been amazing that everyone has really come together to do that. But everyone will have their hard lines of what is and isn't, and if this one is one of yours, I would write that down.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, I mean, think what I'm gonna do, just to clarify, we're about to break for lunch. Right after lunch, we're gonna keep this process on and we'll finish. Are you out? What's your

[Speaker 0]: I don't know. I

[Cameron Wood]: have to be in Ways and Means for an hour between 01:15 and 02:15.

[Marc Mihaly]: Okay. 07:57 fifty seven. Okay. I can

[Cameron Wood]: be back

[Marc Mihaly]: there at five.

[Speaker 0]: What are we going to do without you? Oh yeah, we could have

[Marc Mihaly]: especially Right.

[Cameron Wood]: Tell you what, how

[Marc Mihaly]: would people feel if we just keep going for another thirty minutes? Right now. Come back later. Oh, he can't.

[Leonora Dodge]: Without I'm starved. Without Cam or so.

[Marc Mihaly]: No. Do you have to go now?

[Leonora Dodge]: Well, we need to give Cam the test for lunch.

[Speaker 0]: Says food. I have to pick up a sandwich.

[Marc Mihaly]: I mean, can

[Leonora Dodge]: I just make sure, on this, I thought that this represented a compromise because previously the language or the other section where this is spelled out, it looked like it was twenty nine days? And so this is a clarification to bring it all the way from '29 to fourteen. Right. Right. And so just wanted to lay that out. We're compromising. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly]: We're gonna leave this part of the draft as is. Just store it. Yeah. But

[Cameron Wood]: let's If

[Marc Mihaly]: If you you wanna know alright. It's 12:00. One wait a minute. Don't go yet. Damn it. Jesus. We're still alive. We're scheduled to meet at 01:00. Can meet with our camera, Cameron when are you available? 02:15. 02:15. Or

[Cameron Wood]: sooner, 02:15. Will hard stop at 02:15 in ways and means and

[Marc Mihaly]: then come back. It might be sooner if you are available.

[Cameron Wood]: Yes,

[Marc Mihaly]: sir. Why don't we just say then, I mean, I do think we have to finish the bill, And so what? Before I decide what

[Speaker 0]: Oh, you were gonna I was gonna decide what if we, at that point, had a committee discussion without Cameron, how folks are feeling. We can

[Marc Mihaly]: do that. Why don't we reconvene here at 01:15? Yeah. We'll have a committee discussion. We have an hour to talk. I'll tell you what I wanna do. I wanna get us to the point tomorrow, Thursday, I want to have kind of a sense of how people feel. I want people to say, okay, I may not love this, but I can't. I just want to know, and then we can have a straw poll, or we can just get a sense of the body, and then tomorrow I'd like to have a committee vote.

[Leonora Dodge]: And to get there we have to go through, we have to keep it.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yeah, we have to keep working through it, but we can have discussions. So why don't we meet at 01:15, have a discussion, we'll have a break, then we'll have council continue. Is that alright?

[Speaker 0]: That sounds perfect. Okay.