Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Judiciary committee this Wednesday morning, March eighteenth. And we're continuing our work on h seven seven two. I do have given testimony yesterday. I I do have a an updated version that addresses some of the things that we heard. And we will have testimony if folks haven't had a chance to look at this. And I understand if you haven't and can't comment on that. You can provide written testimony later today, if you wish. But I think it follows from some of the testimony we had yesterday. And with that, I will turn it over to Cameron to walk through, because I understand you have to be over by ten. Is that right? Yes, sir.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll let them know. Might be a few minutes late if you have any questions. But pretty short list of changes, so I should be able to get through relatively quickly. For the record, Cameron Wood, office of legislative council. I'm gonna walk through a draft 4.1 of an amendment from the chair currently drafted, and the changes that are here are highlighted in yellow. So you should be able to find them relatively quickly. So as mentioned, we have a draft 4.1 of a proposed amendment to the report of the committee on general and housing. The first change is gonna be here on page three. I'm gonna back up a second, page two. And there's been discussion about process of requesting rent to be paid into court and whether or not that has to be full or partial. And if you all recall, the amendments to date have been removing the partial and requiring full rent paid into court. So that remains the same here on the subsection d of this section. Court has to order full payments. However, this amendment would unstrike subsection g. It was struck in the report from the general housing committee and in the previous iterations of this amendment. So this subsection g would allow a tenant to file a motion requesting a reduction of the total amount into court. When the amendment is adding language here to state that the court may reduce the amount ordered to be paid into court under this section upon a finding that the tenant is financially unable to pay the full amount without undue hardship, or the landlord is failing to comply with the landlord's obligations for habitability or other requirements imposed by nine BSA chapter one thirty seven, which is the chapter of the residential rental agreements governing the landlord tenant relationship. So authorizing the court to do that reduction, but the court needing to make a finding that it is because of a financial hardship of the tenant or because the as as you heard testimony, you know, landlords continued failure to comply with, you know, habitability issues in the unit. So okay. On to the next amendment is gonna be on page five. And this is just adding in this is for the new subchapter, so the new ejectment process. The landlord is bringing an ejectment because of nonpayment of rent or breach of the material terms of the agreements. And this is just adding in that the complaint shall include a copy of the rent ledger if it's available. Small change there. The rent ledger? You may have

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: been guessed, but They're ledger of

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the tenant's payments of of the rent over the life,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: yeah, over the life. I didn't know if maybe there was some kind of snuck in there for

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not a defined term. No. So And so then the next change is gonna be on the kinda bottom of page five or top of page six. I highlighted the subsection b here simply because I wanted to point out that something was removed. If you all remember in this, there was a sub b about the tenant being able to cure for nonpayment of rent, but the cure had to happen by the answer date, and there was some concern about that and about the potential conflict with another section in that chapter. So that has simply been removed. So at that point, you know, the parties can come to a settlement. There can be a cure throughout the life of the of the ejectment action that's brought. So just a a deletion there. The next change is gonna be on the bottom of page seven where I added in this kinda coincides with the change that was made yesterday. So this is for the expedited hearing, the section under four eight six five for threatening behavior. If there's an expedited hearing because of that threatening behavior, and if you all recall from yesterday here on page six, line 16, you added in the defendant's continued occupation of the land or tenements is threatening the health or safety. That's why we have the expedited process here. It can't be some you can bring the the termination of the rental agreement because of some act that was threatening. But if you're gonna seek this expedited hearing, then there needs to be kind of an ongoing threat to to these individuals. And so there's just adding that same language there on the subdivision too if there's a default because the the tenant failed to file an answer or failed to participate in the hearing. The real substantive change is gonna be on page eight, where in this new subsection f again, this whole section is mirroring the current process for an expedited hearing because of an unlawful occupant. And in that section, there is language that is if the judge or the court issues the writ of possession, before the writ of possession has been executed, the defendant can come in if they didn't participate. So there's a default judgment. The the defendant can come in at that point with a motion or with signed affidavits and request, a new trial essentially at that point under rules 59 or 60 stating that, you know, they're not a threat to the other individuals at that point. So it's just it's it's mirroring the language to allow that opportunity for the defendant to come in if they weren't able to participate earlier in the process to file that motion at that point in time. And the next change is going to be just some cleanup based on the conversations that you had yesterday. It's gonna be on pages 11 and, I believe, eleven and twelve. So this is regarding the sealing of the ejectment records and simply move some language from a to b to make sure that, you know, it's kind of clear here what the effect of the order is. So there's no real substantive change in in the language, but the effect of the order for sealing would be that the the ejectment action hadn't been filed. Again, keeping in mind that if the plaintiff or the landlord gets the writ of possession, then the records are not sealed. So they would still remain open.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Does does somebody have to, I guess, petition the court to have those records sealed,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is it automatic? The language here is it would be automatic. It is the court issuing an order at the conclusion of the case if it hasn't been appealed. If the case does not result in a writ of possession for the landlord, then it gets sealed.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I I think we need some conversation around automatic sealing because we've had those conversations around criminal issues with automatic sealing, and we didn't do it because we didn't think it was proper for automatic sealing. Yeah, which yeah, go ahead, Zachary. No, was just I don't see why it wouldn't translate to your house or somebody did. I mean, if somebody has an egregious record and they're just getting things sealed and, you know, and moving out, you know, the problem on to the next landlord, I mean, that's not fair to the landlord.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I will say, policy decision for you

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: all No, no, I realize. Right.

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: I will say the language that you have here, though, is if the landlord receives the writ of possession so the court has determined that you, tenants, do not have or shouldn't have lawful possession of

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the premises and the landlord should have possession, so they issue that writ, then the records would not be sealed. So it would only be sealed in a situation where the parties have come to some sort of stipulated agreement, and therefore, the writ doesn't have to be issued, or in a situation where the court fines for the defendant, the tenant in that case. And at any point, if the case goes all the way to conclusion and the court determines that the landlord has right to possess the property, then issues that writ, then it would not be sealed. But the question of whether the court should be doing that on its own or whether the individual defendant should have to file a motion for that policy decision?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. What's going through my mind is if I'm the landlord and I can just get rid of this, you know, this person and and and get rid of my problem, I'm gonna do what I need to do to do that, and it would still potentially I know prophecy. Still potentially just pass it on to the next

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: person. So the change that you have there, talked about on the the a and the b. The other last change is gonna be on the bottom of page 12, which was some cleanup language to make it consistent that you all requested there on this section. On lines 14, it talks about any litigation or claim. So we've simply mirrored that language there on line seventeen and eighteen that was pointed out yesterday. And and those are the changes, miss Scrap will point.

[Speaker 0]: Hello, sir?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So we have two questions. One is part that got changed on page seven. Does this address the issue that the debate raised yesterday about if the defendant isn't the one who is causing the threat, like domestic violence situation, that it not be it's not the defendant themselves. No. Like, this wasn't going to change that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right? This amendment would not change that or would not address that circumstance. No

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: person would have to go and make the case that it's not me. It's my ex boyfriend. And I'm just I'm pulling up the I'm looking at the underlying bill

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because I wanna get to the section in particular regarding termination. So the the underlying termination language as it was proposed by the house general committee so let me just pull that up for you all so we can we can look at it together. So this is that provision. This is the b two where you're terminating the rental agreement because of some sort of violent activity or something that's threatening other individuals. Keep in mind, this would be the this would be the the base of the ejectment action that's later brought. So it just says when termination is based on acts of violence, damage to the dwelling unit, or other activity, any of which threatens the health or safety of other residents, It it doesn't say that the acts of violence or damage are from the tenant. So one could argue that you could terminate a rental agreement because of your the tenant's invitees What doing acts of

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: about

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: the non invitees? I get it for the invitees, but it's the non invitees.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm trying to be sensitive and careful with my words. If it is a domestic violence type situation, I'm not implying that the individual victim is inviting that. I'm just saying that if it's there, if the person is there because they have allowed the person to be there, they're invitee in that sense. And I understand there could be many circumstances where the individual is being hostage to someone else.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And in that case, they might be able to get restraint of relief and reviews. But we also got the example of ICE, and somebody can't say they can keep ICE away.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I would I mean, if I were a court And I can't guarantee you outcomes here. So so I would potentially pose that type of question to to the judge who who may have more experience with his colleagues about how they would rule on something. But, you know, I don't see how one can make an argument that the possibility of ICE doing a raid on a property is somehow a threat to other individuals. I mean, that's a that's a a police action that, you know, the the police is making, and I I see the news as you all do. I'm I'm not trying to to make light of that, but I just would find it a hard argument to make that this individual is living here, and the landlord is gonna claim that there's a possibility of an an ICE raid that would somehow threaten the health of other individuals. I just I don't know. I don't know. I don't see a court looking on that favorably and saying that's a justifiable reason that satisfies this b two. But but, again, that's where I would I would potentially defer a question like that to the judge who who is in a better position to answer that. Going back to the the circumstances that we were talking about with a domestic violence type situation, there is some there's a separate chapter in the residential rental a separate subchapter in the residential rental agreement chapter that does outline circumstances where a tenant can have a landlord change locks or change the locks themselves, etcetera, to try to address those those domestic situations. So but, ultimately, could a landlord move forward with a termination of a rental agreement based on a circumstance like that where someone who is, let's say, lawfully in the unit becomes violent and it's not the tenant. And

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I think it's possible. Is there need to be it's gonna be a policy decision. The landlord will first attempt to do a no trespass order for a non resident so that this does not become the path of least resistance.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you could. You could add something in here to say, and I know there was some testimony that was provided by the network to the House General Committee about this concern or a similar concern, wanting to potentially alter some definitions or make some changes in the law to ensure that an individual and I don't wanna speak for them, but my recollection of some of their written testimony to ensure that an individual in a in a domestic violence situation had opportunities to remain in the units. And so I think you could try to address it a few ways. You could specifically, potentially take some of the recommendation from the network and mirroring some protections that exist under federal law, or you could, as was just mentioned, you could add in that before a landlord moved to terminate a rental agreement under two a, if it was because of a domestic violence situation. The landlord has to provide a no trespass order to the individual who is perpetuating the violence before terminating the rental agreement. You could add something in that would require the trespass order to be put in place. And then if the tenant continued to allow the individual to come back onto the property, then the landlord could move forward. You could potentially add something into to that effect. And they're considering that across the hall is my understanding. Because there's an amendment in place.

[Speaker 0]: That's right. So we know look at that.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I'm trying

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to I'm careful with what I disclose in that. Yes. Yes. My understanding is individuals in that committee are discussing the possibility to of look adding an amendment to address some of the concerns that were raised by the network. Yes.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I just Okay. My second issue is on page three. It's in section where step two. Yes. So if a landlord is trying to evict because someone didn't pay rent, and it's because the housing is not up to a code. Is this just sort of belts and suspenders language to make sure that we know that?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. As we discussed yesterday, a tenant has the remedy of nonpayment of rent if there are certain habitability issues with the unit. And what can happen is there may be a disagreement between the parties as to whether or not habitability issue rises to that level. And so you could have a landlord bringing the ejectment action for nonpayment of rent. And you all heard some testimony about there could be multiple reasons why a court reduces the amount that needs to be paid into court. Could be because the individual can't afford it. It could be because there is some sort of issue regarding the unit, and that doesn't justify full payment of court at that point. So this was just keeping in place the ability of the court to reduce the the payment into rent from full to a partial, but wanting to put some parameters around when are the circumstances that a court could do that. So a court can only do it in these limited things. You can't just do it because the court feels like it or because the motion was requested. I'm not saying the courts are doing that. But and and mister chair, you could speak to this as well. That's my understanding of what this is intended to be.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I'm wondering if it needs to say the court may eliminate or reduce the amount owed because if it's sub two, it may be that the tenant doesn't owe any rent until it's fixed. I just worry that without eliminate or reduce.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think there's anything that would prohibit the court from saying nothing is owed based on this language. But I also don't think there would be any harm in adding that in if you wanted to, to be very clear that there's a possibility of the court ordering no rent paid. I wouldn't have any legal concerns with adding that. And again, I know you have Zonate here with you, and he may have an opinion on that. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So, yeah, judge Zona is coming back a little bit, Brian. He had something else at the end, but go ahead, Tom. Yeah. Hypothetical,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm tenant. My landlord has a, you know, a lease agreement. And, you know, the lease agreement is it's pretty strict, say, you know, it says you don't pay, you're out that that one say, one day that says, you know, that the landlord can make the determination on on danger, you know, whatever danger is, and I agree to that. Or the landlord can say what they may think is a a health concern, and I agree to that. Does state law trump that?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You can't So the contract basically hasn't worked the paper. I respond this way.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are certain obligations imposed by the residential rental agreement chapter that you cannot negotiate away. So in part of the discussion there, the landlord can't negotiate away their obligation to provide habitable environment. Right? So you wouldn't be able to negotiate you know, you have to provide heat and water and things like that. You wouldn't be able to negotiate that out. There's another section that says that rent is due on the landlord isn't obligated to demand rent when it's due. It's due when it's due, and the landlord's not obligated to demand it. Is it kind of similar to state law dealing with federal law, where

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: you can't go less than what federal law is kind

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of I would say that. I mean, you can the the landlord can put in certain terms of the agreement that have to be abided by, that have that that are not outlined in state law at all. You know? You see frequently things like, you know, no smoking on the property, or you can't sublease the property. You know? The the statute contemplates you authorizing someone to sublease, but it's not required. And the landlord can mandate that you not sublease, or the landlord can mandate that you not allow other individuals to live with you on the property. So the contract itself or the rental agreement itself can go beyond what's contemplated in the statute. There are certain things that can't be negotiated out. And then just to the rent piece, would say rent is due when it's due in the contracts. And if it's not paid at that time, there's no requirement that there be a grace period. And if a landlord chose to move forward with a termination based on a nonpayment of rents the day after it was due, the landlord could do that.

[Speaker 0]: Hi. Well, we need to get to Angela if you can't remember everybody has until quarter after, and we can certainly get her back in later this morning if she has more to say. But let's jump over to Angela to at least get some preliminaries. Or if we can get it all done in fifteen minutes, that's great too. But over to you Angela. Thank you. I will shake it back. Yeah, sorry. Great.

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: Thank you. Thank you very much, members of the committee. Again, my name is Angela Zykowski, and I'm the director of the Vermont Landlords Association. I wanna be clear for this committee that we oppose the changes that were included in draft three point one and four point one. These latest versions of this house amendment is an erosion of the process that that was the underlying purpose of age seven seventy two. So we have seen a situation where the answer period has been pushed from fourteen days, which was the original proposal now to twenty one days. We've seen a hearing date timing that has been pushed from sixty days to ninety days. And this is just sort of the court process piece of this. So the timings that this original bill had created was intended to fix a problem, that has become very apparent, within the landlord tenant community. It impacts other residents, it impacts neighbors, it impacts housing providers. And there was a balance that was struck when looking at these processes. There were protections put in place, there was due process, but did it speed up our exist from our current existing process? Yes, it did. And in fact, even earlier drafts had an even quicker process than what came out of House, House General. So I want to be clear with all of the testimony that I have heard, the judiciary has not indicated that they cannot work within the timing that was presented in this bill. But what they have indicated is that it means that they would have to prioritize these particular cases over perhaps other civil cases. So currently, what appears to be the message from this committee to tenants and neighbors living in these situations where there's sort of egregious behavior, dangerous behavior, and also to housing providers is that this isn't a priority. And that the policy decision is that we're going to continue to push this and relief should be delayed further. And the reason why I say this is that there was a balance within this bill that housing providers were on board with. There were some things that we liked, there were some things that we didn't like, but what was passed out of House General was a balance. And that balance came from discussions between stakeholders, myself, Vermont Legal Aid, legislative members. I was involved in a number of meetings and conversations between all of these folks leading up to the legislative session this year. So if you've heard from folks that they didn't have an opportunity, that they that there were not discussions and that these things weren't considered, I'm here to tell you apparently they don't remember the meetings that we all sat through because there were a number of them. And in fact, many of the provisions in H772 were asked and requests by Vermont legal aid. That is again that balancing. There were things that benefited housing providers. There were things that benefited the tenant community. The current amendments that are being proposed in this committee to extend process, the timing of the process, to change how the rent escrow works, and this new ceiling process are all getting to the point where the benefits are not outweighing the other sections of the bill. And so that balance and that compromise and the proposal that came out of the committee of jurisdiction is now being shifted. And it's being shifted to the point where my organization is not going to be able to support this bill, because too many changes have been made. So, getting into sort of more specifics. Unfortunately, the inability to pay rent is one of the fundamental reasons why I see tenants being evicted for non payment of rent. So, to include into the rent escrow process that a court can order less money paid into court because a tenant doesn't have the ability to pay, runs completely afoul of the entire rent escrow process. Those changes that are being proposed were things that have not been discussed or presented previously throughout the course of this bill's lifespan and even predating the creation of this bill. And I have some very serious concerns about those changes in the rent escrow process undermining the entire spirit and intent of that statute section, along with the new provisions for automatic sealing of court records. Currently, the only criteria to ensure that an eviction case is not sealed is the issuance of a writ of possession by the court. So what happens in a case where there's egregious violations of the lease that a landlord has brought? The tenant gets served with the court papers and then vacates the rental unit. Under this proposal, that case would be sealed. Not because there wasn't a determination that the tenant had those violations, but simply because the court did not issue a writ of possession. The original bill that came over, July, allowed for confidentiality to be lifted in cases of non payment of rent and breach of lease where a judgment order had issued. So it was tied to a judgment order. It was tied to the landlord seeking completion of that case. So it wouldn't apply if a landlord filed a case, the tenant moved, and then they dismissed the case. That happens sometimes. But here, if you're tying this to an issuance of a writ of possession, you are going to apply the ceiling standard to a huge number of cases that it may not be appropriate for it to be applied to. Because not every case ends with a writ of possession being issued. If you're considering having ceiling provisions for these types of cases, I would encourage you to have a set of standards that a person could petition the court to justify why their particular case should be sealed. Or in the alternative, have the ceiling apply to non non payment of rent cases and non breach of lease cases. So, those would be cases that are for no cause or have to do with sale of building. So things where there's no allegation that the tenant has done any sort of wrong or violated the lease in any way. I do want to get back to the comments that I made last week regarding draft 2.1, where I indicated the committee had done great work and had cleared up some of the procedural, issues that perhaps seven seventy two had made the process clear. I still stand by those comments. Draft 2.1 solved a lot of the issues, that folks were raising in this committee about the process. And those amendments were positive and kept the spirit and underlying balance of that bill intact. So, three point one and four point one continue to roll back the original purpose of this bill and has put me in a position of no longer being able to support the work, the hard work that has gone into by a number of advocates and persons who deal with this every day. Balance that House General struck with seven seventy two was one that took into consideration competing interests and the needs of both sides and both parties. And the reason for this bill is that providing rental housing in Vermont right now has become too difficult, and it has become too expensive. And our processes here in Vermont are a complete outlier when we compare them to other states in our region and nationally. And without changes to our status quo, we further risk the underinvestment in new rental housing, and we risk additional departures from the rental market by housing providers. And we continue to provide situations where tenants who don't have the ability to vacate in a building that is having challenges are stuck, and they're stuck for further, for longer and longer periods of time. And so I think all of us are asking for relief from this situation, and July had struck that balance, taking into account the competing needs and interests of all parties involved. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: I guess the only thing I'd push back a little bit, and I understand where you're coming from, is that a critical party that was not sufficiently involved was the court. We're in there significantly changing the court's process, And they came in very late in the process is my understanding. And what we've been trying to do on here is really focused on the court process. 2.1, we hadn't had the full input from the court, and they explained how we would have to be making choices of letting the rest of the docket wait and get further behind or have significant additional resources. So that's why some of these changes are in three point one and four point one. I definitely understand what you're coming from on the ceiling. I think that definitely needs work and maybe it's not gonna be able to be part of this, but those other provisions, that's what we've been looking at. And I think that's what was missing across the hall is is really understanding the impact to to the judiciary. Just to just to know where we came from

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: and why we got the opportunity.

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: Sure. And and I think the challenges is that we don't have a good sense of how many cases we're actually talking about here. Right? So we're all we're all guessing, at this point. I I don't think that it's gonna be a floodgate as many folks have have indicated. But I think what I was hearing again from the judiciary is not that they can't, but that they would have to reprioritize. And I think that's a policy decision for this committee, right? You you can tell the court, we want you to reprioritize this type of case.

[Speaker 0]: And I think this does that. It still does do that. But it it gives some wiggle room, and it focuses more on the issue of, tenants who are causing health and, you know, threats to health and safety, and trying to expedite that as much as possible. Yeah, I understand where you're coming from on this. I just wanted you to understand kind of why this is moving this way. Zach, go ahead.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thanks, Chair. Angela, I really appreciate the testimony. And namely because I share a lot of the concerns that you've raised. Because I think a lot of us were looking at earlier versions of the bill as it came out of housing in general, and probably could have found a way to supporting it. And I certainly am only speaking for myself and other members of the committee, but the bill in its current form is not something that I could support. And I kind of wanna give voice to some of the concerns and maybe kind of dial in specifically. Is it your fear and your testimony that with the changes made in three point one and four point one, that this not only could enable bad behavior of tenants, but it could actually incentivize bad behavior?

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: Think that's certainly a risk. I think one of my concerns is July, when taken as a whole, was palatable. So there were some things that were beneficial to housing providers. There were some provisions in July that weren't that beneficial to housing providers. But when you took it as a whole, you're like, there's balance here, you know, we can take the good with the bad. As we've seen this shift with three point one and four point one, that benefit that was sort of outweighing those not positive provisions of seven seventy two are now no longer there. So, the incentives and the benefits that were coming as a part of a sort of compromise bill and, you know, a bill that some folks get what they want, little bit of here and a little bit of there, is less and leaving. And so the pieces that made those other provisions palatable are now less. And so when taken as a whole, the bill just becomes, something that we cannot agree to.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. No, I hear you and I share those concerns certainly. The word compromise has come up in this committee quite a bit in recent days, and I share your frustrations with really the lost art of compromise. And I hope that your concerns are being heard and that maybe there could be modifications made certainly around the ceiling with the chair and the people that are responsible for the language of the legislation as is currently drafted. If not, I would happily work with you and the cohort of people that supported the original bill as passed out of housing, and we could come up with maybe amendment language.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: So

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: that's just my promise to you is that your concerns are heard and they're shared, and we can hopefully find a path forward for those of us that can find a way to support the bill on the House floor.

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Anything else, Angela?

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: I I don't have anything, to add. I'm certainly always happy to participate and provide comments.

[Speaker 0]: I appreciate it. Thank you

[Angela ZiKowski (Director, Vermont Landlords Association)]: for your

[Speaker 0]: Okay, we'll go to Chris Donnelly because I don't think we have Judge Silva yet. Ready and willing to I'm

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: ready. I'm not sure how willing I am.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Sorry.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Chris Donnelly of the Champlain Housing Trust. Thanks for having me back in. And as a reminder, I'm here really representing not just the Champlain Housing Trust but nonprofits around the state. I manage about 8,300 apartments. I've, through the course of this bill, reached out to both landlords, advocates and tenant advocates, and I've found that we sit kind of in the middle. And it's not a comfortable place to be all the time. And we're not perfect, but we operate much as the tenant advocates really want to see. We don't move people out at the end of their lease if they're paying the rent and by the terms. Have rent utilization in our properties. So we don't similar to rent control, we provide a lot of services to our tenants as well. At the same time, we need to protect our tenants, and we agree with a lot of what the landlord's testimony has said. We need to make sure that rents are paid and people are safe in the properties. So I'm coming to you kind of in that regard, like literally right in the middle. I think this is a bill, and I appreciate some of the changes in the last few drafts of the amendment that helped the court manage a workload that I think has been underfunded. Counsel yesterday talked about ninety days being an expedited process.

[Speaker 0]: I think

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: that's a strange construct to me, but I appreciate the fact that you're moving in that direction, Duke. But but I appreciate some of the the court's concerns. Our motivation in this bill from day one was to protect tenants, and I think the bill does that in a lot of different ways. First thing that's really motivating us is to protect the tenants that are at risk of threatening and violent behavior in our properties. We serve lots of vulnerable populations, many of them with disabilities. And those are the tenants that we're looking to protect. And that's the faster, really expedited eviction process when there's a threat to health and safety. That's our number one priority. That's addressed in the amendment. When there's an unwelcome guest, and I think representative Rachelson brought this up earlier, we need that no trespass order. We need to be able to get to the person that's causing the havoc, and we need to be able to have another tool to move people along. So the no trespass order provisions in the bill are really important to us. I don't think there's a constitutional right there. That's a policy choice that you guys make. We also believe that tenants shouldn't be subject to multiple rent increases per year. We think that's a great protection for tenants, that they know what the rent's gonna be for the year and that they shouldn't be asked to pay more than a couple months deposit. So, I think there's some good tenant financial protections in here. And I think we're not going to get to what I think is

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: A tenant should be subject to rate increases and different things multiple times a year, but a landlord should absorb all this stuff that's being thrown at them with all these new laws and changes and and rising costs and taxes and all this stuff. I mean, that's

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: We'll make an adjustment once a year. I think that's I think it's

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: What happens if they have there's different different adjustments that come during the time. I mean I mean, you you you run a big housing complex. Mhmm. I mean, you take somebody that's that's that's small middle time. I mean, I mean, everybody's worried about a a tenant that can't pay pay their their monthly bill. What about a landlord that can't pay theirs because the tenants aren't paying? What happens if the tenant the tenant from what I'm saying, which I've always had a problem with landlord tenant stuff. But the tenant is protected, the landlord isn't. If landlord, is there compensation out there? Is there some fund? Is there something out there for a landlord that says, Oh, I'm gonna get special funding from here so I can make my monthly payment to the financial institution or pay my quarterly taxes and my insurance. And we all know insurance is going out of the roof with this stuff. And then the damage that can be done, you might see some damage that is being done with a with a tenant that that you can actually see, but the the stuff that goes behind, like seepage of not taking your rubbish out and it goes through the floors and all that stuff that costs, something that you think is gonna cost $50 and it's gonna cost you 5,000. What about those rights with a tenant, with the landlord?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I hear you. The bill, as many have talked about, has been one of finding balance. This was one of the pieces that came up from the House General that was attempting to find that balance between landlord and tenant interests. That balance, I think, allows for an increase per year. It did not set how high that increase would be. Some of the original draft said you can only raise the rent this much and those were taken out. So it does not restrict the level of amount, but it just restricts the timing of it. I hear you. So I've been

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: in this building for eight and a half years. I've been trying to find out balance. I hope you're better at it than I am.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I've I've been coming to this building for twenty years. I it's hard. Oh, it's working. It's yeah. One of the things that I wanted to also talk about, found that balance in that House General bill is something that I don't think has seen a lot of attention. But at the end of a lease period, the current law sits thirty to sixty days notice, depending on your situation. And this extends that protection for tenants to ninety days. And then offers a path if the apartment has been taken care of to get some of the security deposit back because we know in this market, it is really hard to find an apartment and also it's hard to find one you can afford and put down first and last in security. So I think there is some important tenant protection to this bill even as we move move faster to make sure that we can move people out if we need to.

[Speaker 0]: Can you support draft 4.1 before it's at now for yourself, maybe?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Yeah. I I heard some of the tweaks about the ceiling. I just I just looked at the language two seconds before Yeah. It came up, so I wanna look at it more thoroughly. But I I know I supported 3.1. The main things that I was looking for in 4.1 were the ability to cure and the partial payment into core for the REM escrow. I even think that could be solved by just going back to the original language and just having the word partial restored and not having these conditions at the end. So I always try to look for a path that satisfies the concerns that I heard. The concern about inability to pay as a criteria. I think partial payment, just going back to allowing partial payment at

[Speaker 0]: the discretion of the courts, we'll pay. Which I think this probably does with the provision, just that it has to be by motion. And it has to be at least a showing, because what I've heard from some folks is that the court will just say, How much can you pay? And then that will be what the partial payment is. This actually now would require some showing from the tenant as far as the undue burden of having to pay the full amount or if they're withholding some per cure. So I think the discretion is

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: And I heard and I heard some of the concern, though, from from Angela just now that said, you know, if it's a case of nonpayment and the tenant just can't pay, and the judge says, okay, you don't need to pay, that's really the reason why you go to your intercourse in the first place. So I just heard those concerns.

[Speaker 0]: Right, right. No, I mean, can't be, oh, you get to stay here and pay a lot less. Mean, isn't this for the process to sort this out and the person may be getting convicted for nonpayment because they haven't been able to pay the full amount? This is like an interim while the case is lasting. Yes, yeah. So this isn't like okay. It's like maybe sorting that out. So we need some more testimony just from Judge Zonage, perhaps, on just how that escrow process works. Because, yeah, if this is undermining that whole concept that somebody can get evicted for nonpayment, then, yeah, then it doesn't work. But I can't imagine that in this case.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: But Eva, go ahead,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: One last thing I just wanna say is I've followed this bill from the beginning. It started in the January. I've heard and read every single word of testimony, I think, on this bill. So I spent a lot of time with it. It's a tough one for a lot of people, but it has been a process that a lot of lawmakers have weighed in on through committee process and committees of jurisdiction, there's been ample time to work on this bill. And what we do need is some kind of resolution to some of the challenges that we face. So I would hate to have the balance upset so much that we get nothing.

[Speaker 0]: Zachary Harvey question.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: You're saying that as representing landlords or representing

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: tenants? I'm representing nonprofit landlords.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Nonprofit landlords.

[Speaker 0]: In how many counties?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: All counties. A nonprofit landlord different than a

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: We operate by some different restrictions because we access public resources, so we're little bit more beholden to some other rules. More protections? More protections.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: You think that's fair?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: You play by different rules when

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: you use public dollars. I think it's fair. Public make sure that think we're on the same way. Like, that that's taxpayer dollars that I'm also paying for. Right? Mhmm. Did

[Speaker 0]: you have something to say? I'm sorry. No.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. Oh, okay. I'm good. So

[Speaker 0]: could you just address the threatening behavior, expedited hearing component of the importance or if that's not that big of a deal? I mean, that seems to be, in my view, kind of the heart of it.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: But what's the primary reason I'm sitting here is we have situations that happen from time to time and properties that we need to protect the rest of the tenants in our building. House a lot of people that have disabilities who are vulnerable. They're all lower income folks. And I had a property manager tell me the other day that one of their tenants said, You get to go home at night, and I have to go home and be next to this stream of traffic buying drugs. And so that's really the heart of it. If we can have a faster process to move people out that are threatening the rest of the tenants in the building, that would be really what we're looking for. And I think this bill was kind of wrapped around that, and it has a lot of other kind of components that I think are positive.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Zach, do want to talk I'm just curious because I think there are probably varying definitions of this term, but how do you define low income?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Serve people most of the rental housing serves people at around 60% of area median income. That's going be different for all different parts of the state. Let's say in Chittenden County, we're talking to people that are earning 50,000 or so. 50,000 or less.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. But I think probably we're over

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: In other parts of the state, it's going to be more like 30,000 or 40,000 at 60% of pay.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So I just want to make sure that we're accurately capturing that. There's a very huge there's a huge disparity between Chittenden County, which is the first example that you rushed to. Mhmm.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Well, that's that's one of my head.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Well, that's fine. That's fine. But I don't represent Chittenden County. I represent Rutland County. And I can tell you that in other rural parts of the state, there are huge wealth disparities between the $50,000 median income that you're talking about. And probably, I think 35 to 40 is probably being a little bit generous because I think people are really I I hear about this every single week from my constituents is that they simply cannot afford to live in the state

[Speaker 0]: that they call home. Yep.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And they wanna stay here, but they simply can't afford to do it. So I just wanna make sure that we're we're not distorting everything towards Chittenden County. I think this is habit of doing that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Yeah. Not a symptom to

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: do that. It's different parts of the state, and the housing costs are different in different parts of state too. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: it sounds like the situation I'm worried about is one where Champlain Housing Trust would go for a restraining order, or no trespass order, I should say. Does it ever come to and I don't know if everybody will do that, that's the approach that you take. And I understand that if somebody then invites the person who's on the no trespass order to visit, it sort of wipes out the new trespass order. Is that right? Because Correct, yep, yep. And that's why this new tool is a good help. Right. So threading that needle of making sure that landlords continue to seek a no trespass order. But if the tenant then invites the person, they're an accomplice, I guess, to I'm doing it. And I don't know if in those situations, again, I know Champlain Trust is unique in providing services and probably having lengthy discussions with the tenant about, Hey, when you do that, we can't keep the person away and safety is an issue. And I know it sounds like the amendment's going to be in there, but I guess I just want to kind of get a sense from you of making sure if the tenant isn't doing that, or if the tenant has an important reason, like shared custody and they're dropping a child off, that they can work with the landlord to be like, Okay, we'll get the child in front of the apartment and not in the apartment building. So any thoughts on how to

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Yeah, the issue I know that's gonna be discussed over there is actually if both people are on a lease and be able to sever the lease, right? And so we can move out the person that's really causing the challenges. I'm happy to work with those folks. It's a situation where the law can't address every single instance of what can happen in the world, we can get close.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I'm not Happy Happy to work on about somebody who's on the lease. I'm thinking about Yes, no trespass. Right. And those usually work pretty well in terms of We

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: don't have that ability right now to prevent yeah. Extra

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: copies.

[Speaker 0]: You can get it online. Okay. So, Chris, anything else?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: No, just thank you for your work on this. I hope you can move it along.

[Speaker 0]: The questions are So we have Judge Zonnay back, so we'll jump to Judge Zonnay online.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: Good morning, and thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Yeah, and if you could kind of

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: go over the slate and strap,

[Speaker 0]: and also there are a couple of questions I want you to weigh in on, so.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: Right, so I'm looking at draft 4.1. On page three is the language about the motion to reduce, that's clear. It gives us the procedure for how that would work and that certainly is something that the court will be able to address.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Well, me ask you,

[Speaker 0]: I actually have a question on that. That's where one of the questions is that just wanna make sure you understand the escrow rent process. Given some testimony from Angela, and I'm not going be able to pronounce her last name, so I won't try. So that if it's somebody who they're trying to evict because they haven't been paid, and they get into court, how does the escrow system work? Is it is is in my understanding is that it's it's placeholder to be getting some of the money in while you're working out whether there's any money that needs to be withheld for cure or I mean, is it gonna impact whether this person gets evicted for for not making a payment? I guess it's kind of what I was getting the sense that that was a concern.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: The statute under 12 VSA forty eight fifty three a provides that when there is an action for possession brought, the landlord may file this motion for order that the tenant pay rent into court. If the court finds that the tenant is obligated to pay rent and has failed to do so, the court shall order full or partial payment into court as it accrues while the proceeding is pending, and then the rent accrued the rent is paid into court, and that basically guarantees the availability of the funds for after the determination of the case on the merits. And so this is, think, if I understand your use of the word placeholder, it's a placeholder so that when the landlord files the action, the intent is generally that the landlord won't, lack of a better phrase, fall further behind, and that the person will be, if the rent is a thousand dollars a month and they're paying that thousand dollars a month, that they have to pay that thousand dollars going forward. When that final hearing is held, the court will decide whether or not there was rent owed in the beginning and what was going on, and then the court will make the final decisions then.

[Speaker 0]: So what happens if it's only full payment that has to be ordered into the court and the tenant doesn't pay that full payment into the court, perhaps because they're unable to.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: Subsection H says that if the tenant fails to pay rent into court in the amount and on the date ordered by the court, the landlord shall be entitled to judgment for immediate possession of the premises. The court shall forthwith issue a writ of possession. And there's more language, but they are shalls and it's not discretionary.

[Speaker 0]: That is what, that makes more sense for the concern of the landlords in that case.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah, Ken, go ahead. Morning, Judge. But this can go on for months, right? I mean, you could be fighting this for a long time. Mean, know for a fact it happens.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: Yes, it can go on for months and that's why the intent is to make sure the money's paid. And according to the draft 4.1, it shouldn't go on for more than ninety days from the date the answer's filed because that would be the timeline that is being put in for hearings to be held.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I caught cases that

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: word shouldn't.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: There is an exception for good cause shown. If the landlord says we need more time or if there's a basis for more time, then it may go beyond the 90, but 90 is the time that under the proposal, the courts would be scheduling things within for the final hearing.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Do you think that's a reasonable time limit with everything that's going on with the courts?

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: The exception, the way that the draft is currently structured does provide that the ninety days is for the cases where there was a tenant in possession and that cases where the landlord already has the property back. While we certainly would strive to have them done in a timely fashion within ninety days or even sooner, that we recognize that we might not get to those because to get the ninety days, it will require us to move other cases. It would prioritize these cases over other dockets and other matters that may already be scheduled that we might have to move. So we think that the ninety days with that exception provides the court with the ability to to get within the ninety days to do that. We're gonna do everything we can to meet the standard that the legislature has set there.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So so I know we have a serious housing, crisis in Vermont, and I and I certainly wanna help that situation. I also don't want to make it worse for good landlords and good tenants to go and have good housing. And I've been around Vermont all my life, well, except for three years, unfortunately. But the point of the matter is, is I don't know of any, I've never ran into a good landlord tenant that that wants to have a situation where they want them to move, usually that that it's it's a good working environment, especially nowadays where people don't seem to stay in a certain area for as long as what they, what they used to, what they used to do. Do you find that, what you run into? What are you dealing with in the courts?

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: I can't say. I'm not sitting on these cases every week as some of the judges are, so I would not have a basis of information to opine on that.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you. So let me just ask

[Speaker 0]: one other, I apologize, another question. If this language is just saying full payment and doesn't have any other, if we don't have that sub section D in there, does the court have any leeway if, for instance, we heard some examples that an individual has been injured and needs more time to come up with some extra money. But I mean, if support can take any of that into consideration.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: Under the current structure, no.

[Speaker 0]: No, if it's just says

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: It's a shall.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay. All right.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I think Barbara has oh,

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I'm sorry. I apologize again. Barbara has

[Speaker 0]: a question on on the section.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I tendered for page three, the section g. If the reason that the tenant isn't paying is because of a failure of the landlord for number two in that section, Do we need the word or the court may reduce or eliminate or reduce the amount paid? Because my understanding is that the tenant can withhold full rent if the landlord has not kept the apartment up to habitability standards.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: Well, currently, the statute does allow the landlord the court to may may apply by motion to reduce the amount ordered to be paid into court under this section, and then it has it shall be accompanied by an affidavit. And then what is being added is language that focuses on what the court is able to consider and how the court should look at it. In other words, right now it's pretty wide open. This will say, if this goes through, okay, tenants financial inability to pay is something that judges can consider. And perhaps some judges may have looked at it and said, well, that's not the intent of the statute previously. The intent was how much is the property worth? Are you paying what the property is worth? And you should be paying that. That's one way someone could look at it. Another judge could look at it and say, well, if you can't afford to pay it, then maybe you shouldn't have to pay. Well, is a policy decision by the legislature under g one to say that a court is explicitly authorized to reduce it based solely on the tenant's inability to pay, nothing else being considered. Or if there is a failure of the landlord to deliver habitability with their obligations for habitability. That is the one that I would say in my experience we see more often. That's usually the basis for lower orders by the judge. But that's not to say that there aren't times where landlords and tenants would agree, okay, they can't pay this and the landlord says fine, they can pay $7.50 instead of a thousand, we'll take it. But this type of language that's being added will be very clear to the courts. This is what you're supposed to consider.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So for two, if you find that the apartment is not meeting the standards by the landlord of habitability, can you reduce the rent to zero until the landlord fixes it? Or do we need to explicitly say eliminate or reduce the rent?

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: I think that there may be those who have questions. Some judges may see it one way and other judges may see it another. So there's a policy decision that the legislature would like the courts to understand that we wanna make it clear, judges, you can go to zero and the person can live there rent free. At that point, you really have eliminated the rent escrow order because they're not paying rent into court.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Right, and I'm only talking about number two, not somebody can't afford to pay anything and now we're making

[Speaker 0]: Yes, a

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: but it's still the same net effect.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: In other words, you're saying,

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: there's really, for all intents and purposes, there's no longer a rent escrow because there's no obligation to pay anything each month.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Isn't there an obligation does this put the obligation on the landlord to fix the property? I mean, my concern is I've had constituents who are living without their oven working and they're not comfortable taking steps?

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: I think some judges could look at the word reduce and say, well, reduce, yeah, going from 500 to zero is a reduction. Others may say, well, it's not the intent of the legislature to go to zero. It's the intent to figure out some fair value for what it's worth. So if the legislature wants the courts to possibly The question for the court is oftentimes, okay, you're saying the landlord's not delivering what he or she is supposed to be delivering. Is there some value to what you're getting? It might not be worth a thousand, but is it worth 500? And so if the idea is, well, judges, we want you to be able to reduce it to zero to externally motivate the landlord to do something, that should be set forth clearly because I would suspect that most judges would probably find that if you're living there, even if there's problems, there's some value to it and to try to attribute the numbers. And so if if again, if the legislature's intent is that judges can can take it to zero to try to, I would suspect push the landlord to get things done as it sounds from your question, it should be clear that that's a possibility.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, yeah, go ahead, judge. Think put the thought of that position for now.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: I would then go to page eight, subsection F that was added, lines seven through 16. And what this talks about is this is in the expedited proceeding. And this is the proceeding that is for expedited hearing for threatening behavior. And so as you'll recall, there's a procedure that has been proposed in this bill that says if there is threatening behavior and it is the court finds that the defendant's continued occupation of the land or tenements is a threat to the health or safety of others, then the court can order that individual to the plaintiff landlord to have immediate possession of the premises. What this does, subsection f, it says that if the court does that by default, in other words, if the person doesn't show up and the court defaults, then they can file a motion to say that they can file a motion to say, well, want another bite at the apple, if you will. There's a reason that I didn't show up or something was going on. So the court has scheduled one hearing, plaintiff has showed up, and the defendant doesn't show up, and then the defendant files this motion. The problem that I see with this is that in some ways, it's giving a second hearing as almost a matter of course. It is theoretically possible that a tenant's going to say, looking at this, well, why even show up for the first hearing because I apparently get a second bite at it filing something. And that extends the time and that defeats the purpose. Right.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: And so on this section, my first thought when I looked at this was, it says the defendant may file an affidavit signed written statement or a motion. It should be a motion. The rules of civil procedure very clearly require under rule seven B that requests for order should be made in the filing of a motion. And so you may wanna have the structure, if you wanna address something like this, the structure of a motion supported by an affidavit. And then what this It then says the court shall treat it as a motion pursuant to rule 59 or rule 60. Rule 59 is a rule of civil procedure that provides for relief from judgments. It's called new trials amendment of judgment, and so you can request a new trial within twenty eight days, or you can ask the judge to alter or amend the judgment that has been entered. Rule 60 is rule that's called relief from judgment or order, and it sets forth particular reasons why someone can seek relief from a final order. The way this is structured, some, a tenant who is, does a default judgment, they don't show up, they can file something with the court saying, I, for whatever reason, wasn't there. I disagree with the court's decision. And they might put the reason in, and the judge might look at it and say, on its face, that's not a reason to alter or amend. They might come up with some kind of reason that the judge just looks at and says, well, that's not a basis for anything. But this rule shifts the focus from the party who is seeking relief to ask for the relief to the judge to have to frame the case. And it says, well, court, you have to figure out if it's rule 59 or rule 60. Well, how does that look to the landlord that we're now the ones telling the party moving, well, this is what you mean to file and this is how we're gonna consider it. Certainly there are times that we construe pro se filings to effectuate what they're trying to accomplish with something. But this sets out a system where it really puts it on the court to decide what legal mechanism is there. And I'm uncomfortable with that because that should be the party telling us why. And finally, we already have rule 59 and we already have rule 60. So unless the legislature wants to say any rule 59 motion has to be filed before execution of the writ of possession and put a timeline on it, I don't know that you need this.

[Speaker 0]: Right. No, I think Yeah. I agree. I was just floating this as a possibility, I think you've sufficiently struck it down because we were having a discussion as far as whether it was sufficient to just have rule 59 or 60 and kind of thought it was, but maybe this would highlight to individuals that it's causing more problems than it's worth since we have rule 60. And rule 60 specifically, one of the rationales is if there was a mistake, inadvertent surprise or excusable neglect. And it's really excusable neglect that we're trying to get at if somebody missed their hearing and they had a very good reason they were in the hospital or whatever. Would be covered in rule 60. So consider that. I'll take that out.

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: That's all I have. Any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

[Speaker 0]: I do have one other question as far as ceiling. So there's been a suggestion from a couple of folks that this goes a little too broad and would prefer to have some sort of a petition process rather than automatic sealing. And I mean, we have a petition process in the criminal area, but it seems like in this instance Well, let me just back up. So one of the things is that we never did go to automatic sealing with respect to criminal records. I thought What's that? For diversion. Except for diversion, I guess. Yeah. And I thought part of the reason was just the logistics of that. Am I misremembering or were there other There may have been other issues as well, such as the opportunity for a state's attorney to object to the ceiling or expungement. But wasn't there an aspect of it as the logistics as well, or is am I misremembering?

[Judge Thomas A. Zonay (Vermont Superior Court)]: I believe you're correct. There I would wanna touch base with Terry and Laurie Canty on that, but as as close as we have to automatic ceiling in criminal, it says, and we'll call it petitionless sealing. Section 7,603 of Title 13, unless either party objects in the interest of justice, the court shall issue an order sealing the criminal history record within sixty days of the final disposition if. In other words, we do have sealing in different areas where there's no petition. Right.

[Speaker 0]: And the key there is that unless there's objection under the interest of justice, we don't have that same thing in the world of labor tenant, so I'm not sure. It becomes a little more complicated. Okay. That was my question then. Any other questions for Judge O'Gantis? All right. So I will talk to the folks over at House General. I think that there is the big question I have, the two big questions I have is on page three, the G1, whether that's G1 or not, I don't think that language as it is. I think if anything has to be there as far as financial ability, it's going to be because I think this is upsetting the overall bargain that they had in store and has less to do with the court processing than it has to do with that overall balancing that they were doing. But I will look at it a little bit further if anybody else has ideas if we could still have that as a factor, but a very limited factor. I don't know that that's doable, frankly. So it would be getting rid of G1 potentially? Right, unless we can have it more limited than that. That's a little too open, especially if I understand from Judge Zoning that some judges already don't think that that's a rationale. So we would then be giving them this new rationale to do that, which probably could be leery on doing that.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: And then

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: just to clarify on the curing,

[Speaker 0]: so we removed the language on the other curing language that we had in the draft. That's gone, so now it's just back to the current law. Current law. Yeah, it was All the way up through. Right, and there's going to be a conflict between the story. Anyways, yeah. And definitely get rid of that section that you are upset. Yeah. I'm thinking that we can think a little more about the ceiling, but I'm thinking that that just needs more work that we're not going to have to get that right, that we're going to have to take the ceiling component out of care. Because I think that if we're gonna come up with a petition process to get this right, we'll be able to do that in two days. And it doesn't sound like it's doing a ton for them anyway, from what my legal testimony is. So that's kind of where I'm. We'll see if that brings the landlords back or not, those couple of things. All right, so let's take a break till quarter after. We have one other bill that should be straightforward that we're doing a drive by for post human services. And it's H657. We have a couple small, relatively small parts in there and we have a couple of their reps coming down to explain it to us and then a couple of witnesses. So a