Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: To the House Judiciary Committee this Friday, early afternoon on March 20, and we're looking at 7.2. It is version 6.2, which Nate has run to get. And I don't know if you're sharing the screen with you yet. Or is it not? Is it six point what

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: is it? It's going to

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: be 7.1. Awesome. We're making it to version number seven. Was something the other day, though. So in version seven, I think it's version seven because Representative Vice Chair Burditt has agreed to be a co sponsor with me on this film, which I think that will make it even more popular. Sure. Make it a definite loser. Well, I think so. Think as long as this is bipartisan, which it is. So we're gonna hand them out right now, and then we will have Cameron just tell us the last, I think, couple changes that were made between five point one and now seven point one. So I don't think you all have seen in between six point one. Thank you. Thank you.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: If I guess I'll ask folks, do you want to hear just about that, or do you want to overview this entire event? That's up to folks. You want. Just the changes? Yeah, just the changes or do you want to hear about the whole thing? Guess it's fair be tired of hearing about the whole thing. Just the changes.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I mean, I'm going to have to read the whole thing, but I won't ask you all to sift through that. Before

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: you get started, can we just I can have a second. Reason I Martin asked me if I would sponsor it with him and I said yes and the main reason is because the advocates and the people on the side of the rentals are good with the changes that have been made.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: So there are just a few amendments since the last time we walked through a previous version quite a few numbers ago, but not that long ago. First change, as you can see there on the first page, line two. This is now sponsored by the chair and the vice chair. The next change is going to be on page three. This is about partial payment into court. And if you remember, the proposal that came out of House General was removing all ability to have partial payment into court. And then there's been some iteration of that in this committee, allowing partial payment into court only under certain circumstances. I think the last version we looked at, there were two different circumstances where partial payment could be ordered if it was gonna do an undue hardship to the individual or if it was because of landlords not complying with their obligations of the chapter. And so that distinction has been removed on the top of page three under g. As it came over from House General, that g was struck. You all unstruck it. You added the qualifications I just walked through. Those qualifications have now been removed. So what does that leave you with? Initially, the court would have to order full payments. But this allows the defendant tenant to request a reduction for partial payments. And then the court will just make that determination as they do now. Court determines whether or not to reduce based on the circumstances of each case. And then you still have the subdivision I, which allows for a reduction if the parties come to an agreement. There was a second sentence in the subdivision I about providing an affidavit setting forth particular facts if the parties come to an agreement. One of the stakeholders said that's not really necessary. My concept there was, well, giving the court the information about the agreement, etcetera. If the court wants that information, they'll get it. So it wasn't really a I didn't feel like a substantive thing to require the affidavit be provided. So parties can come to an agreement. They can ask the court to reduce the amount to a partial payment if they come to that agreement. The next change is going to be on page five,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: line 15.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is for a termination of a rental agreement and ejectment action that's brought under the 4,467 or We're not talking about the threatening behavior. So this is just other circumstances. And there on lines 15, it's the court shall set the final hearing date not later than ninety days after the filing of the complaint. At one point, that was sixty days. I think at one point, it changed to the last time we all looked at it together, I think it was ninety days after the answer of the complaint. So this has changed slightly to be ninety days after the filing of the complaint. So conceptually, that would speed up the requirement of the hearing because the filing of the complaint is going happen before the answer. So the hearing will happen sooner under this language. And then the next change is on page seven, even though there's nothing there because I'm just highlighting that I removed a section. There was a subdivision F that, during one of the iterations, was added here. And it essentially was articulating that before the writ of possession is executed, a defendant could request a new trial under the rules that authorize a new trial. It was mirroring what exists under the unlawful occupant subsection, which is what this is mirrored on. And ultimately, the defendant can file rule fifty nine and sixty of the rules of civil procedure. So there's nothing stopping them from doing that now. So that was simply removed, so it didn't cause any further confusion. And then lastly, all the way on page nine, this new fourth instance of amendment is just striking the entire section from the House General Report related to confidentiality of the records. And I think you all have had numerous conversations about that. It was confidential. Then it moved to sealing. What documents were going to be sealed? Did it need to be at the request of one of the parties on the court's own motion, etcetera? And so my understanding is there's desire for further work on that concept. And so this amendment would, at this point, simply strike the section entirely not to the court. Those are the changes from the last version that we reviewed together as a committee.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any questions of any parts of these? Yeah, me.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I do.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Oh, cheering. Okay. Just

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a couple

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: of quick questions. I guess starting with page three, is G insisting law? Yes, sir. Okay. So we are mirroring the language around applying by motion in I that the parties would show an agreement by motion and not in any other way.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, because my understanding of how that would have to happen, the court rules, because this is in the section where the plaintiff has asked for rent to be paid into court. So the court's made a ruling, yes, rent to be paid to escrow to the court. They order full payment. So then subsequently, if the parties come to an agreement, they then need to ask the court to reduce that amount that the court has ordered. And so that's why I drafted it up as a motion.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, that makes sense. And then just wanted to make sure that it would be consistent. And then for page five, the change around the timing. So just so I have it clear in my head what this watch looks like. So complaints filed, that starts the ninety day clock for where the court needs to schedule the final hearing. Yes. What is the timing for the answer just by a civil procedure? Or are we laid out here when the defendant needs to file an answer?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: They have to file the answer. The rules give them twenty one days after the complaint has been submitted. Okay. So

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: if we were pushing it to the extremes of timing, it would go complaint filed, ninety day clock starts, court schedules a hearing within ninety days, defendant files their response to the complaint twenty one days. So that gives approximately forty days between filing of the answer to when there would be a final hearing.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's probably the quickest it could happen. My understanding is you filed a complaint. The service may not happen exactly on the same day. And so but

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: yes. So will the ninety day clock start from the day the complaint is filed with the court, and that would include the certificate of service?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe so, yes. Okay. That may be a better question for the judge, or let me at least validate with

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the judge. So what's the question? Want to make sure I follow-up

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: with? So if you commence a civil action by filing, then you also need to file the certificate of service that you've served the party. And what I'm just wondering is, are we saying that the ninety day clock is going to start for the court to order the final hearing by the day the complaint is filed? Or are we saying that they need to file the certificate of service that they've served the

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: other party. Yeah. The language will be based on

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the date that it's filed in court. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: There is you all added the language about good cause. I think the judiciary was here and testified. If somebody requests trial by jury, for example, both parties have the opportunity to do that. That's going to extend your timeline and very unlikely to happen within ninety days. So there is reason to extend based on that language that you've all included.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, and so that would probably be a pretty reasonable good showing would be file the complaint that commences the clock, then landlord sits on the service for, I think, fourteen days. So if they sit on it or they don't get it served or something, then defendant could file a motion to extend the time for the final hearing based on that. Okay. And then my only other question was, so we took out the appeal for trespass. Is that actually in here, or

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: It is, yes. It is the third instance of amendment on the bottom of page eight, whereas in section five, by striking out the subdivision G2, the G two was trespassing.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I just wanted to make sure that Yeah. Yeah. Great. Okay. That's it. Thanks.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Do have any questions? Angela? Can

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: you say again, Karen, what you said? I think I understood on page seven that we had something in there, and we've now taken it out. Yes. Never mind.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And here, I can pull it up. So I believe 4.1 is actually the last version that we looked at. From the scrolling, this wasn't there as the bill was recommended by House General. And it also initially was not there in the first iterations of the amendment that we reviewed. And then it was inserted at one point. And I think, Mr. Chair, I don't mean to speak for you, but I believe that there was some concern posed by legal aid about the writ is issued, and then there's later on the execution. Those dates are separate. They don't happen at the same time. And this section was intended to mirror the expedited hearing for unlawful occupant. And so this was pulled over because it does exist in the unlawful occupant section. And so it states that if the court enters a judgment, a default judgment, so the defendant hasn't participated. And then it states that here on lines nine, anytime prior to the execution of the writs, the defendant can file an affidavit stating that the defendant is not threatening. Their occupation supremacy is not threatening other people. So complaint is filed, no answer. Individual was looking for an expedited hearing because they're claiming that the person's continued occupation is threatening the health or safety of others. Defendant doesn't answer. They get a default judgment, writ of possession. And then before that writ of possession is executed, it would allow the defendant to come in and file a motion or a signed written statement saying, no, no, no. I'm not a threat to other people. But the language has the caveat that the court the last sentence starting on lines 13 the court shall treat the affidavit, signed written statement, or motion, as a motion pursuant to rule 59 or 60, which is going have a motion for a new trial. So by removing it, you're not removing the rights of the defendant to request a new trial at that point. It's just removing the specific language.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And Judge Zoni had a number of problems that the way I proposed it here caused confusion. And it could potentially limit it because what if it's after the writ of possession? Are we taking away their rule of nine sixty by the foot of the skis? Because it was confusing things and unnecessary, I said, all right,

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: well, that didn't work. I guess my question is, I'm trying to think about pro se litigants and how they would know that this right exists? They would have to be familiar with the law rules of civil procedure if we don't point to it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So there's so many other places where there's pro se and we don't have that. Presumably they go to, not legal aid, but there's the online help that they can get help and have this pointed out to them. I mean, are those avenues.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'm just trying to think about yeah, I hear you. We don't point that. We don't put an instruction booklet inside every little bit of statute. I'm just trying to think of, on balance, the stakes. If you're potentially losing your home, and I understand this is in cases where people have been, are alleged to be threatening, a danger of harm to others. I don't know. I just feel a little It's again, my challenge with the whole thing is how was anyone expected to know how to navigate this without help? And I know there is help available, but it's only available to a finite number of people, and we don't have enough people to help the number of people who need help,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, that's a challenge. Guess, and it is here in most, or many, many other areas of our world. It's like an absolute systemic access adjusted problem. And I don't think it fixes it in this one instance by having that. It's a bigger, broader issue.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: What

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we should be doing is giving more money into the LA of that walk. I'm sure where that end up in the appropriations. Yeah.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Just because I think it's a very good point, and I think the only other thing I would add to it is just that if a defendant were to raise the issue in court about the default judgment, but we were not able to cite to the rule that think Judge Linai talked about this, too. But courts are used to working with pro se litigants, and so they would be able to get them to, Okay, but you're here, you're making a rule of 16 motion because you have excusable neglect for Biden's so there is some of that, too. I don't think that fully addresses your real concern.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right, but it's not nothing.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions? Not seeing any questions. I would take a motion to find draft number 7.1 of H. Seven seventy two. This is just a straw poll. H. Seven seventy two favorable? Senoved. Second. You don't have to take a second. Know, but what the heck? Second. All those in favor of finding this amendment There's discussion. Oh, right. Sorry. No discussion. Wait, no, I'm sorry. Just to understand. And also, want to just say very clearly that this amendment which is, I think, making the court process work and work better. Some of the changes that were made kind of shift the overall process a little bit more towards tenants and away from landlords, but still significantly expedites where we think it should be expedited for rejecting the process. But this has nothing to do with where people end up down the road on the whole bill. And I just wanted that to be very clear that this is really just for the amendment. This is not approving. We didn't look at a lot of the other parts of the bill. So just to prove it. But, yeah, discussion for Anne Bo.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think that was my discussion question. Like, oh, god. I understand we're voting on just the amendment, and it's a straw poll. And the purpose of the straw poll is to report on the floor when you present the amendment.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And that doesn't mean you have to vote for me. I'm not saying here. Just wanna make it clear the whole that this means nothing with respect to the overall Yeah. It's with with the amendment.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Well, I feel like it also informs House General of where we stand on

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it too. Yeah, where we stand on the amendment. Again, I can make clear to them that this is, that they should've already understand that. Yes. Okay. Wait. Yeah, so I'm gonna vote

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: in favor of the amendment, or straw poll in favor of the amendment. I think that we took careful testimony from a lot of different stakeholders in this, and probably the most important one was hearing from the judiciary, which it sounds like they were pulled in pretty late in the process from the housing side, and that the changes that this amendment would make to the underlying bill work in tandem with what the court can actually accomplish. And that's really critical for the totality of this bill actually being successful. And so I think that's really important. And I think this bill, this amendment captures that. And so I'll be voting in favor.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Anything else? All those in favor of finding this favorable, raise your hand. Those opposed? Alright. Thank you. I saw the

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: hand. I'm in favor of the work that was done. I am appreciative of the work that was done and the efforts made, and I still have reservations. As do I still. Okay. So as long as I'm not like yeah, okay. But I think we

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: did good work on our part.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Think it's the crucial thing. Alright, so we are adjourned until 01:00 on