Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: We are live. Good morning.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: At the senate judiciary on May 1 showing the There were a few minor changes that were made yesterday. We don't have a new draft of it. My understanding, they were quite technical. There's set of capital here and reminded of what those were. We left off yesterday talking about the no progressive ask section. And then after the chance, we can resume our conversation regarding No Prep Best. Floor of diligence.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning for the record Cameron Woodhovsky, the Website Council. The first thing, I don't have a new draft to share because they're very minor just when we left off we were talking about using protected tenant above and there was some concern about making sure the language matched because the definition of protected tenant etc. I've cleaned that up and I've run it by both the network and Michelle Childs, and we're comfortable with where it's at now. I can pull that up and feel like we can wait for the next year out, but that's really the only changes that I've faced. And then at the bottom where you have the report for studying Dedicated Housing Doctrine, I've cleaned that up further so it doesn't say Dedicated Housing in court. It says a deputy who hasn't adopted throughout that study language. Those are the only changes I've made right now based on the conversation that we were having yesterday. So I didn't want to bring another 30 plus page document to look at with just those minor tweaks, but happy to share that as well. And

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: this sort reminder, or the protected tenant conversations, where did we land? Keeping the language keeping protected tenant and

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: then just cleaning the language up slightly above.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So we left off on the crespass section, it's on page 20, and I think you'd mentioned that you'd done some research on some of the questions that we

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: had I've started to and scratched the surface a little bit on hero trespass and I know there was a concern about use of the word overrule word here in the purpose section. I did mention that to Eric Fitzpatrick and again they want to have him come in and speak to that but I did give him a heads up that that was a concern that was raised by the committee. I was wondering if they couldn't say the purpose is to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. And I think the response you're gonna get is you have to be very explicit to the court that what you're doing here is to overturn that court's decision which is based on the common law. Right.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I would just argue that we're not overruling or overturning this person is not going be an incentive.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: So I think you're apparently going to say that our understanding is that is the intent, and you do need to use very explicit language if that is the intent. Because that's my understanding from the adamant. It says you are wanting to overturn that ruling. I just got a message saying that Michelle Child is a good email.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm happy

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: to refer to your judiciary team. This portion of the bill was initially drafted by Eric and was introduced as a separate bill on the house side and was incorporated. She says

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: that Eric does support what you're saying, which is that he does need to turn over rule and to legislative action tending to respond to common issues. I know. I personally am uncomfortable with it, but I particularly so

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: we were talking about this unlawful trespass section and you know what I started to do was that you know again I will comment that there was a concern raised about are there any constitutional issues with allowing a landlord the ability to exclude an individual's guests and you know that individual's rights to you know association of individual against other people that first wants to associate it with. As I mentioned yesterday, and I was doing a little bit of research again last night and will continue to over the weekends, I'm not aware of any case that gives a tenant a constitutional first amendment right to a freedom of association with other individuals that would overrule a landlord's property rights in the development. So that's not to say that the argument can't be made. The Supreme Court case that we were discussing, State v. Dixon, again, that was based on common law rule. So the argument hasn't been made, to my knowledge, in Vermont. Tenant has a, you know, First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment right to association that a landlord cannot exclude an individual based on that. So, you know, I can't guarantee you what the court would say if they looked at that or in particular. There was also a concern that was discussed when you look at this language in G1. It says that the landlord can exclude yes if the tenant consents to the order and there was concern about okay we'll put it into the landlord simply then include in the residential rental agreement provisions some sort of clause that says the landlord reserves the right to exclude any guests then the tenant you know by signing a rental agreement consents consents to the landlord, adding the authority to exclude guests in the future. And I will echo my comment that a court could find that that contract provision would be against public policy, and the courts have done that in the past and they do have the right to avoid contract provisions that are against public policy. I do think if you want to prohibit that, if you want to explicitly address that in the statutory language we could add something in that says that the tenant will have consent on an individualized basis and that any contract provision that grants a landlord the the blanket authority to or a tenant a blanket consent for the landlord to exclude future guests without some sort of individualized determination whether it be public policy and we'll keep the meeting. I think it probably would be appropriate to add a opinion if that is the direction that you all want to go. Just, can you

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: define for the committee what you mean when you say public policy? It's a yes public policy.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I would want to go in and look and grab some, you know, specific things I know for you. And and so I I don't have specific examples here. I wasn't able to do that level of exhaustive research last night.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right. And I didn't mean, like, a specific example related to this. I just mean, generally, when a court is taking a ruling in in the interest or against the interest of public policy, just generally what that means.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: So there are kind of implied requirements when you are dealing with contracts. Parties are acting in good faith with each other, etc. And so if a court finds that there are certain provisions of a contract or certain provisions of the agreement that are against public policy because one part of the contract it's been a long time to say that contract well, but yeah, the court has the authority to know certain provisions if they find that it violates those implied rights of good faith and fair dealing built into every contract. And the court has been very explicit that they have that right to do that. And what I'll do is I'll come back to you and I'll give you guys some examples of when the court has done that and what were the contract provisions where they found that it violates that implied good faith and fair feeling that's built into every contract.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. So I guess the first question is maybe it's a two part question, is I want to incorporate some sort of language regarding consenting to attract best order on an individualized basis. I think that's the first question. And then the second question being, language around voiding a lease provision. If it's actually write it by me again the second.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah I would probably pencil it out and draft it up to say something like you know if the tenant responsible for the invitee you know consents you know on an individual case by case basis and any, you know, police term that provides blanket consent from the tenants without an individualized review, know, for the reason against public policy. That's just, I would wordsmith it. I'd want to sit down and figure out exactly how I would want to phrase that, but I would probably articulate it something like that. So that way you're sending a signal it needs to be done on an individual basis and assuming that there is some sort of provision in a rental agreement you're giving clear signal to the court and that violates public policy and more people and unintentional. Any thoughts on those two pieces?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I've got a question came in reference to. Let's just say for instance, we had a single family dwelling, okay, and the individual in there hasn't been terminated. The rights to take their rights to have been terminated, trespassed, are certain. First incident of what transpired was first. So ninety to one hundred and twenty days later, property's all fixed up in the needs of, a new tenant moves in, now all of sudden the new tenant says, well, you know, want Senator Baruth to be able to visit me. The landlord had to justify the rate at that particular point, kind of just serve that trespass letter. So we need to look at the rights of voting parties. He didn't he or she didn't intentionally deprive Senator Baruth who was going to see them, but it was an incident that transpired before they took tennis into that place. So Is there such a is a of us saying because I can assure you that having served several trespass letters that the intent is not to continually deprive someone from coming through. It's to okay listen cause this damage I want you here for ninety days and say, let me get this back up and run it and get somebody out of sync. Is there a possibility of like putting in a ninety day clog or a trespass or something along the line because the intent is not to keep people away from visiting it's to protect and allow them to restore their apartment or their low end to the point of damages. So I do think there is an intent from individuals who are advocating this provision in some instances to be able to exclude someone in infirmity from a property. The issues that have been raised in previous testimony are you have a let's say it's a multi unit dwelling and one individual is in an apartment building and their know criminal activity going on and they're ejected from that property based on that activity and then that individual simply becomes a guest of another unit, another tenant within that multi unit well and now they've simply moved from the apartment that you've ejected them from into another apartment and they continue whatever activity it is that they were doing that is now disturbing the other members of that multi unit dwelling. And under the court's case, if that individual is a guest of that other tenant, then the landlord cannot issue a no trespass order or the no trespass order will not be upheld.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And so that is my understanding of the issue that is trying to be addressed with the sections. And I do think that if that is the goal of the committee, as I mentioned last time, you'd probably want to add in a new subdivision fee that says the landlord can issue a no dread pass against someone's guess if the guess had previously been ejected from a dwelling unit of that premises. Yes sir and I think you raise concerns that have been raised on the other side which is you know you are having to balance the fact that the tenant has the right to lawful possession of that dwelling unit and that's why the court didn't uphold the trespass order in that case is because the tenant who has lawful possession of that property has a right to have guests at that location and so you landlord can't issue a no trespass and prohibit people from coming to the common area to get to that location. And that's where I'm gonna receive The purpose here based on this bill being introduced was to overrule that and to allow the landlord to issue another press pass and prohibited individuals coming onto the property whether it's a guess or not, if one of these conditions are met. And so I do think that's what you're balancing. And Senator, I think you bring up the other question that you were discussing at the end yesterday was whether or not there should be some time frame on it, simply don't get a funeral if somebody had been issued a no trespass order and then years later, you know, the person hasn't been on the property within five years and now all of a sudden, you know, they have a friend who lives there. Are they, you know, best man, either perpetuity. And I was double checking, I don't recall there being a time frame in thirty seven zero five, so that made me something more supportive of that.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Some of them will see.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: My point has been brought up and made.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Going back to the initial question of law to require this to be on an individualized basis. Individualized meaning. Meaning you can Well that tenant makes sense. Yes, yeah the tenant consent starting on line five essentially where a tenant, so if a landlord were to say to the tenant, you consent to me trespassing anybody who comes on into your apartment moving forward? The tenant says yeah I guess and then you know then it's just a blanket consent to all potential guests rather than somebody who has creped past and I'm sorry not creped, a guest would come there and the landlord for whatever reason wants to crep at them and ask the tenant if they consent. And the tenant says, yes, please trespass the person, don't want them here, they still keep coming. Rather than a blanket, will you let me trespass anybody and everybody who is in the essence future. Of

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I agree with what you're saying and I see what's suggested as as receiving consent from the tenant but there's a trespass order in fact, it can be also as simple as, know, have a trespass order against this individual who has decided he may want to come to this chair part or she may. It'd be as simple as saying, can I continue this trespass over with your consent? What are we looking at here? Well I think under current

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: law they're already trespassing and they're trespassing in perpetuity.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: You were saying though that if it's developed so they want to come and visit another tenant it's null and void they can go visit that with their own residence. Also keep in mind under the current case the current framework is that if the individual has been invited onto the property and the landlord can't get a trespass order in that event it's not going to be upheld. So currently if they've been invited by someone else, the individual can go on to the property whether at a trespass at the border or not. And I think the question for you is moving forward, want to give the landlord the statutory authority to issue a no trust pass against guess that a tenant has invited on the property. I think the question becomes do you even want to put a time frame on that because the current statutory section doesn't have a time Issuer of the Bethlehem. And I'm not sure if I defer a question to Eric. I'm not sure if a court has inserted a time frame, but at least in the statutory language, there isn't a time frame to say that it has to be renewed every year or that, you know, it expires after ninety days. So that may be something you want to insert at least at 3,705 that I've been dealt with.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I mean,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think I'm not opposed to inserting a friend necessarily. I can envision the scenario where there's a guest visiting one tenant. Whatever happens, that guest gets trespassed. And then five years later, they're a different person. They make another friend in this building and they want to come visit and they get invited by this other tenant. I don't think there should be an exposure to a potential criminal charge. They're coming back upon an invitation of another tenant after at least a year passed, I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I think that's fair. Being sort of having a maturity after a year, but it doesn't exist forever. Here's some

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: terrible twist. Think it gets also to some of the concerns that are raised where there's a guest who is problematic in some capacity and if they get trespassed from one apartment and then literally the day after they get invited by a different tenant to a different apartment and it's like playing black and white. So I think if it's forcible for years

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. And I'm also remembering that testimony we had between AggarDom was remembering the phrase flash incited sites, record towers at the whole discussion. The idea was that there are people who are ostensibly guests, but they're basically pressuring people to allow them to be in their space and quasi threatening them if they don't allow it. So somebody gets trespassed and then you they're a guest at somebody else. I think the worst case scenario that we're talking about is a situation like that where somebody is determined to remain in the building for their own reasons and they're gonna be with other people to do that. Of on the other side, just a friend, prohibited friendships, but if the friendship is with somebody who's trespassed permanently from the premises and the tenant, I think there's a reasonable argument for a year where they to pay for for the the premises. I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: also think the ability for it to be the landlord issuing this no trespass rather than the tenant themselves kind of gets to the concern of the tenants who are put under pressure or some sort of coercion. They're probably going to be uncomfortable issuing a no press bath themselves to whatever guest was there. It gives them the out saying, look, sorry, the landlord is saying to press that. And

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I absolutely see that and can support it as long as it's on that individual basis and not just going, Yeah, I can trespass whoever I want. She's consented to that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So are we all good at that? Are there any other At

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: the point we agree on, are we all good at what? The one

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: year enforcement and the business school basis. So I get that, there's a third question. Once you're done making note there regarding the lease provision and whether you would put in some sort of nullification path, you would think about that.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I would add that in the individualization, I would probably consider those the same and I would add them together and that if you want to require the consent of the tenant to be based on individualized case by case circumstance then I would add something in that says that any condition of a rental agreement that gives blanket consent to a landlord would be the only time. So it's sort

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: of the build and suspenders way of accomplishing what we want to do, saying it needs to be individual and you try to skirt around that with the lease agreement, you can't.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So I go back to my original question. You've been trespassed. Okay, there's two units. You've been trespassed out of gate unit. Right? It's now we're anticipating good for a year. The next unit wants you to come in using the same doorway, but just different doors to each apartment. That doesn't come into play no more with unit beat. If after if you've issued a new trespass against the individual, a year has expired, you do not renew it based on what you're asking you to draft up, then at that point someone asks that person to come back onto the property as a guest, they will be allowed to. Six months goes by. You've issued a no trust pass order. But they want to go to a part six months goes by. Okay. Based on what you've asked me to draft up, it would be a crime to the person to be on the property. Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: That's in my book. There's one other, I think, remaining question that I have is about the list the a b and the c and do you want to add in a new subdivision to allow a landlord to issue a new trespass order if the individual has previously been objected from the premises.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: That's the next question. Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well before we get to that

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: we

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: were still talking about whether or not Your question, Senator Norris, was what happens if the person comes back before the year is the last?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Well, getting into this question here is if the person had been previously issued a no duress passport, the other part can be entry for it. The landlord has received daily whatever, doesn't want this individual to come back, seared them with a trespass office. Six months later, Apartment B now is occupied, but that trespass order is still in effect. It still applies to Apartment B2? You stated it would apply to the premises, yes sir. Okay. So,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: all right, so I think that what happened is covered. Next question and the what you just told us right back.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah this is the issue we kind of started with yesterday. Eject? Yes sir. You have a tenant who has been ejected from the property and the landlord does not want that person to come back. Currently the person can come back and talk about that. They've been invited, they're a guest, they can come back.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Unless they've been no trespassed?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Current law, even if they've been no trespassed, if they're a yes, they can come back. That's the state versus the case that authorizes the tenant was to invite someone back on because they've been discharged.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: What you're doing here is you're so

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: based on the language that you have on the page, if someone is objected from the property, In order to issue a no trespass order under this g one, the landlord needs the tenant's consent. Let's assume the tenant doesn't want to consent. They can try to have scenarios as to why. Then the landlord would have to wait for that person to violate the lease terms or raise commit crimes, state of better law. In my understanding from advocates as this has been moving forward and conversations that I've had and then according to, the request was to be able to issue that no to thus pass if someone has been jetted. Under the current law, they would have to wait for the person to come back and violate lease terms and then for committed crime. And so they want to preemptively be able to self trespass that person and not have to wait for the person to come back on the property and continue to do the activity for which the person was ejected for.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So how would that interact with the timeframe that a person may have to get their personal property You know, like they've been ejected, they have however many days to get whatever property remains to their Now, and to wherever else they're going. But if they're crespassed the day

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: of their ejectment, what what happens then? This allows me to bring up other thing I've grown up a while back.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Currently,

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: an individual has a certain time frame to save the personal possessions out of the property after the person has been issued the judgement in the case. That's fifteen days after being served for on the landlord being legally restored, if that happens beyond fifteen days, whichever is later. So the way it works currently, if you remember, if a judgment is issued for the landlord, it gets served by the sheriff, and then the sheriff has to wait fourteen days to come back and execute, and actually physically remove the person if they're still there. That timeframe is shorter under the expedited hearing section, the timeframe is only five days. And for the payment, the rent escrow went to court, I believe it's seven days. So, when the landlords issue the repossession and they just serve on the first Sunday, they would have five days before they have to, before they're physically removed, could be seven days, it could be fourteen days. Current law, the landlord has to maintain that property for at least fifteen days. So let me give you the scenario, expedited hearing, break the ejectment, landlord gets the writ of possession, gets served on the tenth. Sheriff comes back five days later, removes the individual physically. Under current law, the landlord would have to maintain that property for another ten days. The landlord may maintain the property on the property where they may remove it and put it in a storage unit. It's not, the wall doesn't specify. So what this amendment does in July is it changes that to immediately upon the landlord being restored to possession. So instead of having to hold that for that additional ten days, the landlord would be able to dispose of the property on day five when the person has been physically removed by the sheriff. Okay so say under current law

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: if we take the Novakat path idea that we're talking about here and just apply that to current law somebody gets served the writ of possession they know that in a certain number of days they will be physically removed and during that time frame that's when they would have time to get their stuff done. And that's how many days again? Could be five under current law. Could be five, could be seven, could be fourteen. Depending on

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: what scenario the court has issued a judge now. If it's because of an expedited appearance, it's five days. If it's because a rent payment escrow went before it wasn't paid, it's seven days. If it's under all other cases, it's fourteen days and the court could grant a longer period. The reason I was bringing this up is because my point was, I think if you are not making this change, for argument's sake, let's say this portion of the bill is not there and we're just dealing with the current statute, we can build in something that says, you know, individual has the right to receive their possessions during the period that the landlord has to entertain the property.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Right. And one more time,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: if there were to be the no prep pass order issued against the tenant being ejected that would be served at the time that they're being physically removed or at the

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: time the writ is served. We can specify it. The statutory section doesn't currently specify so you know what I could see is let's say the landlord wanted to how I would How would potentially want to wrap this up to mirror what's in the other section about when the landlord is legally restored to possession. If you try to issue a no trespass order after the writ's been served, the individual still has a time period to remain on the property and so I don't think you can no trespass someone who has lawful rent rights to occupy the press. And so we can specify that in inspection if you want to move forward to allow a landlord to give someone a no trespass order if they've been objected on the property. Yep. And it would just be effective, know, we could make that no trust pass effective upon the landlord legally restored to the premises to make sure that the individual can, run into a situation where the landlord tried them to no traffic pass somebody during that five, seven or fourteen day window when they still have the lanes in the airport. Even if they tried that, I don't imagine, you know, a court about the holding had a trust past order and somebody who has involved in possession of the property that's not gonna vote. Okay, that makes sense.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, I am gonna respond here to committee. So

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: my concern, bear with me, my concern with adding that sub D would be, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it would apply no matter why the tenant was ejected. So they could have been ejected for no cause and now the landlord has a right to no trespass them from visiting their friend across the hallway. Is there a way by which we can say if the tenant was ejected and no trespassed that that remains in effect for

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: the premises for for that mere period? Do you do you know? I think you could specify the reason for ejectment so we could say in that list can I consent violate these terms in that list you could add in if the guess has previously been ejected under or, you know, had their rental agreement terminated under four or six seven feet and then ejected under, well, chapter one sixty nine? So then you're limiting it to only, you know, trespassing because of an ejectment due to the person having previously violated the lease terms. Are you following what I'm saying? That you can I think you can grab the language to narrow it down to just say in a scenario you have you can't issue a no trespass order if you've done a no cause eviction, But you can issue the novice pass order based on an ejectment if the ejectment is because the person was abducting criminal activity in the property? If you narrow it down, I think it

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: was the one year after election. And can we still apply that one year limitation? Yeah,

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: could you elaborate somewhat on those cause and conviction? It was so that it's something that's seen in this review. Jury says yes, you can have it. You can make him position as property. So where does this no cause eviction come at play?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: The no cause eviction is just in the termination section under current statute, section eighty four thousand four sixty seven. I'd have to go all the way up here to find it. It's just, you when you look at the termination period, how you know, when you have to terminate a rental agreement for a tenant and you look at that section, you remember that chart that I gave you? This one. The top three there were cause, you know, kind of what people tend to refer to as kind of a just cause reason for rejecting someone either the person has failed to pay rent, the person has violated the terms of the lease agreement, or the person has as we've seen that section B a few times has done criminal activity or acts of violence against someone. But separate from that, a landlord can terminate a rental agreement for no reason, as long as they're providing adequate notice to the tenant, which has to be under current law, it's either thirty, sixty, or ninety days, depending on if there's a written agreement or non written agreement, and depending on how long the person has been. Those are kind of the no cause evictions that you hear about. A landlord doesn't have an obligation to continue renting to a tenant forever and so at any point the landlord can tell someone the rental agreement is being terminated as long as they're providing the required notice period and that's a no cost eviction. You don't need a reason to tell that person that you're

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: not going to continue to rent the value.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's fine. And if the person leaves with their own free will in the court, I have a problem with that. Right. But if the person refuses to leave, then they still have not going court where the summons are going play, fall in the process. Yes, sir. Now all of sudden, we've had judicial review. Sir. Parties may not be quite as cooperative with one another. I can understand if there's no cause of eviction, they voluntarily leave. Perfect. I see what you're saying. Right. But if we go through that point, then where are we? And so this is a policy decision for you all if you're going to add in this new trespass section, if you move forward with this and you want to add in a new subdivision that says that a landlord can issue the no trespass if the individual was a the guest was a previous tenant who had been objected then I think the question that was raised was do you want to further narrow that down and say only when it's an objectment based on something like or something like that so it's a policy decision for people of how broad we want that authority to be. I don't know

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: if that's your thoughts on that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I think I could only support adding that if it only applied in instances where there was criminal behavior or violence, etcetera. Because I mean, if someone is, even if they're evicted for cause for non payment of rent, they may not leave because they have nowhere else to go. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And to that point, I mean, there could also be somebody who wants to fight it because maybe it's their opinion they didn't get proper notice. Right. That could be about probability and they want to take a court it doesn't necessarily mean they're

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I can draft it up with the limitation built in so you see what it looks like and then obviously as I mentioned it's a policy that's renewal and you can't take it out or leave them if that's what you're gonna do. And the point of comment is they have a right to confess whatever. I'm not saying that they don't have that right, but in fact, they do confess and they do go to court, then we have judicial review and they say, No, you must leave. That's what I'm saying is possible that we should still be able to, along the way, the border across the country. Doctor. Nader, don't

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: know any thoughts.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: No, that makes sense. What's our Norris' bringing up at that point.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I just don't know that we should be able to say you can't visit your friend across the hallway if you stayed because you had nowhere else to go or Like, sure, we should be able to remove them from that unit, but they weren't doing criminal activity or causing harm to the other tenants. They should still be able to visit their friends that live there.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Visit versus living there?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: What suggesting, adding, is saying that if they have been ejected, they could be no trespassed from the entire premises, meaning they would not be able to visit their friends. I'm suggesting that we're gonna add that language and narrow that only if they were doing harm to other people in the building.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: But you said they had no place to go if they don't want to go stay with their friends.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: They might.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that living or is that different?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Depends how long it stays.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Depends how long they stay. What was that? How long constitutes living? Forty days of I don't know off top of that.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, can build into your lease agreements that you can't have, and that you can't have individuals living with you. I don't know that a court has articulated a specific time frame of what they would Absolutely. Sublease will be subreducing.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, let's get a draft of some language Don't think if it's no cause of getting evicted, that you can get them passed automatically right then. But I think it should be applicable to the other scenarios.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm not

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: saying it's an old cause.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right, they're rid of the judgment and then they get If

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: they want to contest it and they come out winning this month. But it gets to that point where they judge it, no, you gotta go.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah yeah and I just don't think that if you're exercising your right to engage in the judicial process to contest something because you think there's a defect in the service or because you just can't believe right that there, I don't think that should carry with it the risk of getting criminal charge or getting a no crespass order, which that exposed you to criminal liability. You know, you're if for example you're just trying to object to how process would certain Would that

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: no trespass be granted in that scenario?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's not if

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: they see that hey they got going on over here, but we're gonna shut it down with an untrespass, would it actually be granted by

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the court? So no trespasses are, they're not, they don't go through the court, it's, you you hand somebody a piece of paper and say, You can't come on my property anymore. So like somebody was trespassing off

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: at my house, I can just say,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you know, they've got the passing, got the cut back sign.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: So then Yeah. Even if you're cited into court and still go to judicial review, do you have a sort of trespassing individual for the problem, right? Get it. Where we

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: heard that story, I guess.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: She says after judicial review. Yeah, after judicial review. Yeah, the court has deemed you're gonna buy as a landlord, say, Okay, I want my property, it's been for the other. Here she made their decisions. I would prevent this individual from exercising their constitutional rights and fight this in the court of law. Bring your case forward. I strongly support that. But let's just say they were unsuccessful.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Can only support it, that it only pertains to someone who was doing wrong in the building. Because I can understand why in that instance you would not want them anywhere in the building. But in the instance they've gone through the process, for whatever reason, it's come to the point where the judge should have said, yep, you gotta go. They should still be able to come back and visit friends that they have made at the building. Should not, the Limer should not be able to say, You may not. They have done nothing to do harm to the larger building. But if they have, I can support that one year where I could say, no, you can't. And my understanding is that they were trying to prevent the person who leave, it being criminal activity or harm in one place gets evicted and then goes next door. And that would still prevent this.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It looks like you were about to say something.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I'm just trying to think through it like in Senator Norris' situation where know, go through the process and this person goes next door, stays with their friend, and then down the line that turns into a situation where they're living there, and that the current tenant, who's the actual tenant, is like, You've overstayed your well, what if you're

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: gonna get out of here?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And then it has to turn into eviction all over again. I don't think that would occur.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It would have been because they're the guest. I mean, guess that comes to those back to the question of who the tenant, who the guest, who you're a guest for two months, you've got your stuff there, sleeping there. Are you that technically a tenant?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I will look into it. Yeah, think there may be a very neighbor And then does the tenant who actually signed the lease with the landlord become at risk for breaking the lease if it's

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: a big appearance of subletting? Pretty sure that it will depend on what the lease says. If you've got somebody, got a guest that turns into a quasi tenant, could be a violation of the lease. I Chris, you have an answer as to when does a guest become a tenant? Chris,

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Donald H. Shapley doesn't trust in our leases people can't stay more than fourteen days. In our lease we had to stipulate when how long a guest pays for the business. We follow a bunch of different rules because we receive public taxpayer dollars, so we need to just move toward the dollar that we use to go to the process. But I will say, if there's a situation of somebody moving out or being deducted moving out or moving in next door to the apartment, that's a lease violation, then the current test could then be.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, Darren, is, you could get a question, get an answer to the question. In a situation, let's say there is no lease written down, it's just a verbal agreement. Does the guest become a tenant and somebody is objected and they want to stay with their buddy next door,

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: they can speak.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Can they or can't they then be pressed because they're violating police agreement. Think that's what happened over time. If you have a friend

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: that lives in a store, he didn't place to stay because you have to find a few units. But if it turns into a situation where it's got a landlord dependent relationship or a sublimating relationship with the current tenant and with the rent bringing lease.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think that'll all come down to what the lease agreement is and if the tenant get rejected staying with their friends and somehow reforms a landlord tenant relationship.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think that's one of the questions is well, I don't know. And then I think that's what we're gonna talk about.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: The original tenant actually can then be ejected themselves for bringing their own lease. And then would it be two evictions, one for the tenant that's there. And then because of time, the tenant we've ejected previously, now you have to be ejected again. It's not simplified, as simple as, when we're against someone's complaint, you go to the requisition states, Senator Christopher Mattos, and all other occupants.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: What are our remaining questions here that I

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: will look in this last piece. The tenant has a very specific definition in the Residents' First 100 and chapter, and so But I'll see if there's any case law there on, I guess, and what are the rights of the guests potentially. But I don't know that the guests are going to rise to a level of attempts unless there's an agreement to create a residential rental in the food that first and thereby in the subletting but but I will get to this.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And the the emphasis of this long conversation we had though is the original question was can we trespass somebody who is ejected at the time of their ejection and should that trespass be applicable to all forms of ejection or just narrowly scoped to criminal activity or violent activity. So I think that's one of the remaining decision points. So we'll get language and brief feedback on that.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And the other thing that I know was discussed, and I'm just not sure if you all have landed entirely where you want to be or if I am mistaken and you feel like you have resolved this matter, but it's the question 100 on the 4,067 E-two language. So So we talked about this language a few times. Currently, our termination is based on criminal activity damage that is well in your acts of violence and if it is an ongoing threat, you may have resolved that. And my apologies, I just wanted to make sure I'm aware of whether you

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: want to change this. I don't think he resolved it. I think there were some lingering questions as to whether we want to keep damage to the government and premises. And I think we agree to strike health or to keep that safety. Keep it as an ongoing threat. I don't know that we're gonna, considering how long our conversation on trespass was, I don't know that we're gonna land on damage to the dwelling premises, is a, got it as a decision that we have to resolve.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Other than that, I don't think we have discussed, I'm not aware of any other open questions that you've all had.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: There any other open questions or other parts of the development?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I just have one. I think it's just clarification on page 15 in relation to the five patients. What is, so it goes through the process domestic violence and then line three, and if they become unable to pay their rent, with a reasonable opportunity to locate additional tenants or to otherwise find new houses, What is that exactly, like how long does a landlord have the reason? I know it sounds like it's up to you. So that's defined there under the two is ninety days. Oh jeez. And with that, so it goes ninety days, is the tenant still responsible for that previous ninety days? And they say they find a new roommate, or that ninety days just wiped away, that they were unable to pay it during that ninety days, and that they did a fifteen minutes for a new roommate. Then may want to specify because it is I think an open question based on the language that's there because I think it's going to depend on the specific scenario. Sorry I was trying to find the sound that's based on but investigate my office. I think some of it's going to depend on the scenario right. Think it's embedded in a situation where it's a two bedroom apartment unit and you're renting one room and so you're responsible for a portion of the rents. There'd be other situations where you have a domestic partnership where you're both responsible for the entirety of the rents and so I do think there could be more clarification on that to be more explicit about

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: what you mean by that.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And whether the individual would be subject to sort of back payment of rent for the hearing, which the person is unable to come up with the entirety of the amount.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: We're saying saying basically you have to give them a a pause at least ninety days, but then at the expiration of the ninety days doesn't exist in any statute and their lease cover, what would happen then in terms of the background?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: If I'm the landlord, I'm going to make the argument that you are already covered rents. And I think just the question of whether or not that's the policy that you want and whether or not you want to be explicit in that section. Because, you know, I'm thinking of a situation where somebody bifurcates the lease and unable to pay the rent. Ninety days goes by and they move into the bankruptcy unit because that's that's a credit. Now they have three months of nonpayment of rent because of the statute that is here. What can a landlord do if anything and now they're still in the building next door or something like that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Let's mark this as a point that we have to figure out and then we'll take one more and then we'll take a little break before we even double.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: First I'll say

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm sorry Cameron did you have one last follow-up to what Senator Mattos was I'm going

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: respond to that quickly. If the individual has a written scenario you identified the individual needs to terminate that lease because if not the landlord would argue that the person has abandoned the unit in that scenario that you identified and go after that individual or that back rent, and the individual would be responsible for rent during the written term if it's in writing. That's in the statutory section. If the person abandoned the unit, they're responsible for the rent for the period of the written term, unless the landlord finds someone else to take over the renter unit. Just directly in response to that. So I do think maybe more than if you all want explicit about what your policy is to keep in this scenario is the person obligated for the entirety of the rent during the ninety day period. Later on for the remainder of the rental term. I think this was also raised by Judge Jonez, maybe he's needing some additional clarification. Yeah, I would say for an agreed upon schedule between landlord and tenant because somebody goes through something like this, certainly don't want to uproot that, give them the opportunity to find housing, but also on the landlord side, know, wanting to pay the bills. But that just means the landlord tenant. I don't want to make it so they have to pay those ninety days if they agree to something. So we

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I have two things. I the one thing I remember, and then I'm gonna have to go through the bill because we've spent so much time on these two sections. Don't even remember what's in the rest of the bill at this point. But the one thing I do remember is a provision, and this is when my have on a little bit, and it's around the security deposits allowing cities to have because just to have more protective language. Right yeah. So right now there's this protection of saying you can't charge more than you want security deposit, but like Burlington, for example, has it in their ordinances that you actually can't try to put in one month's rent and I wouldn't want to override that. So that was the other one that I remember. Like I said, I want to.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Did raise that issue previously. Good question. Okay. Recommended that and there was a proposed amendment on the house for to address this as well to make it clear in that section that municipality can further lend the amount of a security deposit without violating that section.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Then who else might be rereading what's in there to see if I have other things that I don't remember wanting to talk about.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I will pencil that out just for you to have as a committee review so you don't want

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: to work on it too.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Because it's a section that is relevant to that conversation. It's not in the bill. It exists in the statute, but it's not in the bill itself. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. We're taking this back up first thing. I'll take a second.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Let's take a break until 10:35. I'll be back on

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: 06:06.