Senate Judiciary panel considers H.21 to broaden who can serve writs of possession

Representative Karen Dolan presented H.21 to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 26, asking the panel to consider a narrow change to the law that would allow sheriffs beyond the county where a property sits to serve writs of possession.

Dolansaid the measure grew from a constituent attorney—s difficulty getting writs served and from work the Vermont Sheriffs Association had been doing to address the same problem. "It basically makes it so that it doesn't have to just be the sheriff of the county where the property is that can serve the writ," Dolan said, describing the bill as a "very simple change."

The bill matters because Vermont—s regional corrections system can move people outside the county where a writ is directed, complicating service. Mark Anderson, sheriff of Windham County and president of the Vermont Sheriffs Association, told the committee that the association is neither fully for nor fully against H.21 as written but appreciates that it "nudges the football forward." "In theory, there's no difference between the theory and practice. In practice, there is," Anderson said, explaining why the sheriffs have spent a year discussing how to address service and execution without creating new liabilities.

Anderson described a concrete instance the bill would help: when a person subject to a writ of possession is incarcerated in a different county because of regionalized corrections, the sheriff of the property county currently lacks clear authority to have another county sheriff serve the writ. He said his office had about 78 writs of possession that came to the department in August 2024, and that deputies routinely assist with service "because of the volume of writs of possession."

Sheriff testimony emphasized a distinction the committee pressed: service of process (giving notice) versus execution of a writ (the physical removal). Anderson said deputies appointed by a sheriff generally have the powers conferred by Title 24, section 307, and that, in practice, deputy sheriffs effect service and participate in execution when under the sheriff's authority. At the same time, he warned against expanding execution authority to constables or unrelated third parties, citing past incidents in which improper execution required plaintiffs to restart civil proceedings.

Committee members asked for statutory clarifications. A staff speaker noted related provisions in the service-of-process statutes (references in the hearing included a "service of process statute, section 692," and Title 12, section 307 as discussed by witnesses). Senators pressed whether the bill as drafted would create ambiguity about whether "sheriff" includes deputy sheriffs for both service and execution; witnesses said existing statutory language and practice generally allow deputies to act but recommended careful drafting to avoid litigation over interpretation.

No formal vote was taken in the committee hearing. Committee discussion closed with an instruction to staff to review the remaining statutory questions and return with clarifying language; committee members said they expected to follow up within about a week. Anderson also told the committee the Vermont Sheriffs Association planned to meet to take a formal position on the version of H.21 that passed the House.

Why this matters: the bill would change who can carry out steps that lead to removal from property, affecting landlords, tenants, county sheriffs and deputies, and courts that rely on correct service and execution. Testimony balanced a desire for practical fixes against concerns about preserving sheriff oversight and limiting civil and criminal liability.

What the committee heard next: committee staff will compile statutory language and examples of practice distinguishing service from execution, and return to the committee with those clarifications. The Sheriffs Association will meet Friday to consider a formal position on the pending language.