Committee hears walkthrough of H.106 on seller flood-disclosure, instructs Legislative Counsel to draft amendment

The House General and Housing Committee heard a detailed walkthrough of H.106, “an act related to selling real property within a FEMA-mapped flood hazard area,” on March 14, 2025. Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Counsel explained that the bill would remove the statutory requirement that sellers disclose whether a property lies in a FEMA-mapped special or moderate flood hazard area and would retroactively bar certain claims for damages and attorney’s fees arising from past noncompliance.

Wood warned of legal risk from making the change retroactive: “I think that this is defensible if you so choose to do this. However, I need you to also be aware that I can't guarantee that a court will not strike that section and allow a claim to move forward,” said Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel, while describing potential challenges under constitutional contract- and retroactivity-related provisions. Wood explained subsection D of the statute is a limited defense when a seller reasonably relied on information supplied by a public body or a licensed professional.

Peter Tucker, testifying for the Vermont Association of Realtors, said real-estate professionals and sellers face inconsistent and sometimes unavailable FEMA mapping across the state. Tucker demonstrated state and local map examples, distinguishing digital parcel-based FEMA layers used by places such as Montpelier from large areas where only scanned paper maps exist. “The reason that we asked for the removal of the 2 map questions was because it's really difficult for folks to determine,” Tucker said, recommending a third reply option — effectively “yes,” “no,” or “unable to determine” — on seller disclosure forms and a link to FEMA resources to help buyers do their own due diligence.

Committee members pressed for language that would preserve a seller’s duty to make reasonable efforts while avoiding unfair retroactive penalties for sellers who could not determine flood-zone status because no usable map existed. Members discussed statutory references including Title 27 (property) §380, the language added by Act 181 (in effect June 17 of last year), and 1 V.S.A. §214 (statutory construction rules). Wood advised that subsection D functions as a defense if a seller can show they made an active attempt to locate authoritative information and relied on a public body's written report or a professional’s written report.

The committee did not vote on H.106. Instead members asked Legislative Counsel to prepare a strike-all amendment that would retain seller disclosure obligations where feasible but add a narrowly drawn exception or standard for when a seller may honestly and reasonably report being unable to determine flood-map status (for example, where no digital or usable map exists or the map cannot reasonably be applied to a property’s location). The committee agreed to take up the draft amendment at its next meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2025. Several committee members said they were not ready to vote without amended language and additional review.

The discussion addressed practical consequences: lenders routinely require flood determinations before closing, and certified flood determinations are available from engineering firms that often work with lenders but not individual sellers; statewide disparities in mapping quality mean sellers and small owners may lack the technical ability to locate their lot on some FEMA maps. The committee directed Legislative Counsel to return proposed statutory language that would combine an affirmative seller obligation to make reasonable efforts with specified protections where mapping is not reasonably available.