House Judiciary advances bill restoring jury-trial right in eviction cases, adopts limits to curb burden on courts

DENVER — The House Judiciary Committee voted to send House Bill 12‑35 to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable recommendation after a lengthy hearing that included dozens of witnesses for and against the measure.

Sponsor Representative Veil Bacon said the bill responds to a Colorado Supreme Court request for statutory clarity after uncertainty about the availability of jury trials in eviction (forcible entry and detainer) proceedings. ‘‘The purpose of this bill is to answer that question for the court,’’ Bacon said, adding the measure would ‘‘restore fairness’’ by allowing tenants the chance to request a jury trial in disputed possession cases.

The bill would codify a tenant’s right to demand a jury trial when an eviction involves disputed questions of fact. It also sets specific procedural safeguards: service would require three documented attempts; a tenant would have 10 days to file an answer and an additional 10 days to prepare for trial; and a jury demand would require payment of a $98 jury fee. An amendment adopted in committee (L‑1) gives judges authority to strike a jury demand and set the case for bench trial if the court finds no material question of fact. A second amendment (L‑2) removed remote phone testimony at the request of the City and County of Denver.

Supporters — including tenant advocates and legal-aid providers — said the change restores parity between eviction defendants and other civil litigants. Spencer Bailey, a housing attorney with the Community Economic Defense Project, told the committee that the Colorado Supreme Court in Mercy Housing v. Bermudez initially recognized a right to jury trial and then asked the legislature to clarify the law. ‘‘This bill restores fairness, ensures tenants can exercise their right to a jury trial just like any other civil litigant,’’ Bailey said.

Ada Altman of the Denver Metro Tenants Union said eviction ‘‘is one of the most consequential legal proceedings’’ a household can face and that jury trials are rarely used in states that allow them. ‘‘In California, less than 0.26% of eviction cases went to a jury trial,’’ she told the committee.

Opponents — including apartment-owner trade groups, property managers and some landlord attorneys — argued jury trials would slow cases, raise legal costs and push smaller landlords out of the market. Andrew (Drew) Hamrick, general counsel for the Colorado Apartment Association, said a landlord needs ‘‘a reasonably predictable, reasonably priced, and reasonably timed way to get the property back’’ and urged the committee to weigh impacts on small housing providers.

Committee amendments and debate addressed many of those operational concerns. Sponsor Bacon said the fiscal staff had initially estimated a high caseload impact assuming 10% of cases would go to trial, but with L‑1 the sponsor and analysts expect trial rates to be in the low single-digits (1–2%).

Representative Bacon moved the bill to Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The roll call recorded seven yes, three no and one excused; the bill advanced to Appropriations. The committee record shows a mix of local officials, tenant advocates, housing providers and legal-services organizations testified during the hearing.

Key procedural details in the bill as discussed in committee: three documented service attempts; 10 days to file an answer and 10 additional days before trial; $98 jury fee; judges may strike jury demands lacking a material factual dispute; indigency procedures and a bond requirement are included in the draft and were discussed during testimony.

The bill will be considered next by the Appropriations Committee.