Committee debates H.21 change to who may serve writs of possession

The Judiciary Committee on Monday reviewed a proposed amendment to H.21, a bill that would change how writs of possession are served in eviction and other possessory actions, focusing on whether sheriffs from other counties may serve and, in practice, enforce those writs.

Eric Fitzpatrick, staff attorney with Legislative Council, told the committee the writ of possession "directs the sheriff to go to the party who's in unlawful possession and say, vacate the premises, turn it over to the person who should have lawful possession of the property." He explained the bill's goal: to permit another county's sheriff to serve the writ when logistics or workload make the local sheriff unable to do so.

"The first crack at it in H.21 as introduced was to modify the writ," Fitzpatrick said, describing the introduced version that would directly authorize any other county sheriff to serve. The amendment under review instead proposes that "the sheriff of the county where the property is located . . . designate a sheriff in another county to serve the writ if the sheriff in the other county consents," with a requirement that the designating sheriff file a copy of the designation with the court so the court is notified.

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney called the question a policy decision and described the practical problem prompting the bill: litigants who have court orders but wait weeks because the writ is not served. "They're frustrated with the judicial system because they have their order and nobody will serve it," Zoney said. He warned that sending the issue back to the court to resolve would add hearings, filings and cost to litigants, and raised questions about what standards a judge would apply if courts were asked to designate an alternate sheriff.

Sheriffs who testified described operational concerns and practical workarounds. Dan Neal Gamlin, Sheriff of Chittenden County, said deputies are available to avoid conflicts when a sheriff has a personal connection to a case, but he added bluntly, "I have no interest in going into somebody's county to do their work." Gamlin stressed that attorneys and clients want a practical backup when a local office is not serving writs and said, "if I'm gonna serve it, I'm gonna execute it." He noted the practical consequence that serving the writ often leads to enforcement: "70% of the time after the writ is served, the tenant doesn't move, so that sheriff has to execute that court order."

Mark Anderson, president of the Vermont Sheriff's Association and sheriff of Windham County, told the committee he was "agnostic" about which draft is preferable. He framed the association's priority as avoiding single points of failure while not disrupting systems that are already working, and he supported further discussion with sheriffs and tenant/landlord attorneys about implementation details.

Committee members raised multiple procedural and drafting questions: whether a designation should be reflected on the writ itself ("the writ shall direct the sheriff of the county or their designee" was suggested), whether deputies count as designees, how conflict-of-interest rules would operate, and whether the same sheriff who serves a writ from another county would also be expected to execute it. Witnesses pointed out existing mechanisms—deputization and inter-county contracts—may already allow one sheriff to serve or execute in another county, but those options require administrative steps that are not uniformly used.

The committee discussed two broad approaches. The original draft of H.21 would change the writ language to allow "any sheriff" to serve statewide; proponents say that mirrors other civil-process practices and reduces delays. The amendment under consideration keeps the writ tied to the county where the property is located but allows that sheriff to designate a consenting sheriff in another county and requires filing notice with the court; proponents say that approach preserves local accountability and reduces the risk that litigants will bypass an uncooperative local sheriff by habitually using an out-of-county office.

No formal vote was taken. Members signaled they expect to consider a minor drafting change that would simplify the statutory text (suggesting language such as directing "the sheriff of any county to serve the writ") and discussed whether to put the matter to a committee vote at the next meeting. Fitzpatrick and other counsel warned that adding court-level decision-making would increase filings and delay, while Judge Zoney and sheriffs emphasized the practical need to avoid lengthy service delays for litigants.

The committee indicated a possible vote at the next scheduled meeting (noted in the hearing as a tentative vote at 11:00 the following day), and members and witnesses agreed to continue refining the language to address execution, deputization and notice to parties and courts.