House panel considers H.21 to let any county sheriff serve writs of possession

The House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 12 heard testimony on H.21, a bill that would change how writs of possession are served after courts order removal of an occupant. Eric Fitzpatrick, legislative counsel with the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the proposal would "permit any sheriff to serve a writ of possession after the court has issued it."

The measure seeks to address delays and practical problems that occur when the statute directs the writ to the sheriff of the county where the property is located. "Currently the statute directs the sheriff of the county in which the property or a portion thereof is located," Fitzpatrick said, noting the bill would remove that geographic restriction.

Proponents said the change aims to make post-ejectment enforcement more efficient. Amber Thibault, an attorney with Bauer Gravel Farnham who represents landlords, told the committee that since the COVID-19 pandemic eviction-related filings have risen and that execution of writs can be delayed by local staffing or scheduling. She said the amendment "will enable, but not require, the landlord to have the writ of possession served by any sheriff, not necessarily the sheriff in the county in which the property is located," and described examples in which a tenant incarcerated in another county or a sheriff's staffing shortage delayed a lawful lockout.

Sheriffs and public-safety advocates raised concerns about unintended consequences, accountability and civil-liability exposure. Dan Gameland, sheriff of Chittenden County, said his office sometimes receives out-of-county writs but will not always enforce orders it views as improperly served: "We would notify the attorney that the serving this document is not really legal. We're not gonna enforce it, and I don't even know if Bennington would enforce it." He and other sheriffs described problems when earlier steps in an ejectment procedure were done incorrectly, including paperwork left under a rock rather than handed to the defendant, which can render a later writ unenforceable.

Mark Anderson, sheriff of Wyndham County and president of the Vermont Sheriffs Association, urged caution and proposed alternative drafting to preserve local accountability. Anderson summarized existing authorities that already allow some statewide civil process service (citing provisions in Title 12 and Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated) and said the association's preference would be language that preserves the county sheriff's responsibility while permitting other sheriffs to assist in limited circumstances. He offered draft language saying, in effect, "Nothing in this section shall prevent a sheriff of another county from serving or executing a writ of possession in any county," and stressed the need to avoid creating a situation in which "14 of us are responsible" and no single office is accountable.

Witnesses also discussed related operational details: statutory fee schedules and mileage (a witness cited a rate of $0.70 per mile), the use of constables and differences in training and insurance between constables and sheriffs, and the role of the high bailiff and court rules in supervising proper service. Committee members asked whether the statutory template for writs would need to change if the law were amended; witnesses said courts and administrators likely would adjust forms and processes.

No formal action or vote on H.21 was recorded during the hearing. Committee members and stakeholders agreed on the policy goal of reducing unnecessary delay for property owners who have obtained court orders, but they differed on how to preserve due-process safeguards and sheriff accountability while allowing cross-county service when it is the most practical option.

The committee indicated staff and counsel would take wording suggestions under advisement and may circulate revised language for further review. Additional testimony or drafting sessions were suggested but no bill text was adopted at the hearing.