Committee hears HB 304 on tenant security deposits: sponsor seeks 48-hour correction window and cost estimates, landlords warn of unintended burdens

Representative Jonathan Karlen (House District 98) opened the hearing on House Bill 304, saying the bill addresses post-move-out security deposit disputes by giving tenants more time and better information about potential charges. Karlen described a Missoula example in which a tenant received an extensive 44-page move-out checklist and said tenants often face high and unpredictable deductions.

The bill’s three central provisions, as Karlen described them, are: extend the current 24-hour tenant correction window to 48 hours; prohibit reinspection fees charged to tenants who exercise the correction period; and require landlords to provide an itemized estimate of likely costs if the unit is left as-is, so tenants can make an informed choice about whether to correct defects themselves.

Proponents included student and tenant-advocacy groups. Hope Morrison, representing Associated Students of the University of Montana, said students’ tight schedules make the extra time “a fair chance to properly clean” and urged a due pass. Owen McDaniel of the Montana Public Interest Research Group said doubling the correction period and requiring estimates helps renters and is especially important in university towns such as Missoula and Bozeman. Zuri Moreno of (transcribed) Ford Montana also urged support, noting many tenants rely on deposit returns to secure next housing.

Opponents—largely local landlords and the Montana Landlord Association—warned the bill would impose operational burdens and delay re-renting. Mary Kate Demers of the Helena chapter described existing inspection processes and said tenants already receive multiple notifications before move-out; she opposed the bill as unnecessary. Several other small landlords and property owners said 48 hours could disrupt scheduling for cleaners and prospective tenants and that many move-outs require contractors and bids that cannot be completed in two days. John Sinrude, president of the Montana Landlord Association, noted the bill’s changes would also affect lot-rental law and urged a do-not-pass.

Committee members asked practical questions: how landlords estimate repair or cleaning costs in the short window, how mobile-home park lot rules interact with the security deposit act, and whether the bill should distinguish corporate property managers from small "mom-and-pop" landlords. Sponsors and opponents both said the underlying problem includes some large professional managers who produce very detailed charge lists and occasional high deductions; the sponsor said the bill is intended to give tenants the ability to decide whether to correct or accept a charge.

The hearing concluded without a committee vote; testimony will be available to members for further consideration.