Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb126 Renter Move Out topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears competing views on renter move-out protections and timelines (SB126)
Summary
SB126 would define “normal wear” for residential move-outs, require receipts/estimates for professional cleaning or repairs, and change the timeline for security-deposit return; supporters said the bill clarifies disputes and helps tenants, while landlord groups argued the draft is vague and could harm property owners or small landlords.
Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell, sponsor of Senate Bill 126, told the committee the bill "revises and puts a framework around renter move out procedures," including a definition of normal wear, a limit that landlords "cannot charge more than prevailing costs" for move-out cleaning and repairs, and an extension (as drafted) of the time limit to return security deposits from 10 to 21 days.
Supporters said SB126 would reduce disputes and protect low-income renters and students who lose deposits needed to secure new housing. Amy Hall of Montana Legal Services Association said the bill "adds clarity to the residential tenants security deposits act" and warned that Montana currently lacks a statutory ceiling on deposit amounts, putting some renters at risk. Student and tenant witnesses described individual move-out disputes and urged the committee to adopt rules that reduce litigation and speed returns of funds.
Opponents — primarily landlord-association representatives and small landlords — contended the bill is too subjective about what constitutes "normal wear," would make it hard or expensive to obtain timely repair/cleaning estimates (they said 21 days may be too short), and could limit landlords’ ability to charge for legitimate damage. John Synrude, representing the Montana Landlord Association, and several small landlords urged substantial revisions, noting concerns about painting and carpet-replacement costs and the time required to obtain contractor bids in some parts of the state.
Points of disagreement the committee flagged: Testimony differed about the current statutory deadline for deposit returns. The sponsor described extending a 10-day obligation to 21 days; other witnesses said existing law allows 30 days and that cutting the period to 21 days would be a new burden on landlords. Committee members asked whether the 21-day timeline was practical for small, mom-and-pop landlords and whether the definition of "normal wear" could be made more precise.
Key clarifications requested: Witnesses asked for clearer drafting on the phrase "not to exceed prevailing costs," how to measure prevailing costs, how to handle long-tenancy repainting or carpeting, and whether the bill would require landlords to provide contractors’ receipts in local jurisdictions with limited vendor availability.
Where things stand: After roughly an hour of testimony from tenants, legal-aid attorneys and landlords, the sponsor said she planned to work on amendments and asked for a due-pass. Opponents asked the committee to reject or substantially amend the bill. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.
Ending note: The hearing exposed a common policy trade-off: tenants and legal-aid groups sought clearer rules to protect deposit funds and reduce hurdle to recovery; landlord groups stressed practical costs, contractor availability and the administrative burden facing small property owners. The sponsor pledged follow-up drafting to narrow disputes and preserve remedies for damage beyond normal wear.
