Committee Hears Bill to Require Joint Move‑in and Move‑out Inspections for Rental Units

Representative Jared Hendricks opened testimony on House Bill 1272, a measure that would require landlords and tenants to conduct and sign a joint inspection at move‑in and a joint inspection after notice to vacate but before lease termination.

The bill, Hendricks said, “is codifying what is already best practice in rental companies” and aims to reduce disputes by requiring an itemized list of noted damages be provided at move out. He told the committee that North Dakota homeownership runs roughly 65 percent statewide but that some districts, including his District 10 in Fargo, are about 80 percent rental and have seen repeated tenant complaints about unexpected charges.

Supporters at the hearing said the bill would protect renters — particularly students, military personnel and low‑income households — who may lack time or resources to pursue small‑claims remedies after moving. Bismarck City Commissioner Mike Conley and local residents said rising rents and fees make predictable, documented deposit accounting increasingly important.

Property managers and landlord trade groups opposed the bill as written. The North Dakota Apartment Association and longtime property managers said current state law already requires move‑in documentation (North Dakota Century Code references were cited) and warned the bill’s timelines and language could impose impractical obligations when many units turn over on the same day. They also objected to requiring cost estimates at a pre‑move‑out walk‑through, saying some damages or contractor prices are not ascertainable until a unit is emptied and a contractor inspects.

Several testifiers recommended targeted clarifications rather than wholesale rejection. A representative of a property management company said the bill should allow reasonable accommodation: if a landlord or agent is late or must reschedule they should be able to notify the tenant and preserve rights; conversely, tenants who fail to respond should not automatically forfeit procedural protections. The sponsor acknowledged those concerns and had circulated an amendment removing the requirement that the landlord provide a “reasonable estimate” on the spot and instead requiring an itemized list of noted damages.

Committee members asked how disputes would be resolved under the bill. Hendricks said the measure is intended to standardize the contractual process between private parties, not to create a new government adjudicator; unresolved disputes would continue to be addressed through existing legal remedies. Several members pressed for documentation standards (texts, emails, written notices) to prove attempts to schedule inspections.

The committee did not take final action at the hearing. Sponsors and opponents said they are open to amendments to clarify scheduling, the treatment when parties cannot agree on a mutually acceptable time, and whether agents may stand in for landlords for large, multi‑unit turnover days.

Ending: Legislators who asked questions said they would review written testimony and the sponsor’s amendment language before considering a committee motion. No vote was taken; the hearing was closed and the committee later moved to other business.