Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landlords and tenants clash over bill to require itemized application fees and refunds
Summary
SB 421 would require landlords to itemize application fees, refund amounts exceeding out-of-pocket costs within 20 days or permit reuse of background checks; the committee heard strong testimony from students and tenant advocates and equally strong opposition from landlord and property-manager groups. The bill was tabled 5–3.
Senate Bill 421, which would require landlords to itemize application fees and return any amount exceeding documented out-of-pocket costs within 20 days (or allow reuse of background checks), drew hours of testimony Thursday in Senate Judiciary.
Proponents included student and housing advocates who described paying multiple $25–$50 application fees while applying widely in competitive markets. "I applied to five rental properties... resulting in an overall cost of $200 to just apply," said a student witness representing the Associated Students of the University of Montana, arguing the practice is a financial barrier for renters. Housing groups said the bill is intended to curb what they called predatory fee practices and to promote transparency.
Opponents — led by representatives of the Montana Landlord Association and many individual landlords — argued the proposal misplaces regulation, creates administrative burdens, and could penalize small, owner-operated landlords. They urged that property management practices and large operators, not mom-and-pop landlords, are the source of abusive fees and suggested the issue be handled by local government or a targeted interim study of property managers.
The sponsor said the bill does not cap fees; it requires itemization and refunds of amounts beyond documented out-of-pocket costs. Landlords raised practical objections: background and criminal checks can cost $40–$80, tenant-screening may involve substantial staff effort, and local housing markets and vacancy rates vary across the state.
After extensive questioning and exchanges, the committee voted 5–3 to table SB 421, leaving the sponsor and stakeholders to refine language or pursue an interim study.
What to watch: If the sponsor brings amendments, they will likely address definitions ("out-of-pocket"), allowable deductions, and whether the measure should apply to property managers under Title 37 rather than as an amendment to the Tenant-Landlord Act.
Attributions in this story are taken from in-room testimony recorded during the Senate Judiciary hearing.
