House Housing Committee narrows S.772: credit checks allowed at actual cost, eviction defenses tied to uncured citations

Representative Mark Mahale, chair of the House Committee on Housing in General, led a Feb. 12 session that took up S.772 and a bundle of related landlord–tenant measures, focusing on application fees, eviction defenses, habitability and trespass remedies.

The committee moved to remove the bill’s reference to a “nominal” fee and to allow landlords to charge applicants only for the actual cost of a credit check, not as an open application charge. Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council read the statute the committee is revising, noting the current language bars application fees and treats background checks as part of a prohibited application fee while allowing a separate charge for a credit report. "The landlord shall not charge an application fee to any individual in order to apply to rent a residential dwelling," Wood said while reading the draft. Members agreed to substitute language tying allowable charges to the vendor’s actual cost.

Why it matters: committee members said tying the fee to actual cost avoids loopholes for so‑called "junk fees" and reduces burdens on applicants while allowing landlords to verify creditworthiness. A member asked for a record‑keeping or disclosure mechanism so applicants could verify the exact charge.

On habitability and eviction defenses, the committee discussed adding to S.772 an affirmative defense to ejectment when a dwelling has serious code defects. Chair Mark Mahale said the defense should be limited so tenants cannot raise trivial or stale maintenance problems as a tactic in an eviction. Several members supported requiring an uncured or unresolved citation—i.e., a government code citation that existed and remained uncorrected at the time an eviction case was filed—before the defense would apply. "It has to be an uncured citation," the chair said, describing the group's consensus that the defense should apply only where a formal citation demonstrates a serious and ongoing problem.

Confidentiality of eviction records was another point of contention. The draft language the committee reviewed, developed in the judiciary committee, would keep eviction filings confidential until judgment and then lift confidentiality after judgment unless the court finds good cause to continue protection (examples: victim of abuse, disability). Members asked judiciary staff for clarification about how confidential records would be handled on public court calendars and in online court listings.

The committee also reviewed related procedural options for trespass remedies after an ejectment and debated a statutory change that would overrule State v. Dixon so landlords could seek trespass orders against non‑tenant invitees or licensees who violate lease terms or state/federal law; counsel cautioned about constitutional associational‑rights implications and recommended careful drafting and input from judiciary staff.

Fiscal and program proposals discussed in the session included a proposed $1,000,000 appropriation to the Vermont State Housing Authority for down‑payment assistance and a $200,000 request to fund landlord–tenant education programs; committee members asked staff to gather exact language and to prioritize fiscal items before formal inclusion in the bill.

Next steps: committee staff were asked to incorporate the "actual cost" language for credit checks, insert the uncured‑citation limitation for eviction defenses as a draft option, and consult with judiciary staff about confidentiality and appeals language before the next markup. The chair said committee members would continue to refine S.772 and related bills in subsequent hearings.