Judiciary warns H.772’s confidentiality rules and tight timelines could confuse courts and strip safeguards
Loading...
Summary
State court witnesses told the committee that provisions in H.772 that would treat ejectment dockets as confidential, shorten notice and answer periods, and impose hard hearing deadlines risk operational confusion, added hearings and reduced procedural protections unless the draft is clarified.
Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney and state court administrator Terry Parson told a legislative committee on Feb. 17 that H.772, the bill revising residential rental and eviction procedures, contains drafting choices that could complicate court operations and erode established procedures.
"Confidential records in a specific docket is very, very unusual," Parson said, warning that treating entire ejectment dockets as confidential while leaving hearings open would create an awkward hybrid that court staff would struggle to administer. She said existing confidential dockets are narrowly defined (juvenile, mental‑health, family, adoption and probate) and that expanding confidentiality without clear verification procedures would generate additional petitions and hearings to determine who may access sealed records.
Zoney walked the committee through numerous provisions he said lack sufficient clarity. "What this bill does is it removes receipt from being part of actual notice," Zoney said, describing the practical consequence: a tenant might be deemed served when the landlord knows the tenant did not receive the notice. He also flagged vague definitions (for example, the bill references a definition of "immediate family" "as described in similar law in another jurisdiction") and broad drafting that uses "includes" without limits when listing bases for termination for breach.
The judges also questioned several accelerated deadlines in the draft. Zoney noted proposals that would require answers in as few as seven days, motions decided within three days, and final hearings set no later than 60 days from filing, often with no explicit "good cause" exception. "If someone has a serious medical mishap where they have to go to the hospital, under this statute the judge cannot continue the case," Zoney said, urging the committee to add good‑cause language and clearer remedies for missed deadlines. He also warned that current civil practice protections (for defaults and Rule 55 safeguards) appear to be omitted in the draft.
Parson and Zoney urged tighter drafting and clearer cross‑references to existing statutes (they named provisions in titles 9, 12 and 13 as examples) so courts can reliably determine service, who may access confidential records and which timelines control. Both witnesses suggested many concerns could be addressed in a redraft; the committee asked them to submit written suggested edits.
The committee did not take a vote; Chair closed the session and signaled follow‑up markup on subsequent days.
