House General and Housing reviews H.772: faster ejectment process, trespass orders and rental-assistance funding
Loading...
Summary
On Feb. 25, the House General and Housing committee reviewed draft H.772, which shortens statutory eviction timelines, creates a show‑cause path for dangerous-tenant claims, expands no‑trespass authority against nonresident invitees, caps security deposits at two months, and includes funding for rental-arrears assistance and a payment-reporting pilot.
Members of the House General and Housing committee reviewed the draft landlord‑tenant bill H.772 on Feb. 25, 2026, outlining a new, expedited ejectment process and related tenant‑landlord protections and programs.
The bill creates a faster, targeted process for two categories of landlord filings: nonpayment of rent and material breaches of rental agreements. Counsel told the committee the defendant would have 14 days after service to file an answer; if the defendant fails to answer, the landlord may move for possession and the court must decide the default motion within five days absent good cause. For show‑cause claims based on danger to others, counsel said the bill schedules a show‑cause hearing within 10 days of an answer and, if live testimony is required, a final hearing within 21 days of that show‑cause hearing. The committee repeatedly noted an overarching statutory goal of reducing typical case timelines from months to roughly 60 days "in many cases," while acknowledging the judiciary’s calendars remain a practical constraint.
Speaker 1 summarized the approach in plain terms: "we're trying to cut it in half essentially," and described the bill as grouping reasons for ejectment into tenant‑caused problems (dangerous tenant or nonpayment) and landlord‑initiated reasons (lease termination at term, conversion, remodel).
On remedies and defenses, committee counsel (Speaker 6) reminded members that existing habitability law allows tenants to withhold rent while pursuing injunctive relief, damages or termination in some cases. Counsel summarized: "The tenant may withhold rent for the period of noncompliance, obtain injunctive relief, recover damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees, or terminate the rental agreement." Members pressed counsel to review tenant remedies where landlords or landlord agents endanger tenants, and several asked for language to strengthen anti‑retaliation protections for tenants who report violations.
The bill also revises trespass language so a landlord can obtain no‑trespass orders against nonresident invitees — for example, a third party alleged to be using a tenant’s unit for illegal or dangerous conduct — if the tenant consents or the invitee violates lease or law. Counsel clarified "premises" to mean the dwelling unit and related building areas.
Across all cases H.772 would: cap security deposits at two months' rent; limit rent increases to once per year (with limited exceptions noted in the draft); and keep eviction proceedings confidential until a final judgment for possession and issuance of a writ, at which point records become public according to the draft language under review.
The draft also includes programmatic and appropriation items. Committee discussion flagged funding for a statewide rental‑arrears assistance fund administered by the Vermont State Housing Authority and tenant/landlord education funding through Champlain Valley OEO. Counsel noted the treasurer's office requested clarification that a $100,000 appropriation includes contracting and administrative costs to run a payment‑reporting pilot; members also referenced an earlier $600,000 OEO figure that counsel said he had not yet fully incorporated into the version on screen.
Members debated several technical and policy details in markup, including whether to use politically charged labels such as "just cause" (the committee agreed to remove that wording), and whether to preserve or strip language limiting a right to jury trial. Counsel warned removing a jury‑trial reference could raise a constitutional challenge; the committee agreed to leave the jury‑trial reference in the text for now.
Committee members raised practical concerns about the interaction between criminal remedies (for example, Title 13 unlawful mischief for property damage) and civil ejectment remedies. Several members noted that criminal prosecution may be impractical if tenants are judgment‑proof, and that civil ejectment or expanded trespass orders may be the more usable remedies for landlords in many cases.
Speakers also focused on tenant protections beyond nonpayment remedies — citing cases where tenants were left without functioning elevators or otherwise trapped — and asked counsel to craft options to strengthen tenant remedies and anti‑retaliation provisions. As Speaker 2 put it when describing a past local case, tenants were "stuck in their building" while repairs went undone; members said they wanted clearer statutory paths for relief where habitability or safety is at stake.
Next steps: counsel (Speaker 6) will produce a revised draft for a reconvened markup session at 9:00 a.m. the next morning; Speaker 1 said they hope to vote quickly but acknowledged the vote could be postponed until after town meeting if necessary. The committee adjourned without taking a final vote on H.772.
What remains unresolved: counsel and members will refine (a) anti‑retaliation language to protect tenants who report violations, (b) precise timing and mailing calculations for termination notices vs. effective dates, (c) disposal and storage rules for tenant property after possession, and (d) final appropriation language for pilot programs. The chair asked counsel to return with edits and to confirm statutory cross‑references before the next session.
