House General & Housing committee advances wide-ranging H.772 rewrite on landlord-tenant rules

The House General & Housing Committee on Feb. 24 reviewed a strike‑all draft of H.772, a wide-ranging rewrite of residential rental-agreement law that would change how landlords deliver notice, cap some security deposits, limit rent increases and alter termination and eviction timelines. Counsel Cameron Wood presented draft 1.1 and said it incorporates technical edits and suggestions from previous witnesses.

The draft would require "actual notice," meaning the tenant must receive the notice, and creates a rebuttable presumption of receipt five days after mailing or email delivery in some circumstances. Counsel said the draft retains mailed notices and sheriff delivery options and flagged email notice as a policy choice for the committee. "The presumption is gonna be 5 days from the date you mailed it or sent it," Cameron Wood said while explaining the rebuttable presumption.

Committee members sharply debated whether email alone should qualify as notice. Some members argued email is unreliable; others said e‑mail is widely used and can be timely. After discussion and a hands-up preference poll, the committee left language in the draft that treats email paired with mailing as an acceptable route to establish the presumption of receipt, and flagged the policy choice for further drafting.

The draft also limits rent increases: "a landlord shall not increase rent more than once in any 12 month period," counsel told the committee. Members debated whether that limit should follow the unit or the landlord after a property sale; counsel said he will draft clarifying language to state the committee's intent. The draft removes previously proposed rent-control caps that appeared in earlier drafts and retains only the once‑per‑12‑months timing limit.

On applications and fees, the draft would continue to prohibit a general application fee to file for a unit while allowing landlords to charge for the actual cost of background or credit checks. The committee debated what counts as a "current" credit check an applicant can provide; committee members discussed 30, 60 and 90-day windows and ultimately, during this session, indicated acceptance of a 90-day window for an applicant-provided credit report. Members also raised concerns about hard vs. soft credit pulls and asked counsel to consult outside advice before final language is set.

Security deposits drew lengthy debate. The draft limits refundable security deposits to an amount not exceeding two months' rent plus the first month's rent, while expressly allowing a separate pet deposit (no cap in the draft) except for assistance animals. Jess Feinman of the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity’s Fair Housing Project told the committee that under federal and state fair-housing law, "any person with a disability ... has the right to an assistance animal to get them full use and enjoyment of their home," and emphasized the distinction between pets and assistance animals.

Chair members proposed a new mechanism to help tenants displaced by landlord-controlled terminations: an optional walk-through during the notice period that could allow tenants who left the unit in good condition to recover part of their security deposit earlier so they can secure another rental. The chair described a draft approach that would permit an interim partial return (the committee discussed 45 days before termination as a potential milestone) and a final accounting at lease end, with deductions for documented damages. Members sought clearer standards for itemized proof of deductions and agreed to ask counsel to redraft the specific timing and evidence rules.

The committee also revised termination and eviction timelines. The draft sets nonpayment termination at 10 days, defines late payment as payment more than 10 days after rent is due and makes repeated late payment (three times in a 12‑month period) a separate basis for termination. Members discussed how to count days for mailing and whether the landlord must back up notice dates to account for the rebuttable presumption of receipt.

The draft removes explicit references to "criminal activity" as a termination ground, replacing that phrasing with a focus on "acts or other activity that threaten the health or safety of other tenants, the landlord or neighbors," and instructed counsel to draft protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence so they are not punished by the eviction language.

A new provision added by the committee bars termination based on a good‑faith request for medical assistance for a drug overdose and prevents evidence from such a call for help from being used in ejectment proceedings; counsel cited 18 BSA 1454 (the state’s Good Samaritan-related code cited in the draft) and related sections in the bill when explaining the change. A committee member said, "I don't want someone choosing between saving someone's life and the fear of eviction," urging the committee to preserve Good Samaritan protections.

On landlord-controlled terminations for sale, repurposing, demolition or family occupancy, the draft moves to a uniform 90‑day notice for situations "in the landlord's control," replacing a patchwork of shorter and longer notice periods. Counsel explained the change was intended to simplify notice lengths and give tenants more time in a tight rental market.

No formal votes were recorded on final language during the session; the committee directed counsel to return with revised text. The chair scheduled more markup for Wednesday at 11:00 and said H.887 will be introduced later in the afternoon.

What’s next: Counsel will revise the draft to clarify the email/mailed notice interplay, purchaser vs. landlord timing for rent increases, the timeframe and proof standards for applicant-provided credit checks, security-deposit walk-through timing and documentation requirements, and precise counting rules for notice days. The committee will reconvene to continue markup and consider the revisions.