Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee reviews broad landlord-tenant overhaul

The Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee on Friday continued a section-by-section review of a comprehensive landlord‑tenant bill that would alter notice periods, clarify just‑cause and no‑cause terminations, and change court procedures for ejectment actions.

Cameron Glied, legislative counsel, told the committee that “most of what the bill is about is about the ending of the landlord‑tenant relationship when you have to terminate a rental agreement,” and walked members through proposals on notice delivery, termination reasons, and the court ejectment process. He said the draft aims to make the process more predictable for both landlords and tenants.

Why it matters: The measure touches routine landlord powers — rent increases, application fees, security deposits — and also the high‑stakes procedures that lead to a tenant’s removal. Small changes in notice windows and evidentiary rules can materially affect how quickly a tenant may be asked to leave and how readily a landlord can secure a court writ of possession.

Key provisions described to the committee included: an authorization for actual notice by email, mail or posting to the door; a prohibition on undefined residential application fees while allowing landlords to collect reasonable credit/background check costs; a cap on security deposits described as equal to two months’ rent plus the first month; limits on rent increases (no more than once every 12 months unless the landlord is purchasing the building); and a proposed definition that treats a payment “late” if received more than 10 days after rent is due.

The bill adds and reorganizes termination grounds. It would: shorten the notice period for termination for nonpayment from 14 days to 10 days; allow termination for repeated late payment (more than three late payments in a 12‑month period); treat refusal to permit landlord access as a termination justification; and reduce a subset of termination notices tied to material breaches or repeated late payments from 30 days to 21 days.

The draft also reframes a subsection currently tied to “criminal activity” and “illegal drug activity,” replacing those specific labels with a broader formulation: termination allowed for acts of violence, damage, or other activity that threaten the health or safety of other residents, the landlord, the landlord’s agent, or neighbors. That subsection’s notice period would be reduced from the existing 14 days to five days, a change several members flagged as potentially expansive.

On protections, counsel described an amendment added on the House floor that would bar termination of a tenancy because a tenant was the victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking by another occupant. The bill would allow landlords to bifurcate agreements to remove the alleged abuser while preserving the victim’s tenancy and would provide the victim a reasonable (90‑day) opportunity to find alternative housing or replace household members.

The committee heard a notable procedural protection for tenants: an explicit affirmative defense to an ejectment action when the landlord has been cited for serious health or safety code violations by the Division of Fire Safety and has not reasonably attempted remediation. That defense would not apply if the violation was caused by the tenant’s negligent or deliberate act.

Glied then reviewed judiciary‑committee amendments to the ejectment chapter. Key changes discussed include directing courts to rule "promptly" on motions for alternate service, permitting a landlord to ask the court to require rent be paid into court during an ejectment proceeding (with the court initially ordering full payment but allowing a tenant to move to reduce the amount), and adjustments to the timing for sheriff execution of writs and disposition of property left after eviction. Committee members raised concerns that initial full‑payment orders and added motion practice could impose burdens on unrepresented tenants.

Members repeatedly asked for a clear, lay‑language section‑by‑section memo and a visual chart of notice timeframes; counsel said he will provide a detailed section‑by‑section summary and a chart before the committee meets again. Chair (S1) said the committee will devote further Fridays to the bill and thanked counsel for the work.

Quotations: Cameron Glied said the bill’s primary focus is “about the ending of the landlord‑tenant relationship when you have to terminate a rental agreement.” Chair (S1) described the measure as “the thorniest bill we’re gonna deal with this half session,” noting the multiple areas of law the proposal touches.

What’s unresolved: Members asked whether the bill’s broader phrasing for violent or harmful conduct could be interpreted too widely, whether the 50% renovation threshold for taking units offline is appropriate, and how tenants will be protected during renovations (temporary rehousing or financial accommodations were not included in this bill but exist in other proposals). Several committee members also questioned whether initial court orders requiring full rent paid into court unfairly burden tenants without counsel.

Next steps: Counsel said he will circulate the landlord‑tenant task‑force summary and the requested section‑by‑section materials; the committee agreed to continue this bill on Fridays and to revisit the judiciary amendments and remaining sections at the next meeting.