Landlord group director backs modest H.772 timing changes but warns draft narrows expedited hearings

Angela Zakowski, director of the Vermont Landlords Association and a practicing attorney, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 24 that H.772 represents a modest, negotiated set of changes to Vermont's eviction law but that recent edits in draft 1.2 may unintentionally narrow who can access a faster court process.

"7 7 2 was the culmination of about in years worth of work," Zakowski said, describing negotiations among housing providers, legal-aid attorneys and legislators. She told senators she supports limited reforms that would create a somewhat faster path to hearings for cases tied to unpaid rent and "substantial violations" such as drug activity or violence.

Zakowski said eviction-related property damage and violent incidents have increased since the moratorium lifted and that repairs now sometimes require tens of thousands of dollars. "Now I am regularly seeing damaged units that are costing about $20,000 to $40,000 to repair," she said, arguing those costs contribute to rising rents and make small housing providers more cautious about accepting tenants.

Her testimony praised H.772's narrower approach but flagged specific changes in the committee's draft 1.2. She said sections that previously tied no-trespass enforcement to a court-issued writ of possession were altered and that language allowing landlords to claim screening-related expenses was removed. Zakowski warned those edits could create ambiguities about who — law enforcement, landlords or a court — determines whether a no-trespass order is warranted.

Zakowski also pointed to a new requirement on page 7, line 18 of draft 1.2 that a landlord must show an "ongoing or repeated threat" to use the expedited termination and hearing path. She warned that standard could exclude a single, severe incident from the expedited process. "If I have one tenant that stabs another tenant... ongoing or repeated threat probably can't use this process," she said, noting that many cases the bill intends to address involve behaviors that make a property unsafe.

Committee members questioned Zakowski's statement that Vermont's eviction timeline is an outlier. She offered to provide a spreadsheet comparing Vermont's court timing and notice periods to other states; a different committee member said his own review showed Vermont is "right at par with national averages." The exchange left the precise comparative conclusion unresolved pending the spreadsheet Zakowski offered to submit.

Staff and senators hashed through statutory placement and timing. Committee counsel explained the amendment would add a new expedited-hearing section to Chapter 169 (ejectment), align it with existing expedited hearings for rent-into-court and unlawful-occupant matters, and target a 21-day window for the expedited hearing when the standard applies. Counsel emphasized that, under the draft, a court would still make case-specific determinations about whether a defendant's continued occupation "is threatening the health or safety of other residents."

Much of the committee's debate focused on whether the expedited path should apply after a single egregious act (for example, a violent assault) or only where there is a demonstrable pattern or continuing risk. Several senators warned that adding an "ongoing or repeated" qualifier could unintentionally bar rapid relief in situations of severe but one-time criminal acts; staff said judges would evaluate the facts of each case and that landlords could present prior off-premises conduct or escalating behavior as evidence to show risk of recurrence.

No formal action was taken on H.772 during the session. Chair said the committee would resume discussion at the beginning of next week and invited members and witnesses to submit suggested language and supporting documents for draft 2.1.

The committee paused for a brief recess at the end of the session.