Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the H772 Residential Rental Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee reviews H.772 draft that would cap security deposits, add no‑trespass orders and seek a housing docket study
Summary
Legislative council presented draft 3.1 of H.772, proposing a two-month cap on security deposits (while allowing municipalities to keep lower caps), new no‑trespass authority for landlords with individualized consent and one-year enforceability, and a proposal to task the judiciary with a study on a new housing docket to evaluate expedited hearing timelines and resource needs.
The Senate Judiciary committee reviewed a draft of H.772 on May 6 proposing multiple changes to the residential rental chapter, ranging from security-deposit limits to no-trespass authority and a proposed judiciary study to assess an expedited housing docket.
Legislative counsel explained draft 3.1 would bar landlords from charging security deposits exceeding two months' rent and described related consumer-protection language (for example, returning half of a security deposit in some no-cause evictions and separate pet deposits). Counsel noted municipal ordinances that set lower local caps — the example cited was Burlington’s one-month limit — would remain valid because the draft includes language making municipal ordinances supplemental and not inconsistent with state minimum protections.
On trespass, counsel described a new subsection that would allow landlords to issue no-trespass orders against a tenant's invitees or licensees if the invitee had previously been ejected under specified termination sections (for example, where there was criminal activity or material violation). Counsel said the draft requires individualized consent (prohibiting blanket consent clauses in rental agreements) and makes a served no-trespass order enforceable for one year, renewable by service.
Members raised concerns about elements of an expedited hearing process in the draft and recommended that unresolved policy choices be folded into a study: counsel proposed a judiciary-run housing docket feasibility review to assess timelines (for example, 7–14 day expedited hearings), resource needs, and stakeholder engagement. The committee asked counsel to return with a redraft reflecting these discussions.
Counsel also summarized guidance from legal‑aid resources that there is no bright-line rule for when a guest becomes a tenant; courts analyze fact-specific indicia such as possession, keys provided, and verbal agreements.
The committee did not vote; counsel agreed to return the following day with a new draft for consideration.
