Senate Judiciary hears testimony on H.772 as advocates urge narrower eviction rules and survivor safeguards

The Senate Judiciary committee took up H.772 on April 23, hearing testimony from housing advocates, community-action representatives and domestic-violence service providers who urged narrower language, clearer definitions and more tenant supports before the bill advances.

Chad Simmons, an executive representing a statewide housing membership organization, told the committee his group opposes broad changes in H.772 while supporting a few narrowly tailored provisions to protect residents’ safety. "We do support a couple of very narrow key provisions," Simmons said, but added the bill as drafted would create "additional challenges to our homelessness and housing system." He proposed striking language that refers to "illegal drug activity," limiting expedited action to "ongoing and repeated threats to the safety of other residents," and removing references to "neighbors" to avoid overbroad application.

Jess Heyman, associate director of CVO's statewide housing advocacy programs, warned the bill would "significantly reduce due process" for Vermont’s approximately 76,000 renters and would disproportionately harm people with disabilities, people with limited English proficiency and other vulnerable households. Heyman said shortening notice and response timelines would make it harder for tenants to secure representation or emergency rental assistance, and that current court delays are better addressed by increasing court capacity or creating a housing court rather than eroding existing tenant protections.

A central point of contention was the proposal to shorten some termination notice periods from the statutory 14 days to five days in certain safety-related circumstances. Heyman and other witnesses said five days gives many tenants, especially those needing language access or disability accommodations, insufficient time to seek help. "Five days is far too short," Heyman said, adding that a shorter-than-14-day window might be acceptable if paired with expedited hearings, legal representation for tenants and other protections.

Witnesses also described narrowly framed safety tools they support. Simmons and others backed narrow authority for landlords to seek trespass orders against invitees who violate a tenant's no-trespass agreement when the tenant consents, and they advocated expedited procedures only where evidence shows ongoing violent or threatening behavior toward other residents. Legislative Council supervisor Cameron Wood told senators nothing in law prevents a tenant from seeking a trespass order directly, which witnesses said is sometimes impractical in domestic-violence situations where the tenant fears retaliation.

Representatives of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence urged amendments to protect survivors. The Network proposed that the Agency of Commerce and Community Development produce a standardized notice of occupancy rights under state and federal law (including confidentiality protections), require landlords to provide that notice at key points (admission, denial, and eviction notice), and ensure notices comply with the state’s language-access guidance so they reach non‑English speakers.

The Network also sought clearer, survivor-focused changes to lease bifurcation. Its amendment would require landlords to bifurcate a rental agreement when a protected tenant submits a written request accompanied by a qualifying court order (for example, relief-from-abuse with housing conditions), allowing the survivor to remain in the unit while removing or evicting the perpetrator. Absent a court order, witnesses said bifurcation would remain discretionary for landlords; the Network stressed that the bill’s current wording can be read as both overbroad and unclear and asked the committee to align the statute with federal VAWA protections.

Senators questioned who would bear costs if eviction or ejection processes followed bifurcation and how courts would process such requests; witnesses said the proposed approach mirrors existing safety-related remedies (such as lock changes) and that court procedure and cost allocation would follow normal court practice.

Witnesses repeatedly called for delaying the bill’s July 1 effective date if enacted, arguing that providers, legal-aid groups and landlords need time for outreach, updated materials and training. Heyman said CVO fields more than 3,000 helpline contacts a year and that shortening the timeline without additional legal-assistance funding would compound existing inequities.

The hearing was interrupted by a building evacuation announcement before further witnesses could finish; the committee paused testimony. The committee has posted proposed amendment language on its website and is expected to continue hearings and line-by-line review before acting on H.772.