Senate Judiciary reviews bill tightening and expanding ejectment rules and changing notice periods

Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Council, told the Senate Judiciary on April 8 that the bill on page 772 would overhaul multiple parts of the residential rental agreement chapter and the ejectment (eviction) process. The proposal inserts new service methods, adjusts termination notice lengths depending on reason, requires new affidavits in certain breach cases, and creates a new subchapter to fast‑track some ejectment proceedings.

The changes matter because they alter both tenant protections and landlord remedies. Wood said the bill narrows some notice periods for what the committee has called “just cause” terminations — for example, nonpayment notices would drop from 14 days to 10 — while simultaneously consolidating all no‑cause terminations into a single 90‑day notice requirement. It would also add email and sheriff delivery as permissible methods of “actual notice” and extend the rebuttable presumption for mailed notice from three days to five.

Under current law, Wood said, a landlord must terminate the rental agreement and provide the required notice before seeking a writ of possession. The bill adds or clarifies several procedural elements in the ejectment chapter in Title 12: if a landlord files for alternate service of process the court must "rule promptly" (the earlier three‑day deadline was removed after judicial concern), landlords must include a rent ledger and, where applicable, a factual affidavit when alleging a tenant breached the rental agreement, and the court must set a final hearing within 90 days after a complaint is answered for cases brought under the new subchapter.

The bill also changes the rent‑into‑court (escrow) process, Wood said. It removes the court’s general discretion to order partial payments into court during a proceeding and instead requires full payment if the landlord files for that relief; the tenant may then file a motion to reduce the ordered amount, and the parties may agree to reduce the order. Wood described that as a policy choice to prioritize full escrowed payment while allowing a post‑order reduction mechanism.

Counsel highlighted that the bill shortens the notice period in one subsection from 14 to 5 days where a termination is based on acts that "threaten the health or safety of other residents" and broadens language by removing the restriction to "criminal activity" or "illegal drug activity". "So theoretically, if somebody smokes cigarettes outside and another tenant is complaining about it, that tenant who smokes could be swept up in this," Wood said, noting the practical risk and urging careful drafting.

Wood also flagged a consequential timing change about tenant property: under the proposed language a landlord may dispose of a tenant’s remaining property "immediately upon being legally restored to possession." Because expedited pathways can shorten the sheriff’s wait to as few as five days before execution, Wood warned that in some expedited cases a tenant’s window to retrieve belongings could be much shorter than under current law.

Another substantive change creates an expedited hearing process for cases where continued occupation is said to threaten health or safety; the motion may be filed with or after the complaint, hearings must be held after at least 10 days’ notice and not later than 21 days after the motion is filed absent good cause, and the committee emphasized that the expedited process should be reserved for an ongoing threat rather than a single past incident. Wood said the committee intentionally required some showing that the threat is ongoing to justify shortened procedural timelines.

The bill would also add trespass‑order language intended to limit the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dixon, allowing landlords to seek no‑trespass orders excluding invites or licensees from common areas when (1) the tenant consents, (2) the invitee violated lease terms, or (3) the invitee violated federal or state law on the premises. Counsel said the provision is meant to address cases where invited guests create disturbances that affect other tenants’ quiet enjoyment.

The committee asked a series of technical and policy questions — including whether the new subchapter is necessary, whether courts retain discretion over timing, and how the statutes interact with Rule 55 on defaults. Wood indicated courts can still exercise discretion to alter timeframes in particular cases.

Next steps: counsel offered to provide committee members the version of the bill and a cheat sheet used in the House Economic Development Committee and to return for follow‑up questions on two smaller sections (affirmative defenses and a residential rental pilot program).