Senate committee advances revised landlord-tenant bill H.772 but punts on 90-day and disability provisions

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee met remotely May 18 to consider draft 2.2 of landlord-tenant bill H.772 and checked off a series of technical and substantive edits while leaving two contested areas for follow-up.

Chair opened the session saying the committee's goal was to "land our landlord tenant bill H 772" and asked staff to walk members through the new draft. Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Counsel said draft 2.2 is an edited version of the previous text and that the most significant changes appear in the third instance of amendments.

Why it matters: the bill, as revised, narrows earlier House-origin provisions (removing proposed caps on rent increases and security deposits) and focuses the committee’s work on clarifying when and how a landlord may terminate a tenancy, including new rules on notice content, bifurcation when one tenant is accused of violence, and court filing requirements. Those choices affect both tenants seeking stability and small landlords who say they cannot absorb extended unpaid rent.

Key decisions and debates

• Notice documentation: Counsel told the committee the statute currently requires only "the actual date of termination" and "actual notice" (meaning the tenant must receive it), but that court decisions have required landlords to provide enough information so a tenant is not left to "speculate" about the basis or legal effect of a termination. Cameron Wood said the draft adds language to specify what must be in a termination notice. "The statute doesn't specify, so it's really gonna be a fact specific scenario," he said.

• Affidavit removed; written statement adopted: Members questioned whether requiring an "affidavit" (a sworn, potentially notarized statement) to accompany certain termination notices would be unduly burdensome for small landlords. After discussion, the committee agreed to eliminate the word "affidavit" from the draft and substitute "written statement," with counsel noting existing statutory options for self-attestation. Chair confirmed: the committee will "take out the affidavit" language and retain a written-statement requirement.

• Bifurcation to protect victims; 90-day controversy: The draft would bar termination of a tenant identified as a victim of domestic abuse, assault or stalking and allow a landlord to "bifurcate" a lease to remove the alleged perpetrator while keeping the protected tenant in place. The draft included language—based on similar federal protections under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)—that would require a reasonable opportunity, commonly framed by advocates as 90 days, for the remaining tenant to find new housing or otherwise satisfy rent obligations. Members were divided: some said 90 days reflects federal practice for federally subsidized housing; others said imposing 90 days statewide would unfairly impose three months of unpaid rent on small private landlords. Cameron Wood confirmed federal programs use a 90-day standard but said the state could set a shorter timeframe (30 or 60 days) or leave reasonableness to the courts. The committee took a straw poll to strike the contested subsection b (the statutory 90-day floor) and keep subsection a (authorizing bifurcation) while moving policy questions about timelines and rent relief to continued work or study.

• No-trespass and pattern language tightened: The committee agreed to tighten no-trespass language so a landlord may issue a no-trespass order only after violent or criminal ejectments (the draft limits this to prior ejections under the clause for illegal drug activity/acts of violence) and to define "pattern" as at least two acts.

• Property after writ of possession: Counsel described a provision that would allow landlords to dispose of tenant property soon after a writ of possession is issued (a window that could be as short as six days under the draft). Several members, particularly those identifying as tenant advocates, said that timeline was too short and could lead to tenants losing belongings; the committee agreed to remove or revisit that section rather than adopt it now.

• Administrative and study changes: The committee struck an unfunded deposit-credit-reporting pilot, renamed the bill language to reflect residential rental agreements, ejectments, and unlawful trespass, and narrowed a judiciary study to a residential rental docket with required consultations (landlords, tenants, Vermont Legal Aid and others).

• Disability-related protections unresolved: Members debated language that would prevent landlords from terminating a tenancy where the conduct underlying a proposed termination was the product of a tenant's disability. Supporters said such protections are necessary for vulnerable tenants; critics said the drafting must not immunize violent or criminal acts. The committee did not resolve the language and scheduled follow-up discussion.

Quotes that capture the debate

"The statute doesn't specify, so it's really gonna be a fact specific scenario," Cameron Wood said as he described what notice must contain. On the affidavit question, multiple members warned an affidavit requirement could be "overly legalistic" and push "mom-and-pop" landlords toward courts or notarization; the committee agreed to "let affidavit go" and require a written statement instead. Katarina Lasayas of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence told the panel that without a grace period "if they weren't able to cover their rent, there would still be an opportunity to stay housed," arguing time can prevent homelessness for trauma survivors.

Next step: The committee left two items—precise disability protections and the tenant-property disposal window—for further work and scheduled continuation of this item for the following morning (9–10 a.m.) and indicated unresolved policy choices could be addressed in conference committee or a future study. No formal roll-call votes were recorded during the session.

Ending: With multiple strikes and edits agreed, the committee moved forward with draft 2.2 while deferring more complex policy tradeoffs between tenant protections and burdens on small landlords for additional drafting and study.