Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the No Trespass topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary reviews proposed H.772 trespass changes that would narrow tenant protections
Summary
The Senate Judiciary reviewed Senate Economic Development Committee amendments to H.772 that would replace single-instance trespass authority with a 'pattern' requirement, limit no-trespass orders based on prior ejections to criminal ejectments, and remove several tenant-protection provisions including certain post-overdose safeguards.
The Senate Judiciary on May 26 reviewed proposed amendments to H.772 that would substantially narrow when landlords can issue no-trespass orders and remove several tenant-protection provisions.
Cameron Boyd, legislative counsel, told the committee the Economic Development Committee’s proposal “takes everything out of the bill other than the no trespass changes and the accorded administrator report regarding a dedicated residential rental housing document.” He walked members through a series of amendment instances that would strike sections of the Judiciary’s earlier draft.
Why it matters: The proposed changes alter the threshold for a landlord to bar a guest from rental premises and remove language that had limited certain landlord actions. Committee discussion focused on whether the amendments shift the balance toward easier exclusion of guests and former tenants and on whether protections for tenants seeking medical assistance after an overdose should remain.
Key changes and details
- Pattern requirement: Economic Development would replace a single-instance trigger for issuing a no-trespass order when a guest violates lease terms with a requirement that the guest have a “pattern of violating the terms of the lease agreement.” Boyd said the draft defines “pattern of violating” as “two or more acts over a period of time, however short.”
- Prior-ejected individuals: The amendment would narrow subsection d so that a landlord may issue a no-trespass order based on a prior ejection only if that ejection was for criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence (the bill’s b2 category). Under that change, ejections for noncriminal lease violations would not automatically support a no-trespass order.
- Other tenant protections removed or modified: Boyd also explained the committee’s proposal would remove language limiting rent increases in certain post-purchase situations and would strike a provision that barred termination of tenancy for individuals seeking medical assistance for an overdose. He described bifurcation language that would have allowed a domestic-violence victim-tenant to seek court-ordered separation of a rental agreement; Economic Development proposes striking that bifurcation section in full.
Committee reaction and exchanges
A committee member described the Economic Development version as favoring “only one side” and said they needed a side-by-side comparison to decide whether to revert to the Judiciary’s language. The Chair proposed offering an amendment to return most of the bill to the version the Judiciary had passed out. Boyd cautioned that the distinction between issuing a no-trespass order and conducting an eviction proceeding matters: “This is just about no trespass,” he said, describing the change as allowing landlords to use a no-trespass order in certain circumstances without immediately pursuing eviction.
Members also raised questions about conflicts with federal rules in federally subsidized housing when state law permits in-home cannabis use, noting those scenarios could complicate enforcement.
What’s next
The Chair said the committee would consider an amendment to restore portions of the Judiciary draft at the next meeting and paused the discussion for further review. No formal vote on the bill or the Economic Development amendments was recorded in the transcript.
