Mark Mahali presents H.772: 90-day eviction hearing deadline, fast-track for alleged dangerous tenants, habitability defense, and modest funding

Sen. Mark Mahali outlined H.772 at a briefing before the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee, saying the bill is “kind of the result of about almost a year's work” with tenant and landlord advocates and aims to strike a balance between competing concerns.

Mahali told the committee that Vermont’s eviction process is unusually slow, saying “the courts estimate their target is that it should take six months, you know, to go through the process,” and that those delays discourage small, often rural, landlords who provide much of the state’s rental housing. To shorten the timeline, H.772 would generally require that the period from filing an eviction complaint to the hearing be 90 days; an earlier draft had proposed 60 days, which the Judiciary Committee extended to 90 days during its review.

Mahali said the Judiciary Committee and court leadership reviewed the bill and requested changes. “Judge Zone came to our committee and really had spent a lot of time going page by page through the bill and we made every change he suggested,” he said, describing judiciary-driven edits that removed a provision on confidential proceedings and added explicit extension authority for judges.

The bill also creates an expedited process for cases alleging a dangerous tenant. Under H.772, a landlord who alleges immediate danger would file an affidavit under penalty of perjury explaining the basis for the claim; the defendant tenant would have an opportunity to respond, and courts would be required to hold a hearing within 21 days for those matters (subject to judicial extension for cause), Mahali said.

Mahali cited a Vermont court decision and longstanding practice when describing limits on landlord responses to non-tenant guests. He said the bill clarifies trespass authority to remove non-tenants who pose a danger to other residents where the tenant did not consent, addressing issues raised in cases such as the Decker Towers litigation.

On tenant protections, Mahali said H.772 preserves landlords’ ability to end tenancies for reasons under their control (for example, converting a unit, selling or occupying it for family use) but imposes conditional obligations, including a 90-day notice for conversion/nonrenewal and a requirement to return half of a tenant’s deposit 45 days before the lease term ends to help tenants relocate.

The bill adds an affirmative habitability defense: if a tenant facing a nonpayment eviction can show an outstanding, serious code or habitability violation that is not of the tenant’s own making, that defense may be a bar to judgment, Mahali said.

Mahali stressed that the package also includes programmatic supports. Appropriations discussed during drafting included $1,000,000 for a rental arrears program run by housing authorities, $600,000 proposed for mediation or ombuds-style landlord–tenant services in capped agencies, and $100,000 for a treasurer-run positive rental credit reporting pilot. The transcript records variations and an arithmetic discrepancy when committee members attempted to total the amounts; the individual appropriation amounts above reflect what Mahali listed during the briefing.

Committee members asked whether the bill had considered alternatives such as specialized landlord–tenant courts or housing review boards like those in Maine. Committee member Kesha said, “did you look…states that have a landlord tenant court or ask for a housing review board to exist in most major municipalities?” Mahali said the idea has merit and “it’s something that should be done carefully,” but that H.772 did not create or fund a separate court and that further study would be appropriate.

Members raised due-process and operational concerns about imposing deadlines on courts without dedicated funding. Mahali responded that court leadership had reviewed the timelines and that the bill leaves judges discretion to extend deadlines for cause.

Mahali concluded that H.772 is a forward step though not exhaustive: “it’s a start,” he told the committee, adding that additional study and targeted funding—particularly for eviction-prevention and rental-assistance programs—would be necessary to limit homelessness and stabilize tenancies.

The committee took no formal vote in the briefing; Mahali offered to provide further witnesses and materials and the committee adjourned.