Senate committee weighs requiring written termination statements, accommodation notice in landlord-tenant bill H772

On May 27, the Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs committee considered an amendment to landlord–tenant bill H772 that would require landlords to include a written statement setting out particular facts and the basis for any termination and to notify tenants of the right to request reasonable accommodations under section 45503.

Sponsor Kisha described the amendment as an “extra layer of protection if a lease agreement is terminated midcourse,” focused on people with disabilities and intended to limit landlord involvement to situations where an accommodation had been requested. “This language is very careful to only involve the landlord when an accommodation has been requested,” the sponsor said during committee discussion.

Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council walked the committee through the operative text, explaining the amendment would move written-notice language into the termination subsection and require that the actual notice include a written statement “setting forth particular facts, the basis thereof and support of the termination with sufficient detail to inform the tenant of the reasoning behind the termination,” and that the notice inform tenants of the right to request a reasonable accommodation under section 45503.

Angela Zakowski, director of the Vermont Landlords Association, told the committee the association does not support the written-statement requirement. “Termination notices are considered jurisdictional by the court,” Zakowski testified. “If you don't have a termination notice that is 100% in compliance with all of the requirements, the court does not have the ability to hear your case and your eviction case gets dismissed.” She warned the new requirement would produce rounds of litigation, cause dismissals and delays, and remove the streamlined court process that had previously balanced landlords’ and tenants’ interests.

Committee members pressed on the trade‑offs. Supporters argued the notice would help tenants—particularly those with disabilities—understand their rights, including fair housing protections; opponents said the Senate version of H772 has stripped other provisions that previously gave landlords a more predictable process, and that inserting strict notice requirements now would create practical burdens and unintended delays. Several senators asked whether the provision should be limited to behavioral, nonviolent incidents or exclude nonpayment of rent; others noted substance use disorder can be a protected disability in some circumstances and discussed the separate ‘‘good Samaritan’’ language that may be returned in a later strike‑all amendment.

No final vote was taken. Members proposed a straw poll but many said they preferred to revisit the matter on the floor or next session with a fuller package; the chair said the amendment and the broader termination/notice section need “much fuller conversation” and asked sponsors and stakeholders to reconvene before floor action.

What comes next: committee staff will circulate revised drafts; sponsors signaled they may reintroduce a strike‑all amendment that would resurrect some House provisions; the committee agreed to continue work and solicit additional stakeholder input before taking final action.