This Legislative Update provided by Nick Norman, RPOA
Director of Legislative Affairs
=======
Howdee
everyone,
- HB482, The Bedbug Bill, has now passed the Senate (& previously passed the House). It will now be making its way to the governor.
Please contact the governor’s
office at 603-271-2121 & ask her to vote in favor of the bill.
or
You can e-mail the governor by going to the following
website:
- HB413, The Abandonment Bill will have a small but important amendment that clarifies language and sets that start date upon passage instead of waiting for beginning of next year. We have seen and approve the amendment but it is not officially released yet.
Please write to your Senator and ask them to vote in
favor of HB413.
To find both your
Representative & Senator go to
To get much more info on HB413 & HB482:
See more info in Summaries & Full Detail for each category further below which includes property owner position, committee contact info, talking points, and more).
(to jump right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find).
This week:None scheduled so far
Next week:04/30/2013 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
HB472, Definition Of Tenancy In Rooming Houses
Level of Response: LimitedImpact; You Decide
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
Decisions/Updated Status:See Bills Updated Status summary below.
Further below is:Bills Updated Status summary:
Full details on all bills above which includes property owner position, contact info, talking points, and more
==============================================
To find both your Representative & Senator goto
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wml.aspx
This can also be found by going to
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/
& clicking “Find Your Representatives”
==============================================
Bills Updated Status summary:We only list the committee reports on the most important bills affecting the real estate business. If you want to get the committee report on one of the other bills contact me & I will show you how to get them on line. Its not terribly hard to get but not straight ahead either.
HB482, The Bedbug Bill
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: PASSED
House Status: PASSED / ADOPTED
Senate Status: PASSED / ADOPTED
SB60, Assisted Living Facilities; Advance Payments and Security Deposits
Property Owner Position: Limited Impact; You Decide
General Status: In the HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED
Senate Status: PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
SB43, Reduced assessments for history buildings
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: In the HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED
Senate Status: PASSED / ADOPTED
SB42, Applications For Appraisers License
Property Owner Position: Limited Impact; You Decide
General Status: In the HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED
Senate Status: PASSED / ADOPTED
SB108, Land Owner Liability When Permitting Recreational Use
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: In the HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED
Senate Status: PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
===================================================================
Full details on all bills above:HB482, The Bedbug Bill
04/02/2013 at 10:15 AM LOB 103
Title: regarding infestation of bed bugs in rental housing.
Summary: This is a good bill because it puts some of the burden of infestation back to the tenant. It allows landlords to evict based on non-payment if the tenant does not pay for extermination if it is determined that the tenant brought them in.
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0482.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill addresses landlord, tenant, and municipality responsibility for bed bug infestations.
Talking Points:
This is one of the most complicated bills that will have a very direct impact on both landlords and tenants.
The first paragraph of the bill, the declaration of purpose, if the bill passes, is a declaration by the legislature that reasonable measures need to be taken to promote prompt and effective mediation of bedbug infestation. This declaration can open the door to lawsuits for failure to take such actions. It is a statement to everyone not to ignore the problem.
The second and third paragraph of the bill incorporates into the state housing code that not taking measures to remediate a bedbug infestation will be a violation of the minimum standards for housing in the state. Communities can enact their own more stringent codes. This section gives building inspectors the power to deal with bedbug infestations the same powers they have to deal with other infestations.
The fourth paragraph, by amending RSA 540-A, WILL ALLOW LANDLORDS TO ENTER APARTMENTS WITHOUT TENANT CONSENT OR NOTICE to formulate a plan or engage in emergency remediation of rodents or insects, including bedbugs, so long as the entry took place within 72 hours of the landlord first receiving notice of the infestation. This paragraph is a major benefit to landlords to start dealing with the problem promptly. If it takes longer than the 72 hours, the current law applies, the landlord must give the tenant reasonable notice under the circumstances and a tenant is barred from prohibiting the landlord from entering.
The fifth paragraph of the bill makes it a violation of RSA 540-A for a landlord willfully, that means the landlord intended, not to investigate a complaint within 7 days and to take reasonable measures to remediate an infestation.
The fifth paragraph also makes it a violation of RSA 540-A for:
the tenant to refuse the landlord access to his or her apartment to make emergency repairs;
the tenant to refuse the landlord to evaluate if bedbugs are present if the landlord received a complaint about an adjacent unit as long as the landlord gave 48 hours notice;
the tenant to willfully fail to comply with written instructions from the landlord or pest control operator to remediate so long as the instructions were given to an adult, someone 18 years or older, and the tenant was given a reasonable opportunity to comply of not less than 72 hours.
This section of the bill makes it clear that a landlord may only enter without the consent of the tenant to make emergency repairs or with a court order.
Paragraph 6 defines infestation of bedbugs as any bedbugs in rented residential property, and remediation as any treatment that substantially reduces the presence of bedbugs for 60 days. NOTE landlords are not required to use a licensed exterminator nor totally eradicate the insects, as this can be very difficult and expensive. These definitions will be in RSA 540 and not in RSA 540-A, although I expect the courts will use these definitions when reading RSA 540-A
Paragraph 6 also makes the landlord responsible for the cost of remediation in the first instance. The landlord can bill the tenant for the cost if the landlord believes the tenant is responsible for the infestation. If the tenant does not pay the landlord within 30 days or enter into an agreement to repay the landlord, such becomes a ground for eviction for non-payment of rent (A seven day notice and a demand for rent is required)
If the landlord tries to evict the tenant or seek damages for the infestation, the landlord bears the burden of proof (by the preponderance of evidence) that the tenant was responsible for infestation and the landlord offered the tenant the opportunity to enter into a payment plan.
However, the bill gives the landlord a rebuttable presumption that if there were no reports of bedbugs in the tenants unit or directly adjacent units or units directly above or below within 6 months then the tenant was responsible for the infestation. Paragraph 6 then goes on to give courts guidance to be used in determining if the tenant was responsible for the infestation or the bedbugs came from another unit or were in the unit at the time the tenant took possession of the apartment or single family house.
Paragraph 7 of the bill adds a new ground for eviction, but on a 30 days notice. That ground is willful failure of the tenant to prepare a unit for remediation after the tenant was given reasonable notice. Keep in mind that although this paragraph requires a 30 days notice, the landlord can seek a court order as noted above pursuant to RSA 540-A. Those orders can be obtained fairly quickly.
Paragraph 7 also makes it clear that the $1,000 fine for the initial violation and the $1,000 per day fine for a violation after a court order set forth in RSA 540-A is issued does not apply when dealing with infestations.
We support this bill. It is a balance between the interests of society, the landlords and the tenants. As landlords we now have a clearly defined responsibility to remediate the bedbugs, but we have the ability to seek financial reimbursement from a tenant who brought the problem into our building. We also gain the ablity to have the courts order the irresponsible tenants to join in the remediation effort or face contempt and/or eviction. The tenants will have means to force the landlords who do not maintain their buildings, the irresponsible landlord, to remediate.
We also support this bill because I fear that someone will propose, if this does not pass, a bill that would not be as balanced, and the landlord would be responsible not only for remediation but all the costs of such. Further, such a bill may not include as a ground for eviction failure of a tenant to cooperate in the remediation effort. WE COULD DO A LOT WORSE AND LET'S NOT TAKE THAT RISK.
=====================
SB60, Assisted Living Facilities; Advance Payments and Security Deposits
04/09/2013 at 11:00 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to assisted living facilities and landlord tenant law.
Summary: The first part of the bill requires that security deposits paid be subject to RSA 540-A (escrowed ect). It also requires that the residential service agreement that is required before someone moves into such a facility set forth the amount and purpose of such payments. The second part of the bill amends RSA 540-1a, although the bill says RSA 540-1. This amendment would exclude as being a tenant under RSA 540, people in hospitals and residential care facilities (RSA 151) or certified by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB60
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0060.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill excludes assisted living facilities and community residences for the developmentally disabled and chronically ill from the definition of tenant for purposes of landlord/tenant law. This bill also requires that security deposits for assisted living facilities be subject to RSA 540-A.
Talking Points:
Does this only apply to Assisted Living Facilities?
If we have some one who requires assisted living (broad definition) living in an apartment – do these changes apply?
More analysis is needed.
=====================
SB43, Reduced assessments for history buildings
04/10/2013 at 10:00 AM LOB 301
Title: relative to the property taxation of qualifying historic buildings.
Summary: This bill is enabling legislation for municipalities in regards to history buildings that are one hundred years or older, owned by a non-profit organization, and are on the state or federal historic register. If a town adopts the provisions of this bill, then such buildings can not be assessed for more than 10% of the building’s market value.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB43
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0043.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill enables towns and cities to appraise certain qualifying historic buildings at a percentage of market value in order to encourage the preservation of the historic buildings.
Talking Points:
The impact will be that the tax base in a municipality will be slightly reduced, and all other property tax payers would have to make up the difference in a higher tax rate.
Since the bill has minimal impact on us and has a large number of sponsors, we recommend no action.
=====================
SB42, Applications For Appraisers License
04/10/2013 at 11:00 AM LOB 306
Title: relative to applications for licensure by the real estate appraisers board.
Summary: Just letting you know the bill exists in case it may affect you.
Property Owner Position: Limited Impact; You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB42
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0042.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill requires applicants for licensure by the real estate appraisers board to have a
criminal history records check. The bill also provides for licensure by reciprocity for
applicants who are in good standing in another state.
Talking Points:
Limited Impact; You Decide
=====================
SB108, Land Owner Liability When Permitting Recreational Use
04/16/2013 at 10:00 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to the liability of landowners who permit use of their land for recreational activities.
Summary: The bill states that the owner of land who allows its use for recreational activities owes no duty of care to keep it safe for those who use the land or who construct structures on the land. The current paragraph II seems to say almost the same thing.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB108
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0108.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill provides that landowners who permit the use of their land for outdoor recreational activities owe no duty of care to individuals engaged in the recreational activity, including to those engaged in the construction of facilities associated with the outdoor activity.
Talking Points:
Not sure what the drafters of the bill were trying to accomplish.
=====================
HB472, Definition Of Tenancy In Rooming Houses
04/30/2013 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to residential units in rooming houses.
Summary: Presently RSA 540 is excluded from tenants in a rooming house where the tenant stays fewer than 90 days.
This bill changes the exclusion by adding:
“For purposes of this subparagraph, if the owner of the facility directs the occupant to move from one room to another in the same rooming or boarding house, the 90-day period for computing consecutive days of occupancy shall not be broken.”
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S37
Email to Committee:
To: jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us; casac@worldpath.net; andrew.hosmer@leg.state.nh.us; NH.Sen.Pierce@gmail.com; andy.sanborn@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: HB472
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0472.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill clarifies that the exclusion of rooming houses from the definition of tenancy cannot be extended by directing the occupant to move from one room to another within the 90-day exemption period.
Talking Points:
Note that since it is not directly addressed in the bill, it can be argued, that if the guest requests a room change, then the 90 days is broken, since, if the bill passes, the legislature had the opportunity to address this and did not.
If the guest stays 90 days or more, RSA 540 would apply, and the guest would have to be evicted, because at that point the guest now becomes a tenant. Within less than 90 days the owner should have some knowledge if the guest is a problem, and should ask the guest to leave to avoid invoking RSA 540 rights.
A limited number of our members suffer a large impact from this bill. If it affects you be active about it.
=====================
Full details on all bills above:HB482, The Bedbug Bill
04/02/2013 at 10:15 AM LOB 103
Title: regarding infestation of bed bugs in rental housing.
Summary: This is a good bill because it puts some of the burden of infestation back to the tenant. It allows landlords to evict based on non-payment if the tenant does not pay for extermination if it is determined that the tenant brought them in.
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0482.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill addresses landlord, tenant, and municipality responsibility for bed bug infestations.
Talking Points:
This is one of the most complicated bills that will have a very direct impact on both landlords and tenants.
The first paragraph of the bill, the declaration of purpose, if the bill passes, is a declaration by the legislature that reasonable measures need to be taken to promote prompt and effective mediation of bedbug infestation. This declaration can open the door to lawsuits for failure to take such actions. It is a statement to everyone not to ignore the problem.
The second and third paragraph of the bill incorporates into the state housing code that not taking measures to remediate a bedbug infestation will be a violation of the minimum standards for housing in the state. Communities can enact their own more stringent codes. This section gives building inspectors the power to deal with bedbug infestations the same powers they have to deal with other infestations.
The fourth paragraph, by amending RSA 540-A, WILL ALLOW LANDLORDS TO ENTER APARTMENTS WITHOUT TENANT CONSENT OR NOTICE to formulate a plan or engage in emergency remediation of rodents or insects, including bedbugs, so long as the entry took place within 72 hours of the landlord first receiving notice of the infestation. This paragraph is a major benefit to landlords to start dealing with the problem promptly. If it takes longer than the 72 hours, the current law applies, the landlord must give the tenant reasonable notice under the circumstances and a tenant is barred from prohibiting the landlord from entering.
The fifth paragraph of the bill makes it a violation of RSA 540-A for a landlord willfully, that means the landlord intended, not to investigate a complaint within 7 days and to take reasonable measures to remediate an infestation.
The fifth paragraph also makes it a violation of RSA 540-A for:
the tenant to refuse the landlord access to his or her apartment to make emergency repairs;
the tenant to refuse the landlord to evaluate if bedbugs are present if the landlord received a complaint about an adjacent unit as long as the landlord gave 48 hours notice;
the tenant to willfully fail to comply with written instructions from the landlord or pest control operator to remediate so long as the instructions were given to an adult, someone 18 years or older, and the tenant was given a reasonable opportunity to comply of not less than 72 hours.
This section of the bill makes it clear that a landlord may only enter without the consent of the tenant to make emergency repairs or with a court order.
Paragraph 6 defines infestation of bedbugs as any bedbugs in rented residential property, and remediation as any treatment that substantially reduces the presence of bedbugs for 60 days. NOTE landlords are not required to use a licensed exterminator nor totally eradicate the insects, as this can be very difficult and expensive. These definitions will be in RSA 540 and not in RSA 540-A, although I expect the courts will use these definitions when reading RSA 540-A
Paragraph 6 also makes the landlord responsible for the cost of remediation in the first instance. The landlord can bill the tenant for the cost if the landlord believes the tenant is responsible for the infestation. If the tenant does not pay the landlord within 30 days or enter into an agreement to repay the landlord, such becomes a ground for eviction for non-payment of rent (A seven day notice and a demand for rent is required)
If the landlord tries to evict the tenant or seek damages for the infestation, the landlord bears the burden of proof (by the preponderance of evidence) that the tenant was responsible for infestation and the landlord offered the tenant the opportunity to enter into a payment plan.
However, the bill gives the landlord a rebuttable presumption that if there were no reports of bedbugs in the tenants unit or directly adjacent units or units directly above or below within 6 months then the tenant was responsible for the infestation. Paragraph 6 then goes on to give courts guidance to be used in determining if the tenant was responsible for the infestation or the bedbugs came from another unit or were in the unit at the time the tenant took possession of the apartment or single family house.
Paragraph 7 of the bill adds a new ground for eviction, but on a 30 days notice. That ground is willful failure of the tenant to prepare a unit for remediation after the tenant was given reasonable notice. Keep in mind that although this paragraph requires a 30 days notice, the landlord can seek a court order as noted above pursuant to RSA 540-A. Those orders can be obtained fairly quickly.
Paragraph 7 also makes it clear that the $1,000 fine for the initial violation and the $1,000 per day fine for a violation after a court order set forth in RSA 540-A is issued does not apply when dealing with infestations.
We support this bill. It is a balance between the interests of society, the landlords and the tenants. As landlords we now have a clearly defined responsibility to remediate the bedbugs, but we have the ability to seek financial reimbursement from a tenant who brought the problem into our building. We also gain the ablity to have the courts order the irresponsible tenants to join in the remediation effort or face contempt and/or eviction. The tenants will have means to force the landlords who do not maintain their buildings, the irresponsible landlord, to remediate.
We also support this bill because I fear that someone will propose, if this does not pass, a bill that would not be as balanced, and the landlord would be responsible not only for remediation but all the costs of such. Further, such a bill may not include as a ground for eviction failure of a tenant to cooperate in the remediation effort. WE COULD DO A LOT WORSE AND LET'S NOT TAKE THAT RISK.
=====================
SB60, Assisted Living Facilities; Advance Payments and Security Deposits
04/09/2013 at 11:00 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to assisted living facilities and landlord tenant law.
Summary: The first part of the bill requires that security deposits paid be subject to RSA 540-A (escrowed ect). It also requires that the residential service agreement that is required before someone moves into such a facility set forth the amount and purpose of such payments. The second part of the bill amends RSA 540-1a, although the bill says RSA 540-1. This amendment would exclude as being a tenant under RSA 540, people in hospitals and residential care facilities (RSA 151) or certified by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB60
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0060.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill excludes assisted living facilities and community residences for the developmentally disabled and chronically ill from the definition of tenant for purposes of landlord/tenant law. This bill also requires that security deposits for assisted living facilities be subject to RSA 540-A.
Talking Points:
Does this only apply to Assisted Living Facilities?
If we have some one who requires assisted living (broad definition) living in an apartment – do these changes apply?
More analysis is needed.
=====================
SB43, Reduced assessments for history buildings
04/10/2013 at 10:00 AM LOB 301
Title: relative to the property taxation of qualifying historic buildings.
Summary: This bill is enabling legislation for municipalities in regards to history buildings that are one hundred years or older, owned by a non-profit organization, and are on the state or federal historic register. If a town adopts the provisions of this bill, then such buildings can not be assessed for more than 10% of the building’s market value.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB43
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0043.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill enables towns and cities to appraise certain qualifying historic buildings at a percentage of market value in order to encourage the preservation of the historic buildings.
Talking Points:
The impact will be that the tax base in a municipality will be slightly reduced, and all other property tax payers would have to make up the difference in a higher tax rate.
Since the bill has minimal impact on us and has a large number of sponsors, we recommend no action.
=====================
SB42, Applications For Appraisers License
04/10/2013 at 11:00 AM LOB 306
Title: relative to applications for licensure by the real estate appraisers board.
Summary: Just letting you know the bill exists in case it may affect you.
Property Owner Position: Limited Impact; You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB42
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0042.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill requires applicants for licensure by the real estate appraisers board to have a
criminal history records check. The bill also provides for licensure by reciprocity for
applicants who are in good standing in another state.
Talking Points:
Limited Impact; You Decide
=====================
SB108, Land Owner Liability When Permitting Recreational Use
04/16/2013 at 10:00 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to the liability of landowners who permit use of their land for recreational activities.
Summary: The bill states that the owner of land who allows its use for recreational activities owes no duty of care to keep it safe for those who use the land or who construct structures on the land. The current paragraph II seems to say almost the same thing.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB108
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0108.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill provides that landowners who permit the use of their land for outdoor recreational activities owe no duty of care to individuals engaged in the recreational activity, including to those engaged in the construction of facilities associated with the outdoor activity.
Talking Points:
Not sure what the drafters of the bill were trying to accomplish.
=====================
HB472, Definition Of Tenancy In Rooming Houses
04/30/2013 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to residential units in rooming houses.
Summary: Presently RSA 540 is excluded from tenants in a rooming house where the tenant stays fewer than 90 days.
This bill changes the exclusion by adding:
“For purposes of this subparagraph, if the owner of the facility directs the occupant to move from one room to another in the same rooming or boarding house, the 90-day period for computing consecutive days of occupancy shall not be broken.”
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S37
Email to Committee:
To: jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us; casac@worldpath.net; andrew.hosmer@leg.state.nh.us; NH.Sen.Pierce@gmail.com; andy.sanborn@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: HB472
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0472.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill clarifies that the exclusion of rooming houses from the definition of tenancy cannot be extended by directing the occupant to move from one room to another within the 90-day exemption period.
Talking Points:
Note that since it is not directly addressed in the bill, it can be argued, that if the guest requests a room change, then the 90 days is broken, since, if the bill passes, the legislature had the opportunity to address this and did not.
If the guest stays 90 days or more, RSA 540 would apply, and the guest would have to be evicted, because at that point the guest now becomes a tenant. Within less than 90 days the owner should have some knowledge if the guest is a problem, and should ask the guest to leave to avoid invoking RSA 540 rights.
A limited number of our members suffer a large impact from this bill. If it affects you be active about it.
=====================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.