Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/19/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB307 | |
| SB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 307-LANDLORD REMEDIES; LATE FEE
8:40:28 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 307 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR CON BUNDE, Sponsor, introduced the bill. SB 307
addresses a problem in the landlord/tenant relationship that
surfaced due to a 2002 Superior Court decision, which changed
the status quo on collection of late rent and late fees. The
bill would return the notification process back to its original
process.
Prior to 2002, inclusion of a late fee on the same 7-day notice
to quit for nonpayment of rent was an accepted practice. The
court ruled that this was illegal and required that the
landlords use an additional 10-day notice for the late fee.
Simple, clear language between landlord and tenant is essential.
Replacing one notice with two notices, both with different due
dates and amounts owed causes problems, and a dispute invariably
ends up in court. The bill would allow landlords to return to
the same 7-day notice requirement for non-payment of the rent
plus the additional late fee.
8:42:49 AM
Senator Hollis French joined the meeting.
8:43:38 AM
BOB MAIER, Alaska Manufactured Housing Association, testified in
support of the bill. He said historically the late was included
in the 7-day notice to quit of non-payment of rent. This
practice has been going on since before the Landlord-Tenant Act
was enacted. He asked the committee to support the bill and gave
a comparative example of an electric bill that includes a late
fee on the same notice with the same due date.
8:46:02 AM
Senator Gene Therriault joined the meeting.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked Mr. Maier whether a person could be
evicted for not paying a late fee even after paying the rent.
MR. MAIER said yes but it has never happened. A landlord would
not pursue an action based on a late fee due to all of the
additional costs involved, including court costs and the costs
involved in re-renting the property.
SENATOR GUESS countered that as the bill is written it would
allow for an eviction based on the late fee.
MR. MAIER agreed and said that it has never been the practice of
a landlord to evict a person based on non-payment of a late fee.
He said he has sat through over 400 eviction hearings and has
never seen a judge evict on the basis of a late fee alone and
has never seen an action brought forward on the basis of a late
fee alone.
8:48:38 AM
LEO REGNER, Landlord, testified in support of the bill. He said
the contract agreement should be enforceable with one
notification to quit. The law as currently written allows the
tenant to extend the problem due to all of the additional
paperwork and waiting that both parties have to go through.
8:53:48 AM
WILLIAM WHIPPLE, Landlord, testified in support of the bill. He
voiced support of the previous testimony and informed the
committee of the difficulty in evicting tenants who have failed
to pay their rent.
8:57:39 AM
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), testified in opposition to SB 307. He
asserted that late fees should not be treated as rent and the
bill would cause that to happen.
8:58:55 AM
PAT LUBY, Executive Director, AARP Alaska, testified in
opposition to the bill. He cautioned the committee that the bill
would allow for landlords to impose unreasonable late fees and
that the bill would force the courts to include that late fee in
the rent. AkPIRG agrees with the attorney general's office and
with the court on the issue.
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
testified that the DOL has already provided comments to the bill
sponsor in the previous committee hearing. Senator Guess has
highlighted some issues with the bill. Currently if a late fee
is assessed the landlord has the right to give a 10-day notice
and the recipient has the opportunity to schedule a hearing and
challenge the reasonableness of that late fee. If a person does
not pay the late fee, the judge must decide whether failure to
pay constitutes a material non-compliance with the lease
agreement.
Hence, the court is forced to apply a different standard of
review to the failure to pay rent and the failure to pay the
late fee. Combining these two issues into one hearing would
allow the court to evict a tenant for failing to pay a late fee
and it wouldn't necessarily need to consider the reasonableness
of the late fee. The DOL does not take a position on the bill
but the committee should understand the impact of the
legislation, he stated.
9:03:47 AM
SENATOR FRENCH said for the record he has done two evictions for
non-payment of rent and they were over 10 years ago. He asked
Mr. Sniffen if there was anything in the law that outlines a
maximum late fee proportional to the rent.
MR. SNIFFEN said no but courts are unlikely to allow a late fee
that is greater than the rent.
SENATOR FRENCH referred to Mr. Sniffen's letter in the bill
packet regarding the possibility of moving everything to a ten-
day notice. He asked him to review the letter dated March 22,
2006 from Mr. Maier, which claims that going to the 10-day
notice would be a disaster for the tenant.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that he spoke to Mr. Maier about the issue
of landlords being able to evict tenants and stated that there
are a number of ways for landlords to evict tenants. He said he
would read the letter and get back to the committee.
SENATOR FRENCH said his experience is that 25 percent of the
people he rents to are young people renting for the first time.
He said when they sign the lease they generally don't know to
what obligation they are signing. He expressed agreement with
the one time notice and said he is looking for a procedure that
is more efficient yet protects both sides.
9:09:08 AM
WAYNE STEVENS, President and CEO, Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce, testified in support of the bill. He said the court
decision created unnecessary confusion and disruption to the
rental and leasing services in Alaska.
CHAIR SEEKINS saw no further testimony and held the bill in
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|