Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/12/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 222: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS Number 280 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 222, said that she introduced the bill due to many requests that the landlord/tenant law be changed. She said that, to date, she had received only favorable responses to her bill. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that HB 222 was a very complex bill, which essentially accomplished three things: (1) it expedited a landlord's ability to evict a tenant who failed to pay rent when due, or damaged the premises, or refused to vacate the premises after a lease expired; (2) it increased the tenant's responsibility for maintenance of a rental unit and allowed the landlord to use a "premises condition statement," signed by both parties, as legal evidence; and (3) it added criminal offenses involving alcohol or drugs to the nuisance abatement statutes and allowed eviction for those offenses. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that HB 222 would not hurt responsible tenants, but would give them and landlords much- needed relief and protection from irresponsible tenants. She urged the committee to support the bill. She commented that the bill contained two classifications of landlords: professional and incidental. She said that the existing landlord/tenant law had been very effective, except that it was weighted toward tenants. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that the existing landlord/tenant law had resulted in landlords requiring huge deposits from new tenants, as a result of experiences with bad tenants in the past. She said that the law needed to be changed so that it was weighted more towards landlords. She noted that she had two amendments to offer, in response to concerns expressed at the House Labor and Commerce Committee hearing on HB 222. Number 363 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES read AMENDMENT NO. 1, which included the use of rental property to engage in prostitution as a criminal offense for which a tenant could be evicted, instead of allowing a person to be evicted for simply working as a prostitute off the rented premises. Number 426 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if the effect of AMENDMENT NO.1 was to expand the prohibited acts from prostitution to prostitution-involved crimes such as soliciting prostitution, assignation, etc. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied in the affirmative. Number 432 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that the original intent of HB 222 was to limit the group of acts for which a tenant could be evicted to drug and alcohol offenses; AMENDMENT NO.1 added an additional type of activity. She made a MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT NO.1. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 445 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES OFFERED AMENDMENT NO.2, which she said would benefit tenants. The amendment changed the language of the bill to relate only to substantial acts or omissions. The amendment defined "substantial" as something which caused damage in excess of the amount of the rental property's security deposit. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS MOVED AMENDMENT NO.2. She then questioned whether the definition of "substantial" was sufficiently concise. Number 474 CHAIRMAN PORTER said that it was his understanding AMENDMENT NO,2 replaced language which existed in present statute. Number 479 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the language in AMENDMENT NO. 2 did not exactly match, but was similar to language presently in statute. She said that the existing language referred to "substantial" acts or omissions, but did not define "substantial." Number 492 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT AMENDMENT NO.2. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND distributed copies of AMENDMENT NO. 3, which he said had been included in the Senate's companion bill to HB 222. He said that the amendment would allow for a mediation process to be set up between a landlord and a tenant. If the mediation broke down, he said, the proceedings would return to court. He said that the amendment provided an avenue for differences to be resolved outside of a courtroom. He expressed an opinion that the amendment would not take the "teeth" out of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Representative James to state her objections to including this particular amendment in HB 222. Number 530 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that mediation was always available to parties in dispute, but she felt that putting it into statute would be too cumbersome. Number 539 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND indicated his understanding that mediation between a landlord and a tenant could occur, whether or not it was included in HB 222. However, he said that including it in the law would draw attention to the fact that there was another avenue available for people wanting to resolve differences. Number 557 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Nordlund to comment on the section of his amendment pertaining to section 6 of HB 222. Number 559 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND commented that it was his understanding that the amendment as a whole would allow for a mediation process to be conducted. He said that he could not speak to the specifics of the amendment. Number 560 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she was not familiar with the particular section either. She said that if the amendment would extend the time frames which were in HB 222, then she would oppose it. Number 569 CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee consider the portion of AMENDMENT NO. 3 beginning with the section pertaining to page 7, line 7. He said that the amendment would not require mediation, but merely allowed for it. Number 573 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the amendment would not require mediation. She expressed concern that mediation would not be mentioned in some rental agreements, resulting in complex court proceedings later. Number 580 CHAIRMAN PORTER did not think that such a problem would result, given the wording of the amendment. MS. HORETSKI expressed her opinion that AMENDMENT NO. 3 would not invalidate a rental agreement which did not mention mediation. Number 589 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a landlord could include mediation in rental agreements with some tenants, but not with others. Number 598 MS. HORETSKI commented that landlords could treat different tenants differently, but could not discriminate against tenants on the basis of certain features, including race and sex. However, if a landlord had articulable reasons for treating one tenant differently than another (for example, a lack of references), then he or she could impose different conditions on that tenant, she said. Number 613 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that mediation seemed like a stall tactic, as well as a cumbersome requirement. Number 632 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the amendment had not been formally moved. Additionally, she said that the amendment was to SB 155, the Senate version of HB 222, and HB 222's sponsor did not support it. Number 641 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that he would not formally move the amendment, as there apparently were not enough votes to support it. He said that if the hearing on HB 222 were to be continued on another day, he would bring the amendment back before the committee, redrafted so that the format conformed with HB 222. CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee now had HB 222, as amended by AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND 2, before it. Number 650 SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, commented that HB 222 was substantially similar to landlord/tenant bills which had been before the legislature for the last five years. She said that the landlord/tenant law now in place had tried to balance the rights of landlords and tenants. She expressed an opinion that HB 222 tipped the balance too far in favor of landlords. She said that women, minorities, and low-income citizens were more likely to be renters than other Alaskans; for that reason, she said that the effects of HB 222 would disproportionately fall on those groups of people. MS. GOLL expressed her concern about HB 222's shortened notice periods. She appreciated the bill's accompanying fiscal note, to cover the cost of preparing a brochure explaining the new landlord/tenant law. She commented that in some instances, the bill was changing notice periods from ten days to five days; in other instances, notice periods were being decreased from ten days to 24 hours. She stated that the bill would result in more evictions. MS. GOLL agreed that there were bad tenants, but expressed doubts that changing the landlord/tenant law would have any impact on tenants who disregarded the law anyway. She said that in most cases, landlords were able to protect themselves by requiring references or deposits. She applauded AMENDMENT NO. 2, saying that it made HB 222 more balanced. She said that her organization supported the mediation process. MS. GOLL called attention to the section of HB 222 pertaining to a tenant who had been arrested for a crime. She said that by shortening the notice period, eviction proceedings would begin before the tenant was able to defend him- or herself against the crime for which he or she was arrested. And, if the tenant was convicted, she questioned what purpose would be served by putting that person's family out on the street. MS. GOLL summarized by saying that, when dealing with the landlord/tenant law, both parties needed to be respected. She reiterated her belief that HB 222 went too far in shifting the balance away from tenants and toward landlords. TAPE 93-59, SIDE A Number 000 ELLEN NORTHUP, DIRECTOR of THE GLORY HOLE homeless shelter in Juneau, distributed a letter to the members of the committee. She believed Americans were innocent until proven guilty, and said that some of HB 222's provisions ran counter to that tenet. However, she approved of many of the provisions of the bill. She was aware that shortening the notice period from ten days to five days was aimed at drug dealers and prostitutes, but said that it would also hit senior citizens whose social security checks were held up in the mail. MS. NORTHUP mentioned a current situation of which she was aware, involving an elderly man who had lived in the same apartment for about six years. The building was sold to another owner, who implemented a new requirement of first and last months' rent, plus a cleaning deposit. When the man first moved into the building, she said, he only had to pay his first month's rent. He was unable to pay for his last month, plus his cleaning deposit and, therefore, was evicted. MS. NORTHUP stated that her primary objection to HB 222 was its shortened notice periods. She suggested that landlords ask prospective tenants if they knew how to clean a house. Strange as it might seem, she said, some people had never kept an apartment. Number 135 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that tenants could only seek assistance from the general relief program of the Division of Public Assistance when they could present an eviction notice. Therefore, she said, eviction notices were sometimes given to tenants in order to benefit them. She said that in most cases, landlords were understanding in the situation of a welfare or social security check arriving late. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed an opinion that landlords required first and last months' rent, plus deposits as a result of problems that had occurred due to the existing landlord/tenant law. She noted that if tenants were given a five-day notice period, and could not come up with rent money within that time, then they would probably also be unable to come up with the rent money in ten days. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that the intention of the existing landlord/tenant law was to protect both parties. However, she said that during the fifteen years that it had been in effect, it had bent over backwards for tenants. She said that the existing law had resulted in many people who were unwilling to be landlords. She expressed an opinion that the state needed to encourage landlords to provide rental housing. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative James if she was aware of a memorandum from Jack Chenoweth of the Legislative Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services, which suggested that a particular amendment be made to HB 222. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she had seen the memorandum, and felt that if the amendment was necessary, then she would support including it. However, she said that if the amendment was unnecessary, then she would rather not include it. Number 195 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that a House Judiciary Committee substitute would need to be drafted anyway, due to the other amendments that had been made. She noted that she had seen Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment regarding court rule references, but was as yet uncertain as to whether HB 222 made procedural or substantive changes. Number 200 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that she would like to hear Ms. Horetski's legal opinion of Mr. Chenoweth's suggested amendment. Number 209 CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the committee hold HB 222 in committee until the following Wednesday; in the meantime, he said, a committee substitute could be drafted and Ms. Horetski could research Mr. Chenoweth's concerns. Number 219 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND noted that sections 1 and 6 of HB 222 would place additional requirements on police departments, including notifying property-owners if someone other than the property-owner was arrested, and aiding in the eviction process. He wondered what sort of impact the bill would have on the Alaska State Troopers and on local police departments. Number 234 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that there was a fiscal note accompanying HB 222. Number 238 LT. HARRIS commented that he supported the concept of section 1 of HB 222, while recognizing that it would create more work for the Troopers. He said that in most cases, it would be easy to find out who owned a piece of property and notify that person by letter. He said that in Anchorage and Fairbanks, records were computerized, thereby speeding up the notification process. In other areas of the state, he said, finding out who owned a particular piece of property would be more time-consuming. But, he said that notification of property-owners was an important thing to do. LT. HARRIS indicated his understanding that eviction notices were usually served by private process-servers, only asking the police for assistance if certain problems arose. At that time, he said, the police would provide assistance as part of its routine work. He stated that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) supported the concept of HB 222. Number 273 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that it would be helpful to the police to have the cooperation of a property-owner in these instances. Additionally, police could use the opportunities presented in HB 222 to point out the owner's responsibilities toward bad tenants. He added that the police's involvement stemming from HB 222 would not necessarily be viewed as a problem. Number 288 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked how a court would interpret section 10 of HB 222, pertaining to a person's reputation in the community. Number 298 CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that a person's reputation in the community was a standard used in establishing the credibility of a witness. Number 311 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that HB 222 reduced a notice period from 20 days to 24 hours, for breach of a rental agreement. He asked if this would present due process problems. Number 325 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the 24-hour period pertained not to non-payment of rent, but to situations in which a rental unit was being damaged. Number 335 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he was referring to page 10, lines 8 and 9 of HB 222. Number 344 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the section to which Representative Nordlund was referring was where the committee had inserted the word "substantially." The effect of that section, she said, would give landlords an opportunity to evict tenants before damage became worse. She said that she had personal experiences in which property she owned was being damaged by tenants, and all she could do was to watch helplessly as the damage was perpetrated. She stated that the 24-hour notice period did not apply to non- payment of rent situations. Number 361 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a House Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 222 would be drafted, with or without Mr. Chenoweth's amendment, based on the outcome of Ms. Horetski's research. He said that the bill would be back before the committee on Wednesday. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|