Five New Bills Affecting Landlords

What’s up, gang. I’m back with another Legislative Update.

In last week’s update I told you about HB 250, the Squatters Bill that you need to support. If you missed that update, you can find it here. Today I’m going to talk about five other bills, one that you’ll likely want to support and four that I suspect you’ll want to oppose.

First, let’s talk about the one you need to support, House Bill 173.

HB 173

HB 173 prohibits any local government from adopting or enforcing an ordinance that creates or maintains a registry of rental properties for any purposes, including safety assessments or reporting regarding lead-based paint and lead hazards.

The effect of this bill would likely be to eliminate any rental registry ordinances already in existence and prevent future ones from being enacted. It would allow federal and state requirements to prevail and remain uniform throughout the state. HB 173 has been referred to the Local Government committee. You can read the bill in its entirety at this link.

HB 215

There’s a lot going on in HB 215, but we’re primarily concerned with Sections 4 and 5. The effect of these sections is to give local governments the ability to extend the amount of notice required to be given to tenants before a forcible detainer hearing. Currently, KRS 383.215 requires three days’ notice. This bill would allow local governments to extend, but not lower, that time period at their discretion. As everyone in this industry knows, time is money, and any extension of that time period means lost revenue for rental owners. HB 215 has also been referred to the Local Government committee. You can read the bill at this link.

HB 358

This bill is filed by regular nemesis Nima Kulkarni of Louisville. It would prohibit landlords from using an “algorithmic device” in setting rental amounts. It defines “algorithmic device” to include any device that uses an algorithm to calculate data about rental amounts being charged for the purpose of helping a landlord determine the rental amounts to be charged. The small exclusion here is that it does not include such a device designed internally and used exclusively by the landlord or one of the landlord’s affiliates.

In short, you would not be able to use any outside product or device to inform you about the rental market. You can read HB 358 here in its entirety. It is currently in the Local Government committee.

SB 138

This is a new bill that was filed earlier this week that would put a stay on the service of any Writ of Possession during any period when the National Weather Service has issued an Extreme Cold or Heat Warning for the county in which the property is located or during any period of natural disaster in which a state of emergency has been declared for the county where the property is located.

If there is a delay in serving the writ as a result of these factors, the writ will be given priority and is to be completed within three (3) days after the extreme conditions cease. You can read SB 138 here. It has been assigned to the Committee on Committees.

HB 452

Unfortunately, I’ve saved the worst for last. HB 452 was filed by Daniel Grossberg of Louisville. And it is a mess. The thrust of the bill is that it makes landlords liable to the tenant if there’s a code violation at the property that is not cured within 90 days. Now, that seems simple enough, but the bill goes on to set up a requirement that a court determine if the cost of curing the violation exceeds 12 months’ rent. If it does, the landlord may refund all the rent and get possession of the premises within 30 days.

It further allows any tenant who prevails on its claim to recover three months’ rent, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and medical bills if the violation involved mold.

It further interferes with the forcible detainer process, requiring such cases to be joined with the tenant’s claim under this statute and creating a retaliation claim for tenants if a landlord files for eviction after the tenant files such a claim.

It allows the rent to be paid into court during such an action rather than to the landlord.

Finally, this statute would apply to the entire state, not just to areas that have adopted the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

This bill would be a nightmare for rental owners. It’s currently in the Committee on Committees. You can read the entire bill here. Now, it’s such a mess that I don’t expect it to go anywhere. But I bring it up to highlight the importance of elections. If you’re a rental property owner, keeping people who file and support bills like this out of office should be a top priority.

That’s plenty for today. As always, if you need help on something, shoot me an email at smarshall@tripleslaw.com. If you need a lease package, I have you covered. I’ll be glad to let you look at it before you purchase.

Cheers!