tenant ' s first eviction court date is on the 29th of the month , the landlord cannot insist that the tenant also pay next month ' s rent . However , payment means payment of all outstanding amounts due at the time of payment pursuant to the tenant ' s lease .
The Bill creates a one strike and you are out system . Thus , tenants get the extra time to cure ( pay ) one time every six months . If a landlord must serve a second demand for rent within six months because a tenant failed to pay the rent , the landlord could serve a traditional or standard three-day rent demand . If a landlord serves a standard three-day , the landlord only has to accept the tenant ' s payment if made within three days ( not counting the day of service ).
Altering the status quo from a one-notice system to a two-notice system has probably been the most discussed aspect of the proposed Bill . THS attorneys unanimously thought the two-notice system might confuse landlords and create issues with SOPs .
For example , Community X is a 400-unit property and serves their rent demands on the 4th of the month . Community X can serve anywhere from 30 to 40 rent demands a month . The rent demands are programmed in YARDI , and generated electronically . If five tenants were served with rent demands last month and the landlord now wants to serve these five tenants with a traditional three-day , the system will either have to be reprogrammed or Community X will have to manually generate these three-days .
Some landlords agree that the law would be simpler without the two-notice system . However , other attorneys and landlords argue that landlords need to retain the shorter cure period as a vital tool to evict non-complying tenants . Specifically , sometimes it is very difficult for a landlord to prove a noncompliance case . For example , a tenant can be dealing drugs , and no one wants to testify out of fear . If the non-complying tenant doesn ’ t pay the rent , evicting the non-complying tenant for non-payment may be the landlords best option . If the non-complying tenant , who didn ’ t pay rent , has until the day before court to pay , the ability to evict the non-complying tenant over non-payment would be greatly diminished .
We agree that the Bill does take away some options . However , overall this is a small number of cases . In our experience noncomplying tenants who do not pay rent within three days , don ' t suddenly offer to pay rent before court . For this reason , the potential for confusion and hassle ( which notice do I need to serve or can I serve , having to keep track of which tenants have been served with which
notices , and having to produce two sets of notices ) outweigh the benefit of retaining the status quo ( the ability to serve a standard three-day rent demand ).
In the end , it probably doesn ’ t matter . Those who want to retain the ability to serve a standard three-day on the tenant ' s failure to pay rent a second time are happy because the Bill retains this right . If the landlord wants to avoid confusion , hassle , and potential issues caused by serving the wrong notice or having to produce two sets of notice , the landlord can by simply always serve the rent demand that gives the tenants the right to cure right up to the court date .
Initially , this Bill seemed like a huge sea change to the status quo . However , upon further analysis , the Bill does not significantly alter the current landlord-tenant landscape . The reality is that landlords are already taking rent payments after the expiration of three-day notices about 99 % of the time because landlords want the rent and don ' t want to evict tenants . Landlords don ’ t refuse rent unless there is some other issue going on , e . g . the tenant is disturbing their neighbors
The Bill does eliminate the use of a rent demand as a compliance tool , at least on the first go-round , and if the second rent default is not within six months . Because landlords can choose to serve two different notices on the second strike , the Bill has fair housing implications . The one thing we do know about SB-120 is that it is not likely to reduce evictions or increase the number of tenants that pay and stay .
Mark Tschetter is a partner of Tschetter Hamrick Sulzer , P . C . who acts as Colorado Council to the NAA . He routinely teaches classes to multifamily housing professionals . His specific area of interest and expertise is Fair Housing Laws , and speaks to professional organizations on landlord / tenant and legislative issues . www . aamdhq . org FEBRUARY 2018 • TRENDS | 41