CCOC Strongly Opposes HB 5588 Which Would Make Associations Liable For Damages Caused By Renters and Guest

House Bill 5588 shifts the financial burden from unit owners who rent their units to tenants who damage association property to all the other unit owners in the condominium complex.

Under current law, an Association can charge the unit owner/landlord for damages caused by his or her tenant for damages the tenant causes and can place a lien on the unit to compel payment. Instead, the bill shifts this liability from the unit owner landlord to all unit owners.

CCOC believes this is unfair to unit owners who do not rent their units. CCOC does not believe that the other unit owners should have to pay for the damages caused by the tenant’s negligence or willful misconduct.

Under current law if a tenant causes damage to Association property, the Association can assess that damage to the unit owner who rented his unit to that tenant. Presumably that unit owner could then attempt to recoup his losses from the tenant and should probably have a provision in his lease allowing him or her to do so. Also that loss might be covered by a security deposit.

Instead under this bill, the Association would be required to seek damages directly from the tenant and all unit owners would have to cover the cost of that attempt. If the Association’s attempt to recover from the tenant is unsuccessful because the tenant is unable to pay or moves without leaving a forwarding address, all unit owners, instead of simply the unit owner who leased his unit to that tenant, would be responsible for paying the damages. Even if the Association obtained a judgment against the tenant it would be responsible for attempting to collect the judgment, which is often difficult if not impossible.

CCOC believes the burden of damages caused by a tenant’s negligence or willful misconduct should stay with the landlord who selected the tenant, receives the rent, prepared the lease and established and holds the security deposit.

Contact your local representatives to make them aware of the inequity and injustice this bill will create.
FIND YOUR LEGISLATOR
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgafindleg.asp

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/hlist.asp

 

We disagree with the Office of Legislative Review analysis 5588 OLR ANALYSIS of the impact of the legislation.

Share

9 Responses to CCOC Strongly Opposes HB 5588 Which Would Make Associations Liable For Damages Caused By Renters and Guest

  1. Cynthia Morrill says:

    Completely disagree . Just in the past few months a renter where I live has reaped havoc in the common area of our complex now they want to make associations responsible for damages inside a rented unit. No way !!!!!!!!! If an owner is repsosible they should screen and get reliable references from the future tenants.
    The onus should not be on the innocent but on the perpetrator and absentee owner.
    Concerned and angry.

  2. Douglas Dopp says:

    I’m a landlord. An absentee owner, I am not, because I monitor my properties and serve on condo mgmt Board’s. The responsibility for the renting tenant is solely the landlord’s. It is the responsibility of the landlord to take such action as necessary to ensure quality of tenant. Background and reference checks are a must. Security deposits are meant to offset the cost of damage and/or unpaid rent. They are not the last month’s rent. The landlord needs to enforce rules, to include condo assoc. Eviction is the ultimate weapon, but it must not be feared by the landlord. If you can’t, or are unwilling, to manage your property, get out of the business. Don’t burden the Assoc because you can’t do your job
    Defeat 5588

  3. Alfred Gerteiny says:

    I agree with Cynthia Morrill.The condo unit owner who rents out his property and reaps a benefit from the rental, must be held responsible for any damage to the rented unit or anywhere else in the condo complex. And so should a unit owner be responsible for damage done by any of his/her guest(s)within the condo complex.

  4. Amy says:

    This is the dumbest legislation I’ve ever heard of. Are these legislators in training for DC or what? Why in the world would an Association be responsible for a tenant’s acts any more than it would be for any individual owner’s?

  5. Christine Moretti says:

    This is totally unfair. So if a renter or “guest” damages our property we all pay, what if its so high we lose the roof over our heads! Makes no sense. This means possibly higher insurance premiums? If this passes how will we protect our investment?!

  6. Deborah says:

    I admire and agree with what Douglas Dopp says above. and where is the rationale coming from to shift the responsibility to the condo association? This would be making the association the landlord! and as such the association should be put in control of reviewing leases and advertising vacancies, and on and on. The association doesn’t exist to be managers of an apartment complex. I’m president of our condo board, and in situations where we are annoyed by behavior of some of our renters, I would like for us to have more control, but we need to do that through rules and engaging with unit owner landlords who are members of the association, not managing their tenants and doing their job for them. It’s enough of a challenge for us to make improvements for the benefit of owners. Please lets prevent this atrocity

  7. Deborah says:

    This proposal was voted by the Insurance and Real Estate Committee.
    So much is put on the backs of the condo association

  8. ARLENE says:

    i COULD NOT AGREE MORE. AS A CONDO OWNER, I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY PROPERTY. I DO NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S PROPERTY. THEY ARE MAKING MONEY ON THAT PROPERTY AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TENANTS.

  9. Liz Marsden says:

    Hi condo owners — I am trying to enlist opposition to HB 5361, a bill that will force ALL homeowners’ insurance companies to start covering ALL breeds of dog and that will also PREVENT companies from charging higher rates to those with certain more hazardous breeds. THIS WILL RAISE EVERYONE’S RATES, even those with no pets. Please see an article here: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20150326/NEWS/150329602 — it will also mean that similar laws forcing condo associations to allow all breeds of dog are just down the road. There is a strong animal-interest lobby in CT and it is attempting to force its special interests on the rest of us. Please call your representatives and oppose HB 5361. You may also email them, read a copy of the bill, etc at http://www.cga.ct.gov — thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *