-
Daniel Pae -
Eric Roberts
By Mike W. Ray | Senior Staff Writer
OKLAHOMA CITY — Legislation that would update Oklahoma’s landlord/tenant laws by providing protections for both parties was endorsed by a House committee recently.
House Bill 2058 “addresses landlord concerns about vandalism to rental property,” said Rep. Eric Roberts (R-Oklahoma City).
The bill would make tenants subject to potential misdemeanor or felony criminal penalties or civil penalties if damages to rental property are attributed to a tenant’s noncompliance with the rental agreement, and the damages exceed the state’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Act security deposit limits.
HB 2058 received a “do pass” recommendation from the House Committee on Judiciary-Civil in an 8-2 vote.
House Bill 2109 would shield renters from retaliation by resentful landlords; that measure was endorsed 10-0 by the Judiciary-Civil committee.
Oklahoma is “one of only six states without this type of law,” Rep. Daniel Pae (R-Lawton) told the committee.
HB 2109 decrees that a landlord could not retaliate against a tenant by increasing rent, decreasing service, by bringing a legal action or by terminating a rental agreement if the landlord knows that the tenant:
• filed a complaint with a governmental agency charged with enforcement of building or housing code violations related to health or safety;
• lodged a complaint or filed an action against the landlord for a violation of Title 41 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which covers landlord and tenant laws;
• gave the landlord a notice to repair or exercise a remedy under state law;
• organized or became a member of a tenants’ organization; or
• testified against the landlord in a court proceeding.
Any such action taken by the landlord within six months of “a protected action” of the tenant would be presumed to be retaliatory “unless proven otherwise” by the landlord. If the action occurred six months after the “protected action,” the burden of proof would fall on the tenant.
Furthermore, the landlord’s actions would not be deemed retaliatory if:
• the tenant is behind on rent payments;
• the tenant creates conditions in the housing unit that are unsafe or destructive; or
• an unforeseen action causes the landlord to comply with a governmental code that would “deprive the tenant of the right to continue using” the unit.
A landlord would retain the right to recovery of the premises if the tenant used the unit for illegal or illicit purposes or created a nuisance on the property; if the landlord took possession of the unit to use as the primary residence for the landlord or his/her immediate family; or if the landlord intended to “substantially” alter or remodel the housing unit or demolish it.
A landlord would not be prohibited from raising the rent or decreasing service if done so “in a manner that applies equally to all tenants.”
Also, a rent hike would not be considered retaliatory if compliance with a directive from a heath department or other government agency, or a “substantial” increase in property taxes, creates “a financial burden” for the landlord; if “substantial improvements” to the housing unit affects depreciation on the landlord’s federal tax bill; or if the rent is increased upon renewal of the lease, provided it is “in line with an increase in rents by other landlords in similar situations or units.”
If a renter believes a landlord is guilty of “material noncompliance” with the terms of a rental agreement or state law, the tenant would be justified in terminating or filing suit in court “to enforce an obligation” of the landlord.
Before doing so, HB 2109 provides, the tenant must give the landlord written notice of the alleged violation and the landlord must be given as much as 14 days to repair or “provide a remedy” of the condition.
If the tenant were to prevail in an action against the landlord, the renter would be entitled to obtain actual and “consequential” damages, attorney fees and court costs, a legal injunction, and any other remedy “appropriate under the circumstances.”
HBs 2058 and 2109 can now be placed on the House calendar for a vote by all 101 state Representatives.