 So welcome everybody. This is Wednesday, the 22nd on general housing military affairs committee meeting. We are taking up in the first portion of our meeting S333, which has been the rental moratorium. We will officially have a possession of this at some point, hopefully in the next 24 hours or so, I did do the floor work. We'll be on the floor later on this afternoon, and actually, no, I'm sorry, we're not on the floor tomorrow. Today is the caucus stuff, that bills will be explained from three to four, and then tomorrow we'll be on the floor and I imagine we'll get possession of the bill then, at which point, hopefully we'll have finished our work on this and be able to vote it right back out so that it can be on the floor, and then next week and then back to the Senate so that we can make this, get this into law as soon as we possibly can. So with us today, we have Wendy Morgan from Vermont Legal Aid and Sue Steckel, who is a real estate attorney, who was an attorney who brought us the information last week about the potential hole about the foreclosure of vacant buildings. And Vermont Legal Aid has brought up an issue that's related to that. And so I invited them in to talk, I think, and then we have the attorney, David Hall, here to go through the changes. So they're not quite as simple as they were last week, but these are the proposals from the advocates on evening this out. So I'll pass the microphone to Wendy first. And again, if you are participating in the meeting and you see the hand up and you wanna ask a question, please feel free to put your hand up here. Feel free to put your hand up and I will get to you when there's an opening as if we were in a regular meeting. And if you do feel like leaving chat messages through the chat function on Zoom, make sure that it's addressed to all just in order to keep an open meeting open. So Wendy, please just let, if you could let the committee know basically where this language, not only the language about the foreclosures, but the language about the mobile homes came forward. I would appreciate it if you could just share your thoughts about how it came up. Okay, so thank you very much for having me. Wendy Morgan from Vermont Legal Aid. You will recall that on the 14th, you had testimony from Representative Marcot and others about the need to allow for closures to go forward if the building was vacant and that you didn't want to slow those down completely. So the proposal that David put forward to you that day and that you discussed indicated that you would completely exempt out any foreclosure of a building that was not occupied by the mortgageor. The problem with that language and just using the word vacant is that Vermont Legal Aid's experience in the past has been that there have been times when particularly out of state mortgage holders proceeded against a building in which they thought which they thought was vacant and was not in fact vacant. So we worked and that's a particular concern right now because you could easily have somebody who is hospitalized or you could have somebody who is sheltering in place at another location either because they're helping somebody else out or they're needing to be helped out. So that was our concern with regards to just using the word vacant or not occupied. So we got together, we being Jean Marie and I got together with Sue and her colleague Betsy Glenn. I think I have that name right. And worked up the language that we then sent to your committee. That would take out the change in the definition of foreclosure but would add areas of foreclosure or procedures that are part of the foreclosure process that would be allowed under this bill. And that's very similar to what you're doing in the eviction situation where you allow evictions to go forward to a certain extent, but then there are processes put in place that you can and cannot do. So that was the effort in those areas. And frankly, the mobile home parks was our negligence and not thinking about it earlier. I don't think we would have come forward and asked you to make the change if you weren't going to make a change and send the bill back to the Senate anyway. But we realized as we were looking carefully and talking with Sue and Betsy that that was something that we had simply neglected to include in the original bill. So that's why we added the mobile home residents that the moratorium would apply to mobile home residents. The way it applies to other residents, people who are lease, lease, I'm not sorry, renting properties. But for the mobile homes, the preponderance of the homes themselves are owned by the individuals. Just to be clear, this is what makes mobile homes difficult to wrap our heads around a lot. A lot of times it's not as simple as a rental unit because they're renting the pad upon which their home sits. But there are also mobile homes that are rented as well. That's what we're getting at for here, right? Well, so the rented mobile homes would come in under the irregular eviction law because that's just under landlord tenant law. But when you are renting the lot, that's not in landlord tenant law. So that's why we wanted to make sure that they would be included here too. Mobile home law, it's in three different places as far as I can tell. Representative Triano. Yes, so in the event that someone owns a mobile home on a rented lot and has a mortgage on the mobile home, I'm assuming that the language that is in this bill would protect them under both instances. In other words, from a foreclosure on their mobile home as well as an eviction from their mobile home site that is rented. Is that safe to say? I believe that's correct, yes. Okay, thank you. All right, and just instead of saying you can unmute yourself, anybody who gets called on here, is there any other, please just unmute yourself because I just got into a thing with Chip where he had unmuted, I unmuted him, but just, so John, I don't need to tell you. Wendy, thank you. I see that Angela from Vermont Landlord Association has agreed totally with the mobile home thing. Did she check in on this other aspect that you are putting an amendment on because everything we're working so closely together I just wanna make sure the field as we've learned in this is all together on your issue around foreclosures. Yeah, thank you for the question. Angela at Zeikowski and Nadine Siebert both said, we're good on the mobile homes, we don't have anything to do with foreclosures. Okay. Basically, so. Great, thank you. All right, anything else for Wendy right at this minute? Again, we'll hear from Sue and then we'll take a quick review of the language. All right, Wendy, I'll be with you for a minute and then we'll go to Sue. So Sue, welcome to the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee, we only met you through your email last week and your concerns last week. And if you could just, not necessarily go over what we went over with Christelia last week, but just sort of give your impressions on how this came about and how this language is right now to you. Surely, I'll be happy to. Just quickly by way of background, my practice consists primarily of mortgage foreclosures, both commercial and residential mortgage foreclosures. I represent community-based banks that have a brick and mortar presence here in Vermont, all of whom are extremely busy trying to work with their customers now, whether it's on a commercial loan or a residential loan, anyone being impacted by COVID is applying for and the banks are scrambling to find forbearance programs, deferrals, modifications, whatever they can really do to help their customers through this period. The concern, and I apologize being late to the table, I was not aware that the bill was as far reaching as it was. And initially, I had just thought that the bill covered actual evictions in foreclosure actions, the actual last step of getting rid of possession, serving it and removing somebody from a house. And that's something that during the state of emergency, the courts are not allowing, my clients are not asking for it. I wouldn't do it if they asked me to do it during this state of emergency. So that was something that I and the other local foreclosure attorneys who do not represent the larger financial institutions thought was not a problem. In looking further at the definitions in the statute, I became concerned that foreclosures would completely halt on vacant properties. And this is a time when that could be especially problematic for health and safety because some of those vacant properties are in horrendous shape. They're falling apart, they've frozen over during the winter, they're infested with rodents and vermin, garbage has not been disposed of, squatters are taking over some of the properties, there's vandalism going on. I've had examples with vacant properties of really horrendous types of things, all of the appliances and pipes being removed. I've had instances where squatters have actually torn siding off of a building and burned it outside the building so that it was completely destroyed. So this is a period and many of these vacant properties are properties that are abandoned that whether it be a commercial property or a residential property, the mortgage or has said for whatever reason, I can't afford this property, I don't want the property, bank please take it. And that happens more often than not. My particular concern was with vacant properties that have progressed to the point where the property has already been sold at an auction and we're waiting for the court to confirm the sale and to close. In those cases, no one is harmed by proceeding with that confirmation and closing. And in fact, in many cases, it helps the mortgage or because there might be surplus proceeds that are going to the mortgage or there might be surplus proceeds that are going to a subordinate lean holder on the property. And in any event, if there is going to be a deficiency that the mortgage or owes, the sooner that property can get sold and closed, the lower that deficiency amount is going to be for the most part in residential foreclosures. The local banks don't pursue deficiencies anyway, but becomes a big issue when you're looking at a commercial loan because there are guarantors and there are deficiencies. The other aspect here is that I think we're at least legal aid and the foreclosure attorneys are in agreement that this bill shouldn't cover commercial mortgages, but I don't think we've actually said that anywhere. And so that's the other item that the local banks are looking to have clarified is that a commercial mortgage could proceed through foreclosure. Where legal aid and the foreclosing attorneys, Betsy Glenn and myself in our conversation, are in agreement, is the specific language proposed to allow confirmation hearings for closure sales and closings on the vacant properties to go forward? Where we still do have a disagreement is whether occupied property, unoccupied property foreclosures, excuse me, should be halted or whether they should be allowed to proceed. And I think if we only use the defined term of dwelling house without reference to whether or not it's occupied, then even someone who has stipulated, who has come to the bank and has said, here are the keys, please foreclose, the bank doesn't get the relief. The bank doesn't get the relief. That individual doesn't get the relief. The neighborhood doesn't get the relief of having the foreclosure move forward and having this potential health and safety hazard removed. In talking with some clients yesterday, that the term dwelling house potentially could encompass some commercial loans. For example, I have one foreclosure with a corporate developer that has completed or partially completed spec houses. They're vacant, they've never been occupied. Certificates of occupancy have not been issued. The loan's been in default for a long time. Extensions have been granted, those have run out. So the default and the problem is not related to COVID and will not be fixed when this emergency is over. Those are foreclosures that we believe should be allowed to proceed. We have a question here from Representative Triano. Hold on, Chip. So, okay. You, we can hear you. No, we lost you. Yes. Yes. Working great. So there's a clear distinction between the dwelling or the whole houses, let's say that you're describing that are run down and full of rodents. And what Wendy has described to us as a building or a home or house that may be vacant because someone is somewhere else. So I'm thinking in terms of that there are, are we looking to craft language that would accommodate or to describe both of these situations or distinguish both of these situations so that we're not allowing foreclosures on a home that could be occupied otherwise. And homes that are abandoned and about to be given up for foreclosure. It seems to me that we need to make a distinguishing, to distinguish between those two entities at this point, at least from what I'm hearing from the two of you. That's an excellent question. And I actually spent some time yesterday morning trying to compile a list of those types of things. And I concluded at the end that really it's up to the court to look at the factors. When I have a property such as this, I would also be asking for a shortened redemption period from the court. And I would include a sworn statement from somebody who has been there in photos, if I can, that would actually show the condition of the property. And then at that point, it's up to the court to make the determination. And I've had cases where I've thought that the property was vacant and the court has pushed back and said, no, I'd like a little bit more before I make that determination. So I do think the courts have wide discretion for closure actions. And I do think that they will use that discretion appropriately if asked to declare a property unoccupied, especially during these difficult times. So proceeding such as you have just described to us, is that routine throughout the business are most attorneys practicing that way? Can you tell us? Absolutely, I have never, and I frequently represent junior lien holders in foreclosures that are started by the larger out-of-state servicers who do not physically actually see the property. And in my experience, they have treated all properties as occupied. And they have actually, many of these lenders have actually been chastised by the courts for not requesting rits of possession for the court. And they may have to file any eviction action later on because they haven't done it timely. I just don't see the larger servicers doing that. And if they would start doing that, I believe that our courts would hold their feet to the fire and ask them to prove it. And I believe that the judges would sanction them if they submitted knowingly false or misleading statements. Okay, thank you. Wendy, was that, were you raising your hand there? Yes, I just have to say that I am totally baffled by this testimony because I had understood that after the negotiation session that the words that I sent to Tom were agreeable to Betsy and to Sue and Jean and me, and I was not in on all of the negotiations, but this is quite different from what I have understood our agreements to be. So I apologize for taking your time if we hadn't gotten there, but I was assured that by email from Sue that they agreed to the language that I sent you, which cut out the vacancy or not occupied language in the definition. And as long as they got to be able to do the rest of the things that we included in C1, as I recall it is. And I honestly, I think there was a miscommunication there and I will take full responsibility for that because I thought we were focusing on the specific language about the confirmation hearings. And I frankly, to be honest, I think I missed that Wendy struck the word on occupied because I felt that that was an issue that we hadn't really resolved. We had agreed on the confirmation piece, but not entirely to say only confirmations could go forward because that could potentially mean if the state of emergency continues for months, that could potentially mean that only a few properties that have already been sold and are waiting for confirmation could move forward, but it could be months, even years before some of these other vacant properties could move forward if they haven't reached that stage yet. And I do apologize for any misunderstanding there and there are certainly pieces there that Wendy and Jean and Betsy and I were in agreement on, but we felt that this committee should address the occupancy versus vacancy. Okay, I'm gonna go to Representative Kulaki. Thank you, Sue, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding what you're asking us to consider because I thought Chris had said in his testimony from the Bankers Association that no banks currently are moving on evictions or foreclosures and that I know how Judge Halentor and Chittin County has put a square on these and four other counties have now done this in the state because the courts aren't doing in-person meetings. So I'm really not sure like how this all works currently if evictions and foreclosures aren't moving. What's the issue? I think the issue is pending foreclosures where there's a redemption period or where there are pending motions that the court needs to decide. And again, foreclosures that are not opposed would still move forward and commercial foreclosures are still moving forward to the extent that workout options have been exhausted and or the business is closed permanently the mortgageor is not interested or is unable to maintain or sell the property. And those are moving forward through the banking system and the judicial systems, even though five counties have said they're not gonna do this. Well, I don't think the counties have said that they won't issue, the counties have said they won't issue rates of possession and a rate of possession is would be really just the last step if there's an individual living in a house. And we are in agreement with that, absolutely. Well, I think the, I believe for our committee the intention of this bill was about residential, right? It's not commercial properties. We're really, we've been talking about. We will, but the other thing to keep in mind, I think that the fine line here too, John is ensue is this idea that is there can be a commercial mortgage with residences inside that I think that was the original concept behind considering this is this portion of it was saying, we don't want a property foreclosed upon where people will lose their homes. I mean, so it's a commercial loan. It's not just a residential mortgage. Is that, I mean, did I hear, am I remembering this right from our month-long conversation on this is that, is that's, we understand that there is a group there of commercial loans that can affect residencies. And I understand we're trying to find, I thought we had settled this in terms of what was occupied property or unoccupied property and meaning that if there was an apartment house with a commercial property down below that if it was totally empty and vacant, then that foreclosure, if that process was already ongoing that it would be allowed to go as long as people weren't losing their homes. I speak a little bit further to that as well. The federal government in 2018 passed the Permanently Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. And as a result of that act, mortgage lender, whether it's a residential or a commercial lender, residential or commercial loan cannot obtain a writ of possession to evict a tenant. It doesn't matter if that tenant was there and has a lease or even if it's an oral month-to-month lease, the owner of the property must give a 90-day notice. And the owner being whoever buys the property after a foreclosure sale must honor the lease if it's a written lease to the end of the lease. And if it's a month-to-month lease, must give a 90-day notice, and then they would have to follow up with a separate eviction action. So evictions of residential tenants are not happening in foreclosures. They're against the law. Well, there's only an, what you're saying, there's a 90-day window there. After the foreclosure is over, the 90 days would be after the foreclosures over and the property's been sold at an auction to a new owner. That new owner is the one who has to send, first send a 90-day notice and then they would have to file an action against the tenant. And I find that in most cases, if they're good tenants, my clients will sell the property subject to the tenancies and the owners will, as long as the tenants let them in to see the property, the owners will talk with them and they will keep them there. But they would not be evicted through a writ of possession in a foreclosure action. Okay. Representative Triano, you're muted still. Yes. Okay, yes. So again, I'm thinking in terms of a dilapidated property that is that where the whole community would benefit from foreclosure or a change of hands, foreclosure doesn't indicate at all that that property will change in any way because the bank then has to sell the derelict property and to a landlord or a person who would be willing to fix it up. So, I'm thinking in terms of maybe adding permanently unoccupied or something of that nature that would distinguish between the properties that you described, Sue, and the properties that Wendy has described to us. And I think that we left commercial properties out of this, at least any language referring to them in order to give some clarification that they're not straight commercial properties are not included in this. But, I mean, the five counties at a 14 that have ruled on these 90 day delays, one of the problems that we find is that the language is not consistent nor is it very clear. So, one of the reasons that we are taking this bill up is to add clarity and consistency throughout the state when if any of these actions do make it to court. So, I think that we should be able to distinguish between an absolute derelict property and a property that may be temporarily vacant. I don't know if that goes anywhere, but that's my thoughts. Yeah, I think abandonment is certainly a factor. Abandonment and agreement, agreement of the mortgage or that, I don't want to take it. Well, that could play into it as well. I would not disagree with that. Wendy? So, I'm just wondering, I mean, given that we did have agreement in writing from Sue that the proposals that we put forth were acceptable, I wonder if we should proceed or you should proceed with those. And then if we need to make a modification later, we do that, but not bog down this bill at this point in time, given that we would have worked more if we'd realized that there was a problem. So that, and I see that Senator Bailand is on, I have no idea if they're ready for you or what, but that's what's going to be the next thing. The next step for the conversation and welcome the conversation, Senator Ballant and Senator Hooker was here, I believe as well at one point. David, if David Hall is here, I'd like to pull him in just to show the language that we're at too. Yeah, I mean, in terms of timing, we're getting to be up against it if we want this thing to pass anytime soon because this is our last meeting this week. The expectation was that by the end of this meeting, we would have once again, wrapped the spill up as we did last week. And then once we had full possession of the bill that we would try to vote on it and have it ready for the floor next week. And we have very limited time next week in order to get this back to the Senate. And we don't want, we want this bill to be as done as, we don't, we wanna be able to concur or have the Senate concur when this language is done. So David, if you could just give us a quick, I'll say quick, but I'll take however long it takes, the rundown of the language that was proposed and what we shared with the committee, maybe starting with the mobile home because there seems to be no controversy over the mobile home language. And then show us what we thought we had an agreement with coming into today's meeting. That would be great. Sure. Can you see me and hear me okay? You, yeah. Your head is like, looks like a golf ball. There you go. Sorry. That's better. I'm in my bedroom. So I'm trying to minimize the amount of exposure here. We're glad to see. I see that the language there. Are you gonna share the screen? Yes. Okay. And welcome Senator Clarkson and welcome Senator Sorokin. You're on mute. This is the past just a moment, I'm sorry. And just quickly Senate, just to catch you up, they're just, we're gonna about to see the language that I, that has been worked on up to a point and we understand that there may be some difficulty with some of it right now, but David's gonna share these two amendments. Okay. So for your record, David Hall Legislative Council, this is S333 right now entitled and act relating to establishing a moratorium on injection and foreclosure actions during the COVID-19 emergency. So as you know, the bill came over from the Senate, been not yet referred to House General as I understand it will be imminently. I wanna remind you that the last time I met with you in this committee and Representative Marcott was involved in Christelia as well. You'll recall we talked about a change to the definition that referred to a property to which was being foreclosed upon and we added, that is occupied at the end of that definition. So sort of in the universe of S333 for thinking about the foreclosure half of that bill, it would have affected the entire bill structure so that all of the pieces threaded throughout it that refer to foreclosure would no longer apply to unoccupied properties. So that was a change that you as a committee seemed comfortable with before. This is narrower than that. There are two proposals of amendment here. The first one is in section one, subdivision A2. This relates to the ejectment piece and it just simply specifies 10 VSA chapter 153 and mobile home park residents just to be sure that they're included in the moratorium on ejectments. So I think this is fine. It certainly doesn't change the substance of the bill ejectment procedures. Ultimately you'd have to go through 12 VSA 169 anyway. So I think this is a good catch, harmless and just make sure that loosened is tied up. But the second piece relates back to where we began which is the foreclosure piece. And specifically you recall subdivision C1 of the bill was addresses, I have an ask from Senator Brock. Ron, you've got that. Addresses new for ejectment of foreclosure actions. And remember that we're hitting pause on all of these actions in the underlying S33, 333. So this new language starting on line 11 would make a carve out to the blanket moratorium and would say that notwithstanding the blanket pause we're hitting during the emergency period on these actions. This subsection does not stay a foreclosure sale a motion for confirmation or a confirmation order concerning an unoccupied property. So let me break that down for you in plain English. Again, under the bill both pending and new ejectment and foreclosure actions would be paused during the emergency period as we've defined it. Then this creates a narrow exception that says notwithstanding the pause the moratorium on foreclosures we will allow these three things to proceed and they are all narrow. They all relate to a judicial sale in a foreclosure action and they say if the foreclosure sale was happening it can keep happening if the property is unoccupied. If a sale happened then the parties go back to the court for this motion for confirmation. And that's where the court gives it stamp of approval for a sale that has occurred. So if it's an unoccupied property foreclosure sale has happened you go back to the court you ask for this motion for confirmation the court can still give you that grant that motion and then the confirmation order very similarly to one of the final step where the court orders confirms the sale is done. Everybody's died of their eyes, crossed their T's this is over with proceed with sending out whatever proceeds whatever papers need to happen to complete that sale and the transfer of the property again if it's unoccupied. So. And David just quickly are these for proceedings or are these still for proceedings that were underway prior to the beginning of the emergency period? I mean this is what I think we were talking about last week was that if there were any proceedings that were underway prior to the beginning of the emergency period that they would be allowed to these foreclosures that would be allowed to go forward does this exempt or stop that and make it so that any foreclosure that's happening during the emergency period can go on as business as usual? I'm gonna I wanna make sure I'm answering the right questions. So would you mind saying that again? Our original consideration last week of this of this concept that we were trying to allow we were trying the way I understood the way I remember it is that we were trying to allow foreclosure proceedings on vacant properties or unoccupied properties that were already underway prior to the emergency declaration would be allowed to continue. And does this change that or does this allow all foreclosure any foreclosure that's going on to operate under these conditions that are proposed? I think the answer is no and no. I think are you are you asking me how this differs from the language that the committee tacitly approved last week last meeting? Well the and the intent that went behind it which was to say if there was something going on prior to the declaration that it would be allowed to continue as long as it was unless it was a vacant property then I mean it could continue if it was a vacant property. Okay, so what you have today is much narrower than what you had last hearing. So let's start with S33 as it came from the Senate. It said all pending actions and all new actions are paused, right? That's whether it was pending at the time the emergency period began or it is new during the emergency period. And remember in that latter circumstance while you would be allowed to initiate an action by filing it would immediately be stayed upon the date of filing. So whether it was already underway or it was new during the emergency period the effect of 333 was to hit pause. The change that you all considered previously so where you seemed comfortable with changing the definition of foreclosure to say it's a foreclosure action against a dwelling house that is occupied, right? That's what you had everybody kind of shook their head. They're okay with that. That would have applied throughout this bill and the change that would make would be that whether it was pending or whether it's new if it's a foreclosure action against an unoccupied property it could proceed. Obviously subject to the court's own status but as far as this bill is concerned foreclosure actions against unoccupied properties whether pending or new would have been unaffected by this bill. So that was a pretty broad change. So again, this language in the amendment you have in front of you in the second instance says that in a pending sale of foreclosure sale I mean, excuse me in a pending foreclosure action if it's an unoccupied property a foreclosure sale a motion for confirmation or a confirmation order could proceed as far as this bill is concerned. So does everybody sort of understand the scope here? Yes. And I guess let me go to, I have two questions and I'll end up David, Representative Triano. Yes, it was that was my understanding David is that both pending and new actions would be stayed throughout this entire bill to include actions against unoccupied dwellings. That's correct? I'm not sure I'm following your question, I'm sorry. So my understanding that both new actions against foreclosure or eviction and pending actions would both be stayed throughout this entire bill in all sections and to include unoccupied dwellings. That is the current state of S333 as it came from the Senate. Yes. Right, okay. So the Marcott proposal of amendment would have made a carve out across the board for unoccupied properties. Right. That's the Marcott proposal. Right. Okay. And this narrowing of it is what was agreed to or we thought was agreed to as of yesterday. And I don't see Sue, but I see Wendy. So all right, I'm gonna go to Representative Hango. You can unmute yourself, Lisa. Yeah, I tried the space bar thing, but it didn't work. Sorry. So this new amendment then David would affect unoccupied property, but only those unoccupied properties that were pending at the time of the state of emergency. Nothing new in terms of unoccupied property could be pursued until the state of emergency is over. Is that correct? That is correct. And in fact, it is actually limited a little bit further than that if you really wanna dig into the language in line 11, not only limited to pending actions, but pending actions that are already at the stage of foreclosure sale, motion for confirmation or confirmation in order. So they're at the very end, right? So I guess my question or concern is narrowing it so much. And I know that's not a question for you, David. That's for everyone else. So I'm just throwing that question out there because I really did believe that we were in agreement when we heard the amendment last time we met. Thank you. So a quick question then for Wendy and for Sue. Reiterate to us once again, why the language from last week, why that's, I mean, it was a simple change, right? It was one or two words. Why was that objectionable? And I'll go to Wendy first. You're unmuted. So Wendy, why, why, why strike the language and then add this language again? Can you, can you reiterate that for me, please? I can't hear you. Can you unmute yourself? There you go, right there. I guess my mouse pad isn't sensitive enough. So the concern for us was the term unoccupied. And Sue has said that the courts will decide, but the courts will decide based on some affidavit that somebody puts in that the person who is actually occupying the unit and not there at the moment, may not know about it, may not even know that, that that's happening. So that's our concern. And it comes not just, it's not just theoretical. Legal aid is not doing a lot of foreclosures now, but several years ago we had a grant to do foreclosures. And we did a lot of them. And occasionally what happened was, particularly without a state, companies that wanted to foreclose, they started procedures against a place that was in fact occupied. And I think particularly now that that's a possibility, given that people maybe, as I said earlier, hospitalized or sheltering in place someplace else. That was our, that was the only reason that we had concerns about what you were looking at. And thought that we had an agreement. We did have an agreement. With the foreclosed. Attorneys who do foreclosures. All right. So. And, and if I can review with you, Sue. I mean. You seem to have brought up two different things. Sue, this was, is, is this length? Or is it not sufficient? And, and then I heard, I thought I heard you say, and there is this other thing. That concerned you about the, about commercial foreclosures. And so I'm just curious to know whether or not this language itself. Was this, and do you now agree with this particular language? Or, or is this too narrow? I would say we. The answer to, to both there is yes, that, that language is, is fine. And that was agreed to. But we believe that it's too narrow. And I. I apologize for, for what. I, I think it's, I think it was my miscommunication. With Wendy, because I was focusing on this language and this, you know, this was very specific and made. Specific procedures, very clear to the court. And the reason we asked for this specific language is because some of my clients have three or four pending similar cases. And one, um, when it's confirmed and closed, the mortgage or is going to get some money. So everybody's kind of desperate to make that happen. And it would just be a tragedy for it to not happen. So my thought was. This is, this is language that everyone can agree on, but Betsy and I and our respective clients do not think that it goes far enough. Because foreclosure, even with a vacant property takes so long to get to the foreclosure sale. Even if everyone is cooperating, the courts are swamped and they will be even more swamped now because they have people working from home, their short staff, they're dealing with emergency matters. So it could be if I filed a foreclosure tomorrow on an unoccupied property, it could be six months to a year before we would actually get to a foreclosure sale. Um, the definition of emergency period, I think is what is giving, um, most of the banks and foreclosing attorneys cause for concern because the concern is if governor Scott extends the emergency, let's say for a year, but there are only limited provisions left. Um, large gatherings of over 250 people. Technically, all of our foreclosures would still be stayed. We couldn't start a new foreclosure. Even if the property is vacant. Without having to come back to the legislature and say, um, okay, we need an amendment to this statute. And, and those are the real fears. Um, we need to continue to move forward. Um, because people aren't rushing to foreclose now other than, um, in cases where, uh, the properties are clearly abandoned or the mortgage or as said, move forward, please. Well, I. I, I understand the difficulty. I mean, Yes, it puts fear into a lot of people because it's more unknowing, we get that. We are, but we are also, this is also not a change to underlying statute, right? This is an emergency, this is emergency legislation that's supposed to be diminished and go away once the emergency period is over. Now how that breaks down in terms of the emergency period is almost over or parts of it are over, I, you know, yes, we may have to come back and keep realigning the language so that it represents what the reality is. I think what's frustrating is that is real life for people and what their interests are. And I appreciate that, but we're, you know, again, we're trying to, you know, the bulk of this is to make sure that people aren't being put out on the streets and trying to do it in a way that also understands that people have other financial and business interests in those properties themselves. And so we're just, again, it's, we hear your frustration, we have it too. And so I'm just gonna, I'm gonna let my comments go off. Representative Hango, you have a comment or a question? Yes, thank you. I'm still trying to sort this out and I'll apologize ahead of time. My legal vocabulary is fairly limited. So I'm trying to piece this together. I hear what Wendy is saying, my gut reaction to that is it's a little too narrow for what we need right now. But Sue, I apologize. I'm just not getting whether you are a proponent or an opponent of the second instance of amendment. And that's all I need is a simple answer. Do you like the wording or not? I heard two different things, sorry. Yes, the wording here, second provided this subsection does not stay a foreclosure sale, a motion for confirmation or a confirmation order concerning unoccupied property. Yes, that language was discussed and agreed to. Yes, I'm a proponent of that language. Thank you. So that just leaves us in a place where, actually, before I even start there, David, there was one other, so while this is showing amendments, David, there was the word unoccupied struck or was there another piece of language that was in brackets? Did we settle that piece? There was a second, I think, are you referring to the piece further below concerning new foreclosure and Jekman actions? Is this what you're talking about? Yeah, not on this page of amendment, but back in the last version of 333, there was some bracketed material that had to do with timing, I think. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't. What are you seeing on the screen right now? Are you seeing subsection D with green language? No, I'm personally seeing the amendment. All right, I'm sorry. The reason being that I'm still sharing the old, I had pulled, do you see this now? Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. I had pulled this up, I thought you were seeing it and you're not. Just in my dreams, David. Sorry, quickly then, that means you also weren't looking at this when Wendy and Sue were speaking. So just to refresh your memory, this is the change to foreclosure that we had discussed. Remember? Yes. We added that is occupied. Yes, that was what we thought was the simple solution a week ago. Right, and then the second piece was in subsection D. Again, this was the timing issue that you're referring to. As I had explained previously right now, there's sort of the emergency period dating back to March 13th and then there is the new stuff that occurs after this act takes effect. This piece in D is just to give clarity that the subsection D, things that occur during the emergency period after the effective date of this act can be initiated, these new actions subject to, it's only by filing, it stayed immediately, there's no service, and then the 60 day service window is extended from the end. So this was that small timing piece that I frankly think is built in suspenders, but I'm fine with it. Okay, so committee, this is where we are right now. We have the choices to either accept the amendments that were presented today, one or both of them. But again, I think we agreed, taskfully agreed that this particular piece here in D that last week we said that that's fine. So we can conceivably take the brackets off of that and the highlighting off of that. And then the question is that on this other language that was presented today, and it is not our, it is not our intent to keep, I don't think it's anybody's intent to slow this down. I would say that what's on the table for us is the amendment, the amendments that were provided today, the concerns that Sue brought up for further stuff, I would propose that we continue, you know, get more information on it because I would like to be able to be able to be, I'd like to this bill to come as much to a conclusion as we possibly can get. And I think with everything else that's going on, I think if there are details that are, that do create such a tangle that we would come back and be able to work on them later, we are going to be in session in some way, shape or form for quite some time, you know, maybe on a part-time basis between now and sometime in the summer. So there's going to be time for us to figure all of this out, I think, rather than get it perfect right now. Representative Hango. I guess I'm already unmuted. Thank you. I feel very confident that adding mobile home park resident in the first instance of amendment is very straightforward. I'm still really unclear about the second instance of amendment and I feel like we need some input from the judiciary on that because some of it and some of what attorney Steckel was saying really pertains to interpretation by the court. So I would not be opposed to taking further testimony on that piece at a later date, but going forward with this bill with the first instance of amendment. Thank you. Any other comments on any other comments? I'm going to unmute us all for a little bit here. And David, if I can, I'm going to go to David, if you can stop sharing your screen then I can see everybody once here. Thank you. So let's, because I'm mindful of the time that it's 202 right now and do we have any other further comments on S333 at this point in time in terms of what the amendments are and what's in front of us? I mean, essentially, we are at a point where again, I think, I think once we get possession of this bill we're looking to turn it around pretty quickly, hopefully by the end of this week so that the Senate so that we can get it to the far floor next week. So thoughts right now, I don't see anybody raising their hands right at this minute representative Kalaki. Well, you know, we're working on emergency legislation that one's trying to keep people in their homes. And so I think the two amendments add just clarity for the intention of what we're doing and I'm comfortable with both of them. I'm hesitant to wait further because the longer we wait it has to go back to the Senate with these minute changes and the emergency stay may be over by the time we get through this and this is only for now to respond. And if the emergency continues for months we'll have to go back and rethink everything. So I'm actually really comfortable with the work we have. I would hope that we could make send these slight tweaks back to the Senate the Senate's here listening to us as soon as we can vote. And so that we next week get this to the governor's desk we're trying to protect people. So I think any has any lengthening and getting more testimony is not right for this bill at this point. So I'm very comfortable with the work we've done and the agreements that everyone has thus far. So for me, both amendments clarifying and with the same intention of what the Senate and the House have been working on. Representative Triana. I'm on mute. You're good. I would concur with that. Clarification on the mobile home piece was pretty obvious and acceptable. And I think the last discussion surrounding the unoccupied dwellings clarified it for me to a point where I would be ready to accept that as well. I think that the way Sue described litigation in these matters that there are certain considerations surrounding a lot of the issues that we're concerned about and that I would support both amendments at this time as well. Representative Howard. Thank you. I concur with what Representative Kulaki has said. I think we need to protect for months and I think we need to do it thoughtfully and as quickly as possible. I personally have a dilapidated home in my district and I've been trying for years to get it, take care of. So I am in favor of this and I think we should proceed. Thank you. Representative Henko. Thank you. I guess I read the second amendment wrong. So I'm okay with it. I'm still a little bit confused to the explanation that was given to us but in reading the second amendment, I'm okay with that and I'm gonna withdraw my original comments because I think I'm okay with it. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Representative Walls. I agree with everything. Am I unmuted? You're all set. Okay. I agree with everything that's been said and I agree with Representative Henko. I think some of the discussion we had on that second motion was very confusing but I think as printed, it's pretty clear and I fully support that and the first instance of amendment and so I'm in favor of moving this thing along. Okay. Thank you. Representative Byron. You need to unmute yourself. Here you go. I know what everyone else was saying was supporting the two amendments, especially knowing and understanding the federal protections that tenants have when a commercial property is transferred with maintaining their leases and then also having a multi-month process of protection should they actually be on a month a month as opposed to a traditional one lease structure. So given that, that gives me peace of mind moving forward with that component. Thank you. Anyone else from committee? All right. Thank you. So David, if you can hold on a second. I think David, I think the answer, if you could make the adjustments to the bill that were presented today which would take care of, it would delete the word unoccupied from the Marquardt amendment because this would overwrite, I think is what we're getting at is that the concerns of legal aid was that it would be too broad that this narrowing would be the accurate one. And so if you could present a draft that would include those, that amendment or the two amendments that we talked about today and then that would be what we will be taking up when we have that opportunity sometime this week and we're going to find out from leadership when we may have to meet together after the floor tomorrow at some point or after, whether it was after the morning floor, after the afternoon floor and be able to take an official vote on this. So if we could get that version ready for tomorrow, that would be great. I really, may I please ask a clarifying question? Yes, you may. Yep. So if I hear you correctly, then you want the first, both the first and the second instances of amendment as proposed today. And then from the Marquardt amendment, you want the green language that clarifies the timing. Correct. Correct. The three instances of amendment. Correct. The two that we have today plus. Because this second amends the second instance of amendment today overwrites the, the first instant for the Marquardt, which is the, just the simply the word unoccupied. Well, so yes, the second instance of amendment from today, significantly narrows the scope of what happens to unoccupied properties under this bill. So the Marquardt would be across the board. This bill does not apply to unoccupied property. Versus the second instance of amendment from today, which says in appending action against an unoccupied property or closure sales, motions for confirmation and confirmation orders may proceed. That's what we heard. You want the narrower. I think that's what we just weighed in on. Okay. I agree. Can I ask for that to be repeated, please? Yeah. Because I'm still, I'm still not clear. I need to see it in writing, I guess. Both ways. Sorry. So what we. What we, what we talked about last week with the so-called Marquardt amendment ended up being that one word. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. In the definition. Where in that bill. I'm looking for it and can't find it. We just, we just saw it a moment ago, David. If you want to put that back up. Just give me a line number, please. Right there. Subdivision three. Right. So that's the broader. Proposal. To unoccupied. Well, right. This applies across the board. New actions pending actions. It says. When we refer to for foreclosure actions in this bill, we are not talking about properties. That are unoccupied. Those would not be affected in any way by this bill. That is the very broad Marquardt proposal. Okay. Under this. Proposal from today. In the second instance of amendment. This is much narrower. This says. In a pending action. That involves an unoccupied property. A foreclosure sale. A motion for confirmation. Or a confirmation order. Can continue. So that's much narrower in scope. I guess I'm still not seeing why. It's narrower. The first. The first bill that we agreed to last week is talking about. A dwelling that is being occupied. And I understand why we don't want to foreclose on an occupied dwelling. But now we're proposing to talk about unoccupied dwellings. Which in my mind. I'm okay with unoccupied dwellings being. Allowed to go through with the proceedings. I think the question. Wendy again, correct me if I'm wrong. But what I heard was that is that when dealing. Especially without a state. Foreclosure proceedings or things that start there that they can happen. In a way that that. That they may go against the building that's already occupied. Or that it's, you know, given that there's a COVID crisis. Or that that rooms may be homes may be unoccupied. But these out of state police places are going to start a process and call it occupied. And then these confirmation of orders, if I'm not mistaken, is proving that they're what they say they are. Is that true, Wendy? Like you're afraid that there's going to be a place where somebody is actually occupying their place. They are residents in their place that should be protected under these stays that have been proposed. That, but that a group would say, no, that's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. This is unoccupied simply because they're isolating someplace else. Correct. And that the only information. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. Yes. And that the only information the court is getting is getting from the person who wants to proceed with the foreclosure. And that's, that's our concern because it may not really be unoccupied. Even though the person isn't there. That, that you have it right. And that this information, I'm sorry, go ahead. That's okay. Can, can. Sue, please weigh in on that exact sentence that you just said, Wendy. Go ahead, Sue. You're on. I'll be glad to. I think what Wendy is talking about does not happen. You know, I think that the court's decision to put in place is almost exclusively foreclosures and credit or workouts. And I just do not see that happen. I, the big out of state lenders proceed with each case, as if the property is occupied. And sometimes even leave the mortgage or. There for months after the foreclosure auction has taken place. will scrutinize those affidavits and they will look for real evidence that the person has moved out permanently. They will look at things. Have the utilities been placed in the bank's name? Have the utilities been turned off? Are the pipes frozen? Excuse me. Are appliances removed? Is there no food in the property? Are there rodents running through it? All of those types of things. And that's really the bank's concerns. Okay. Thank you. That's why I was concerned about having the courts weigh in for testimony on this. And that's what I heard earlier, but then I was getting very mixed messages. So no, I'm not okay with the second instance of amendment. And I apologize for my confusion, but this is totally new law for me. Yes, Representative Kalaki. But, Sue, you agree with the second amendment, but your language you agreed to. So that's where the confusion is for me. Like, you've agreed to this. We've agreed to this second amendment, but not striking the word unoccupied. The second amendment was for purpose of clarification that to really direct the courts, clearly, yes, please go forward with these proceedings, but striking the word unoccupied, which I don't think the second amendment does. So the second amendment without the word unoccupied being stricken is fine. And it's maybe just superfluous, but it provides clarification. But you support it. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm all right. I'm confused, right? So now I'm confused because what was in the definition, what was proposed to be struck was the phrase, which is occupied, back to the dwelling house, right? That it was attached to dwelling house, which is occupied. This language here, and I think what Dave is getting at is either it's either going to be which is a dwelling house, which is occupied, or it's going to be the secondary, this second amendment language, which is, which narrows it and which says the word unoccupied. So which one are we talking about here? I mean, because I have a note here that says, if we stay with what we agreed to last week, it's broad and it is, and it makes this narrowing unnecessary. I would agree with that. If you stay with what was agreed to last week, this amendment is unnecessary. This amendment would be a last resort if you agree to strike unoccupied, then this amendment would be a last resort to at least allow us to proceed with the very end of some of these pending cases. I'm sorry, striking the words unoccupied from this second amendment or the phrase which is occupied from the definition? From the definition. I'm sorry. I apologize. I wasn't clear. Yes. If unoccupied is stricken from the definition of foreclosure. No, that's not in the definition. The definition of foreclosure says which is occupied. That was the proposed language to be struck. Dwelling house, which is occupied. Okay. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Which is occupied? If that language is stricken, then I believe the second amendment proposal is absolutely necessary to allow just these minimal wrapping up matters to conclude. Okay. So that's a tacit agreement that the second amendment as proposed today is acceptable. If the words which is occupied is taken away from the definition in, that's attached to the word dwelling house. Is that what I'm hearing you say? That is sort of our Hail Mary pass to at least be able to do something. That language is acceptable if the committee decides, you know, that you think which is occupied should be stricken from the definition. Okay. This gives at least the bank some ability to do. Which we wanted to be able to do, right? Which is what we want. So I'm going to go to Representative Walz. I'm getting a little, just Senate, thank you for sitting in. Representative Walz. I don't find the two statements incompatible at all. I would recommend we leave them both in the bar cut amendment says we're not taking action against any occupation against any dwelling that is occupied. Clear statement. And then the second amendment today says in the case of unoccupied, so that's a different set in the case of unoccupied dwellings, which have reached a certain point, we specifically specifically are allowing certain procedures to go forward. But I don't find them inconsistent at all. They're completely different Venn diagrams, if you will. I would leave them both out. Representative Hang on that I want to get a clarification from from from from David. If that's the case, Representative Walz just said that to me makes a lot more sense because I absolutely cannot follow the reasoning that has been presented to me as to one versus the other. And this is a continuing problem in my mind when other people besides us are writing bills and amendments, because I don't know where they're coming from. And I don't have the institutional knowledge of legal tenant landlord law to really get into the weeds like this. So I'm totally frustrated and hopefully David will concur with Representative Walz. Thank you. Well, without, you know, without greasing the wheel any further David, what were your thoughts about what what Representative Walz was was saying is that I'll do respect. It's the second. Can I share my screen? It might help. You can share your screen because I can barely see you. So right. Yes, please share your screen. There you go. There's you. But please share your screen. So are you seeing Marcot juxtaposed with House General? Yes. Yes. Okay. So I think what we need to do is just take two steps back and remember what this bill does, right? This bill, as far as foreclosures are concerned, establishes a moratorium on foreclosure actions, whether they are new, whether they are already pending, it says hit pause, right? The debate you're having right now concerning foreclosures is the extent to which you want to create an exception for unoccupied properties. If you go with the Marcot proposal, you are making a blanket exception for unoccupied properties against from the rule. You understand? Under S3, let me say it back, under S333, you were creating this new rule. Foreclosure actions across the board, pending or new, will not proceed until the emergency period ends. And again, the scope of this debate is what exception to that rule are you going to make for unoccupied properties? Under the Marcot proposal, you're making a blanket exception to that rule across the board for unoccupied properties. You're saying that as you're defining foreclosure, that term doesn't mean an unoccupied property. It only means an action brought against a dwelling house that is occupied. Therefore, if it's not occupied, it's not a foreclosure action, as far as it goes concerned. None of the pause happens for those. You understand? You can keep a pending action going. You can start a new action. You can issue orders. You can issue service. You can issue rates of possession. You can have judicial sales. You can have confirmation orders. You can do anything if the property is unoccupied. That's what the Marcot amendment does. That is as broad as it gets as far as unoccupied property goes. The language from today, what's in yellow on your screen, is significantly narrower than that in many ways, right? First off, it only applies to pending actions. Second off, it only applies to the very tail end of those pending actions. You have gone through the whole thing and you've already got a sale going or you've completed the sale and you want approval of a confirmation of the sale and you want an order from the court that wraps everything up, right? So whereas that Marcot amendment is as broad as it gets for unoccupied properties, the language today only applies to pending actions against unoccupied properties that are at the point of sale or beyond. Okay? And the reason that you don't need both and both would be confusing is that if you take the Marcot language, you are saying as a matter of law, the things that today's language references aren't going to happen anyway. They aren't at issue. You can do anything with a foreclosure. Therefore, you don't need to make a carve out for sales, motions, confirmation orders because they aren't paused. And so the reason that Sue is saying, yes, I agree to both is because she's not sure what you're going to do. And if you're not going to do the Marcot, then she wants to at least be able to deal with sales and confirmations in pending actions against unoccupied properties. But what she would prefer is the broader construct under which they can proceed with foreclosure actions as long as the property is unoccupied. Okay. Representative Walsh. I respectfully disagree with you, David, because Marcot amendment specifically says this applies only to occupied dwellings and the Second Amendment from today specifically says it applies only to unoccupied dwellings. So I think we're dealing with two completely different sets here. And I honestly don't see any confusion whatsoever. Tommy, to David's point, I think, or to the point of the Marcot amendment, I think, is that it's by leaving unoccupied, unmentioned, or it's just by specifying the occupied, that unoccupied material goes off on what's already been set up as opposed to... The Second Amendment then addresses that. Well, keep in mind that, am I muted? No. Keep in mind that the Second Amendment pertains only to proceedings that are already in progress. So that's a considerable difference between the two. Right. It's a different set of properties and it's... No, it's different set of procedures at which point these amendments would kick into the court system. The other difference is that the Marcot amendment deals with a definition. So whenever that word is then used, it's used in this manner for this period of time. Whereas the second piece of amendment under the yellow print here is that it's about a particular action. It falls in a different place in what we're proposing. So by keeping the definition broad under the Marcot piece, we're making... What I hear David say is that the second pieces are relevant because... Right. Because we've defined the word so broadly at the beginning. I would disagree with that because as Representative Troiano just pointed out, what the Second Amendment does says in these specific instances, can we take action against unoccupied? It's not wide open to do anything you want with unoccupied property, but only in these specific instances. It's too formal. Representative Hango. I'm going to defer to Representative Gamash for a minute because she's been trying to say something and then I'll speak. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So I have concluded, after first thinking I understood, then being very confused and after hearing David's summary or explanation, I have... I can see where the Marcot amendment addresses one issue and the Second Amendment here in this language addresses a different issue. As David said, the whole idea of unoccupied is not in the Marcot amendment. It's as if it doesn't exist because it was meant only to ensure that people who lived in occupied buildings would be covered. So when you have an unoccupied building, there are no tenants in there. It doesn't matter. It's a whole category that is not in the Marcot bill or the Marcot amendment. So it's as if it doesn't exist. So what's your point? Do you want... My point is personally, I like the Marcot amendment personally. Okay. So you're not saying that the Second Amendment needs to also be in... No. Because the Second Amendment only deals with one part of that. It's only a portion of the process. Whereas in the Marcot amendment, unoccupied is not dealt with at all. So it's like there's a carve out, except that wouldn't be correct because it's not a carve out, but it doesn't exist. It's a different category. It's like apples and oranges. It isn't apples and oranges, but I don't know how else to... It's just... It's two different entities, two different things. One refers to occupied. One refers to unoccupied. And we're trying to take care of and ensure that people who live in occupied dwellings are going to be protected. The other thing, when a building is in a process of being foreclosed upon, if it is occupied, if there are tenants, any tenants in a building, be it residential or commercial, those tenants have to be notified that there is a foreclosure proceeding that is starting or is at some point, somewhere along the line, tenants have to know this building is going into foreclosure at some point so that they're put on notice. So whether they are... And there's a procedure for that in terms of responding. It's not like somebody can just go in, tackle foreclosure sign on a dwelling or on a building and not give any information to the tenants. They have to be apprised of what their rights are, first of all. So even if someone is not occupied, somebody has a lease or they're on a 30-day, month to month. Even on a month to month, you cannot, on the 30th day of that month to month, say to the tenant, pack your stuff and be out of here in the morning. We have laws to protect people. So I guess what I'm getting at is that when there's a building where a foreclosure procedure is starting, very quickly in those first steps, if you will, if the building is occupied in any way, be it by one tenant or by multiple tenants, they have to be notified. So even if they, even if somebody gets ill, does it, is not in that place, is somewhere else, notification still has to be given to them. And I'm not apprised of the law as to the various forms. It used to be people were notified by mail, by return mail, so that they were assured that the notification arrived. We have multiple means of notifying people today. So I don't really know what the law is currently. Whether or not you're physically there, if you are a tenant, whether you're there or you're physically someplace else, you still need to be notified. So the tenants are included in that respect. So they have to be protected. No, no. Yeah. So we're still at this point. I'm going to, I have to pause now. It's 2.37. And I just want to, so David, I mean, we've heard arguments on all sides of this right now, and I'm not sure we're ready to make that decision in this minute. So I want to, I just want to spend the rest of this, this, this 23 minutes, 22 minutes, because we all have to go in a different Zoom meeting after this. And I want to bring the Senate into this conversation. I've unmuted everybody, not just specifically about this conversation, but the reason I asked the Senate to join us was A, to listen to this discussion as we're trying to wrap this up, but also to