HB 2243 would add a new section to Arizona’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Act governing rental application fees. Before collecting an application fee or screening information, a landlord would have to provide written disclosure of the fee amount and purpose, the types of screening information that will be used, the name of any credit or consumer reporting agency involved, and any automatic denial criteria. The bill also requires landlords to give a receipt for any fee collected and to refund any amount above actual processing expenses within 14 days after the application is processed.
The bill further limits when an application fee may be charged. A landlord could not charge a fee if the landlord does not intend to use the full amount for actual processing expenses, if the fee differs from what another prospective tenant is charged for the same or another unit offered at the same time, or if the landlord knows or should know the unit is unavailable now or in the near future. It also requires landlords to review the application and make an individualized assessment using uniform screening criteria before approving or denying an applicant. Violations would expose a landlord to treble damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees, while preserving other available legal remedies.
Impact
HB 2243 would create new statutory duties for residential landlords in Arizona regarding application-fee disclosures, fee calculation, refunds, and tenant-screening practices. It would add enforcement teeth by authorizing treble damages and attorney fees for violations, which could significantly affect landlord compliance practices and litigation exposure. The bill would primarily affect landlords, property managers, and prospective tenants in the rental housing market, and it would likely require changes to application forms, screening policies, and fee-handling procedures.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears consumer-protective and aimed at increasing transparency and limiting potentially abusive or nonrefundable rental application fees. The absence of legislative history in the provided materials makes it difficult to assess the broader political sentiment beyond the bill’s apparent tenant-focused intent.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s restrictions on how landlords may structure and retain application fees, and the requirement that fees be tied to actual processing expenses. Landlords and property managers may object to the administrative burden of itemizing expenses, issuing refunds, and maintaining uniform screening criteria, as well as the risk of treble damages for noncompliance. Tenant advocates would likely support the disclosure requirements and refund provisions as protections against opaque or excessive fees, especially in competitive rental markets.
Housing: landlord and tenants; reuse of certain tenant screening reports; allow. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601) & adds secs. 1e, 1f, 1g & 1h.
Housing: landlord and tenants; prohibition of the use of prospective tenants' credit scores as a sole deciding factor for lease eligibility and allowance for landlords to accept reusable screening reports; provide for. Amends title & sec. 1 of 1972 PA 348 (MCL 554.601) & adds secs. 1e, 1f, 1g & 1h.