Concerning protections for residential tenants, and, in connection therewith, requiring a plaintiff that files a complaint regarding the unlawful detention of real property to include certain information with the complaint; requiring court r...
HB 26-1047 is a tenant-protection bill that would change several parts of Colorado’s eviction and rental-payment laws. It requires landlords and eviction plaintiffs to attach more documentation to eviction filings, including the lease, a current rent ledger in nonpayment cases, and other records related to alleged lease violations or no-fault evictions. It also requires written demands or notices to cite the specific statutory basis for the eviction and to redact sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, driver’s license numbers, and financial account numbers.
The bill further expands Colorado’s automatic suppression rules for eviction court records. Under the proposal, most eviction records would remain suppressed even after a landlord wins possession, unless the case involves a “substantial violation of a lease,” in which case the record could become public unless the parties agree to keep it suppressed. The bill also allows courts to publish anonymized judicial opinions in eviction cases, and it gives tenants whose eviction records are suppressed the ability to deny or not disclose the existence of the record in tenant screening or rental applications. Finally, it requires landlords to offer at least one rent-payment method that does not require an online portal or a transaction fee, and it preserves existing receipt requirements for rent payments.
If enacted, the bill would amend Colorado statutes governing unlawful detainer and forcible entry and detainer actions, including sections in Title 13 and the landlord-tenant payment provisions in Title 38. It would impose new pleading and notice requirements on landlords, create an affirmative defense when required documents are missing, and limit public access to eviction records more broadly than current law. It would also affect landlords, tenants, courts, and tenant-screening practices by changing what information must be disclosed, what records remain sealed, and how rent can be paid.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of tenant protections and housing stability. The legislative declaration emphasizes fairness, transparency, reduced barriers to housing, and the harms caused by eviction records, especially for low-income households, seniors, rural residents, disabled residents, and people without reliable internet access. The bill frames its changes as necessary to reduce avoidable evictions and to protect dignity during the eviction process.
The main points of contention are likely to be the added burdens on landlords and the reduced public availability of eviction records. Landlords may object to the requirement to provide more documents at the outset, redact notices, and maintain a non-electronic, fee-free payment option. Another likely issue is the record-suppression expansion, especially the distinction between ordinary eviction cases and those involving substantial lease violations, because it balances tenant privacy against transparency and community-safety concerns. The bill was ultimately postponed indefinitely in the House Judiciary Committee, indicating it did not advance in its introduced form.
The bill would amend Colorado’s landlord-tenant and eviction statutes to require more detailed eviction filings and notices, expand suppression of eviction court records, and mandate at least one no-portal, no-fee rent payment option. It would directly affect landlords, tenants, courts, and tenant-screening processes by changing documentation, disclosure, privacy, and payment rules in residential eviction matters.
The bill is framed in strongly pro-tenant terms, with the legislative declaration emphasizing housing stability, fairness, and protection from the long-term consequences of eviction records. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, but the bill’s final status—postponed indefinitely in House Judiciary—suggests it did not receive enough support to advance.
Likely areas of disagreement include whether landlords should be required to attach leases, rent ledgers, and other evidence before filing eviction cases; whether eviction records should remain suppressed after a landlord wins possession; and whether landlords should be compelled to offer a rent-payment method that avoids online portals and transaction fees. Landlords and property-rights advocates would likely view these requirements as burdensome, while tenant advocates would support them as necessary protections against opaque or unfair eviction practices.