Concerning eviction protections for tenants.
HB26-1106 would make a series of changes to Colorado’s eviction, or forcible entry and detainer, procedures aimed at increasing tenant protections and reducing the speed and volume of eviction processing in county court. The bill would cap the number of eviction cases a county court may set for return on a single business day, with the cap varying by county based on prior-year filing volume. It also would bar landlords from naming a minor as a defendant when a parent or legal guardian is already named, and it would require dismissal without prejudice if that rule is violated.
The bill further expands procedural protections for tenants who miss an answer deadline for specified reasons outside their control, including hospitalization, illness or injury, disability accommodation requests, improper service, transportation problems, electronic filing issues, and court-related issues. In those circumstances, the court would have to vacate judgments or writs already entered, give the tenant at least seven days to answer, allow amended pleadings, and extend the trial date. The bill also says that if a tenant’s answer indicates an intent to cure nonpayment, the court may not enter judgment without a trial or hearing.
HB26-1106 would amend multiple provisions of Colorado’s landlord-tenant eviction statutes in Title 13, Article 40. It would alter county court scheduling authority, add restrictions on who may be named in eviction complaints, change answer and pleading rules, eliminate the rent-deposit requirement for certain appeals by repealing section 13-40-118, and revise writ-of-restitution timing and execution rules. It would also extend the period before a writ can be executed in residential cases, prohibit execution during inclement weather, and create a longer 30-day delay for certain tenants receiving SSI, SSDI, or Colorado Works benefits, subject to stated exceptions.
The bill would affect landlords, tenants, county courts, sheriffs or other officers who execute writs, and appellate litigants in eviction cases. It would likely slow some eviction proceedings, increase opportunities for tenants to cure defaults or raise defenses, and reduce the procedural leverage landlords currently have in appeals and post-judgment enforcement.
Based on the bill’s caption, structure, and sponsor lineup, the measure appears to have been introduced as a tenant-protection bill with a strong consumer- and housing-stability orientation. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials limits direct evidence of debate, but the bill’s provisions suggest support from advocates for renters, due process, disability access, and homelessness prevention. Its eventual disposition in the House Judiciary Committee—postponed indefinitely—indicates that it did not advance, which often reflects insufficient support or unresolved concerns.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s impact on landlords’ ability to obtain and enforce eviction judgments, and on court efficiency. The daily cap on eviction settings could be viewed by opponents as a constraint on county court administration and a delay in resolving possession disputes, especially in high-volume counties. Repealing the appeals bond/rent-deposit requirement and extending writ timelines would also be controversial with landlord and property-owner interests because those changes reduce financial protections during appeals and lengthen the time before possession can be regained. Supporters, by contrast, would emphasize due process, accessibility, and preventing default judgments where tenants face hospitalization, disability, service problems, or other barriers beyond their control.