An Act Concerning The Amount A Landlord May Require For A Security Deposit.
SB 1265 would repeal Connecticut’s current statutory cap on residential security deposits that limits landlords to requiring no more than two months’ rent from tenants under age 62 and no more than one month’s rent from tenants age 62 or older. The bill’s stated purpose is to remove those limits for all tenants. It leaves in place the rest of the security-deposit framework, including requirements that deposits be held in escrow, paid back with accrued interest, itemized deductions for damages, and penalties for noncompliance.
The bill also makes conforming changes to related statutes governing state assistance programs, small claims procedure, banking records, and court procedures so those provisions continue to reference the revised security-deposit law. In particular, it updates rules for security-deposit assistance paid through the Department of Social Services, protects certain benefit refunds from claims or liens, and preserves the ability of tenants to sue for return of deposits in small claims court even when damages and costs exceed the usual monetary limit for that forum.
If enacted, SB 1265 would amend Connecticut General Statutes section 47a-21 by eliminating the age-based limits on how much security deposit a landlord may demand from a residential tenant. Landlords would still be required to escrow deposits, pay interest, return deposits within the statutory deadline, and provide itemized statements for deductions, but the maximum upfront deposit amount would no longer be capped by statute. The bill also updates cross-references in sections 17b-114, 17b-129, 36a-32, 51-15, and 51-164n to align other laws with the revised security-deposit rules.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the available context suggests a straightforward policy change rather than a heavily debated measure in the record supplied. The bill’s statement of purpose is direct and pro-landlord in effect, indicating support for allowing landlords greater flexibility in setting security deposits. No formal vote history or transcript excerpts are available here to show broader legislative sentiment.
The central point of contention is likely the removal of the existing tenant protections that limit security deposits to one or two months’ rent depending on age. Tenant advocates would likely view the repeal as increasing move-in costs and creating a barrier to housing access, especially for lower-income renters, older tenants, and recipients of rental assistance. Landlord interests would likely support the change as a way to better protect against unpaid rent, utility charges, and property damage. The bill does not alter the refund, interest, or enforcement provisions, so the dispute is focused on the size of the deposit landlords may require at the outset.