Residential landlord-tenant matters.
SB 300 makes wide-ranging changes to Indiana landlord-tenant law and related nuisance and court procedures. It expands the circumstances under which a court may appoint a receiver for a multifamily residential property, including when a local government has obtained unpaid damages, costs, or attorney’s fees in a nuisance action against the property owner. It also clarifies that cities, towns, and counties may bring nuisance actions not only against owners, but also against tenants or other persons responsible for the nuisance.
The bill imposes new habitability and repair obligations on landlords. It defines “essential services” and “essential systems,” requires landlords to maintain rental premises free of pests, mold, and rot, and creates a written/electronic repair-request process. For loss of essential services caused by system failure, the landlord generally must repair or replace the essential system within 72 hours after notice, unless the tenant caused the damage or the landlord makes a documented good-faith repair attempt. Knowingly or intentionally violating these requirements is treated as a deceptive act under Indiana’s deceptive consumer sales law, which opens the door to statutory remedies and penalties.
SB 300 also creates new tenant enforcement tools. A qualifying tenant may, after notice and a waiting period, deposit rent with the clerk of court if the landlord fails to make required repairs, and may ask the court to order repairs or terminate the rental agreement. In related litigation, the court may require ongoing rent payments to be held in trust by the clerk or an attorney trust account, with procedures for release of those funds depending on which party prevails. The bill also requires landlords to reimburse filing fees to prevailing tenants and authorizes a $30 clerk fee when an escrow account is needed.
In addition, the bill strengthens anti-retaliation protections for tenants and applicants, limits local penalties tied to emergency calls in housing settings, and preserves local nuisance enforcement authority. It also adds a new “required nexus” rule for rental-property management: after June 30, 2025, a landlord may not manage rental property in Indiana unless the landlord is authorized to do business in Indiana, maintains an Indiana office, or uses an Indiana licensed real estate broker or broker company. Conforming changes are made to clerk fee statutes to fund the new escrow-related administration.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the bill appears tenant-protective and enforcement-oriented, with a strong focus on habitability, repair timelines, and accountability for landlords. Likely points of contention include the 72-hour repair deadline, the rent-escrow mechanism, the new in-state management requirement, and the expanded nuisance and receiver remedies, all of which increase obligations and potential liability for landlords and property managers.
The bill would substantially amend Indiana Code chapters governing landlord duties, tenant remedies, nuisance actions, receiverships, retaliation, and clerk fee administration. It adds new statutory obligations for landlords to maintain safe and habitable premises, creates a formal repair-notice and rent-escrow process, expands court authority to hold and disburse rent during litigation, and authorizes new remedies and fee-shifting in tenant actions. It also changes local government nuisance enforcement and imposes a new in-state nexus requirement for rental-property management, affecting out-of-state owners and management companies.
No committee discussion or vote history is available, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. On its face, the bill is strongly pro-tenant and pro-enforcement, suggesting support from tenant advocates, housing-code enforcement interests, and local governments, while likely drawing opposition from landlord, property-management, and real-estate interests because of the added compliance duties, deadlines, escrow procedures, and management restrictions.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s 72-hour repair mandate for essential systems, the ability of tenants to withhold or escrow rent, and the treatment of violations as deceptive acts under consumer-protection law. Landlords and property managers may also object to the new Indiana nexus requirement, the expanded nuisance-action and receiver provisions, and the fee-shifting rules that require reimbursement of tenant filing fees. Local governments and tenant advocates are likely to support the stronger enforcement tools, while landlord groups may argue the bill is too punitive or burdensome, especially for smaller owners and out-of-state operators.