A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning property.
HB1113 would create a faster, more enforceable process for addressing serious repair problems in residential rental housing. The bill requires landlords to repair or replace an “essential item” needed to provide essential services such as electricity, gas, heat, water, or another service necessary for safe and habitable occupancy within 24 hours after notice from a tenant, subject to limited exceptions such as tenant-caused damage or a good-faith repair effort that cannot be completed in time. For rental agreements entered into after June 30, 2026, the bill also requires a lease provision allowing a tenant to terminate the agreement and recover deposits if the landlord does not make certain repairs within seven days after notice.
The bill also gives tenants an alternative enforcement path through local enforcement authorities that handle unsafe buildings. If a landlord does not make the required repair within 24 hours, a tenant may request an inspection; if the enforcement authority confirms noncompliance, it must arrange the repair within 24 hours after inspection and may charge the landlord for costs and assess a civil penalty of up to $500. The bill creates a residential rental unit repair fund to hold those penalties and pay repair and administrative costs, and it establishes appeal and hearing procedures for landlords.
HB1113 would amend Indiana landlord-tenant law in IC 32-31 and unsafe building enforcement law in IC 36-7-9. It expands the authority of local enforcement agencies to order repair or replacement of essential items in rental units and ties those orders to a new tenant complaint process. It also allows a court, during a tenant enforcement action, to require rent payments to be deposited with the clerk or into an attorney trust account until the case is resolved, with the funds later distributed based on which party prevails.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-tenant and focused on habitability, urgency, and accountability for landlords. Although there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the structure of the bill suggests an intent to address severe service outages and unsafe living conditions quickly, while still preserving landlord defenses and hearing rights. The emergency clause also indicates a sense of urgency behind the proposal.
The main points of contention likely involve the shortened repair deadlines, the new enforcement authority powers, and the financial consequences for landlords, including repair costs and civil penalties. Landlords may view the 24-hour requirement and the ability of tenants to trigger government intervention as burdensome, especially where repairs depend on contractors or circumstances beyond the landlord’s immediate control. On the other hand, tenants and housing advocates would likely support the bill as a stronger remedy for prolonged loss of heat, water, electricity, or other essential services.
The bill would significantly strengthen Indiana’s landlord habitability requirements by imposing a 24-hour repair deadline for essential items tied to essential services and by creating a new tenant enforcement mechanism through local unsafe-building authorities. It would also require certain future leases to include a tenant termination and deposit-reimbursement remedy if specified repairs are not made within seven days, and it would authorize courts to escrow rent during tenant enforcement litigation. These changes would affect landlords, tenants, local code enforcement agencies, and courts, while adding new civil penalty and repair-fund provisions to the Indiana Code.
The bill appears generally favorable to tenants and housing safety, with a clear policy emphasis on rapid repair of critical rental-unit systems and stronger enforcement tools. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public debate in the materials, but the bill’s emergency declaration and detailed enforcement structure suggest the author viewed the issue as urgent. The overall tone is remedial and enforcement-oriented rather than punitive for its own sake.
Likely contention centers on whether a 24-hour deadline is realistic for landlords to meet, especially for complex repairs, contractor availability, or emergencies beyond their control. Landlords may also object to local enforcement authorities being able to step in, perform repairs, and bill them, as well as to the new $500 civil penalty and rent-escrow provisions. Tenant advocates would likely support these provisions as necessary leverage to ensure habitability, while landlords and property owners may argue that the bill shifts too much cost and operational burden onto them and could encourage disputes over whether a condition was caused by tenant waste or whether a good-faith repair effort was made.