SB 288 would create a new tenant right of first refusal for certain residential rental properties in Kentucky. For tenant-occupied rental properties with three or fewer dwelling units, an owner would have to give the tenant or tenants written notice and an opportunity to make an offer before selling the property or accepting an unsolicited third-party offer. The bill defines who qualifies as an owner, tenant, family member, and what counts as a sale, and it excludes certain transfers such as those to family members, wholly owned entities, government, trusts, nonprofits, court-ordered transfers, estate administration, and public housing or land bank authorities.
The bill sets out a detailed process and timeline for the sale notice, tenant offer, counteroffer, and acceptance. Tenants would generally have 30 days to submit an offer, and owners would have five days to accept or counter. If multiple tenants respond, the owner may choose the more favorable offer. If the tenant does not act, or if a contract with the tenant is later terminated before settlement, the tenant’s right of first refusal is waived for that sale. The bill also makes any lease term waiving these rights void, preempts conflicting local ordinances, and authorizes a civil fine of up to $1,000 per violation.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new chapter provision in KRS Chapter 383 governing the sale of small residential rental properties and to impose new notice, negotiation, and compliance obligations on landlords and property owners. It would also limit private contracting around these rights by invalidating lease waivers and would override local rules that conflict with the state standard. Tenants in qualifying properties would gain a statutory opportunity to buy the property before it is sold to someone else.
There is little recorded committee or floor discussion in the provided materials, and no votes are listed, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears tenant-protective and aimed at preserving housing stability and ownership opportunities for renters. The absence of recorded opposition or amendment discussion suggests either limited consideration so far or that the bill had not yet reached a stage with substantive public debate.
The main points of contention likely concern the burden on property owners and the effect on real estate transactions. Landlords and sellers may object to the added notice requirements, short response windows, and the possibility that a tenant’s right of first refusal could delay or complicate a sale, especially when a third-party offer is already in hand. Another likely issue is the bill’s preemption of local ordinances and its prohibition on waiver, which could be viewed as limiting contractual freedom and local policymaking.
SB 288 would amend Kentucky landlord-tenant law by creating a new statutory right of first refusal for tenants of certain small residential rental properties. It would require owners to provide notice and an opportunity to purchase before listing or selling the property, establish deadlines for offers and counteroffers, void any lease provision that waives the right, preempt conflicting local ordinances, and authorize fines for violations. The bill would directly affect landlords, tenants, and real estate transactions involving tenant-occupied properties with three or fewer units.
The provided record contains no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be framed as a tenant-rights and housing-stability proposal, suggesting a generally pro-tenant policy goal. Any sentiment assessment is therefore limited to the text itself rather than documented legislative reaction.
Likely areas of contention include the administrative and transactional burden on property owners, the potential to slow or complicate sales, and the bill’s restriction on waiving tenant rights by contract. Owners may also object to the state preemption of local ordinances and the requirement to disclose material terms of third-party offers. Supporters would likely emphasize tenant opportunity, anti-displacement goals, and the chance for renters to buy the homes they occupy.