A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 47-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to move-in and post move-out inspections of leased property; and to amend and reenact section 47-16-07.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to tenant security deposits.
HB 1272 would have revised North Dakota’s landlord-tenant law governing security deposits and required formal move-in and move-out inspections for leased property. The bill would have kept the general rule that security deposits must be held in a federally insured interest-bearing account and returned at the end of the lease, but it would have added more detailed limits on how deposits may be used, including itemized deductions, a required estimate at move-out, and liability for treble damages if money is withheld without reasonable justification. It also would have established a separate cap for pet security deposits and preserved existing exceptions allowing larger deposits in certain higher-risk rental situations.
The bill’s new inspection section would have required landlords and tenants to document the condition of the premises at move-in and again after notice to vacate but before the lease ends. The move-out inspection would have required the parties to agree on a reasonable estimate of deductions, and the landlord generally could not re-enter before the inspection unless another statute applied. If a tenant failed to appear, the landlord could proceed and the tenant’s absence would be treated as acceptance of the landlord’s statement; if the landlord failed to schedule, communicate, or appear, the landlord would be deemed to accept the premises’ condition and would have to return the full deposit and interest.
If enacted, HB 1272 would have amended section 47-16-07.1 of the North Dakota Century Code and added a new section to chapter 47-16, directly affecting landlord-tenant relationships, residential leasing practices, and the handling of security deposits across the state. It would also have applied to the state and political subdivisions when they act as landlords. The bill would have created new procedural obligations for landlords, expanded tenant protections around deposit deductions, and likely increased documentation and dispute-resolution requirements in rental transactions.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote suggests the bill had meaningful support but not enough to pass the House. It failed on second reading by a 41-47 vote, indicating a divided chamber rather than unanimous opposition. The bill’s sponsors came from both parties, which suggests the proposal had bipartisan interest, but the floor vote shows that a majority of representatives were not persuaded to adopt the new inspection and deposit rules.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s burden on landlords and the strict consequences for noncompliance. Supporters would likely view the measure as improving transparency, preventing unfair withholding of deposits, and giving tenants a clearer process for documenting property condition. Opponents likely objected to the mandatory inspection requirements, the restriction on re-entry before move-out inspection, the deemed-acceptance provisions, and the treble-damages penalty, which together could be seen as too rigid or punitive for landlords.
HB 1272 would have substantially revised North Dakota’s landlord-tenant statutes in chapter 47-16 by tightening security-deposit rules and creating a new mandatory inspection framework. It would have required itemized deposit deductions tied to a move-out inspection, imposed a special cap on pet deposits, and added a treble-damages remedy for unjustified withholding. The bill also would have imposed new duties on landlords to inspect and document property condition at move-in and move-out, with default consequences if either party failed to participate. These changes would have affected private landlords, tenants, and public landlords alike.
The bill appears to have generated moderate but insufficient support. Its bipartisan sponsorship suggests the issue had appeal across party lines, but the 41-47 House second-reading vote shows the chamber was split and ultimately unwilling to advance it. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote outcome indicates that concerns about the bill’s scope or enforceability outweighed support for its tenant-protection goals.
The likely core dispute was between tenant-protection advocates and landlord interests. Supporters would favor clearer deposit accounting, mandatory inspections, and stronger remedies for improper withholding, while opponents would likely argue that the bill imposed too many procedural requirements, limited landlord flexibility, and created harsh penalties for missed inspections or disputed damage claims. The deemed-acceptance rules and the requirement to return the full deposit if a landlord failed to schedule or attend an inspection were especially likely to be controversial, as was the treble-damages provision for withholding without reasonable justification.