A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 47-16-13.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to landlord obligations owed to a tenant.
HB 1496 would amend North Dakota’s landlord-tenant law governing maintenance of residential rental property. The bill restates and expands the landlord’s duty to keep a dwelling unit fit and habitable, comply with health-and-safety building and housing codes, maintain common areas, keep essential systems and appliances in safe working order, provide waste disposal facilities, and supply running water, hot water, and reasonable heat. It also defines “reasonable heat” as at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit from October 1 through April 30, and otherwise a temperature appropriate to seasonal conditions.
The bill preserves existing rules allowing limited tenant responsibility by written agreement in certain circumstances. For single-family residences, a landlord and tenant could agree in good faith that the tenant performs specified landlord duties, including some repairs and maintenance. For other dwelling units, tenant performance of repairs or alterations would be allowed only through a separate written agreement, signed by both parties, supported by adequate consideration, and not affecting the landlord’s obligations to other tenants. The bill also clarifies that a landlord cannot make such a separate agreement a condition of any rental agreement.
HB 1496 would amend section 47-16-13.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, the statute defining landlord obligations for residential premises. Its practical effect would be to codify a specific minimum indoor temperature standard during the heating season, reinforce habitability and maintenance duties, and limit when landlords may shift repair or maintenance responsibilities to tenants. The bill would primarily affect residential landlords, tenants, property managers, and enforcement of rental housing standards, especially in disputes over heat, repairs, and habitability.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, but the bill’s introduction and committee adoption of the title suggest it was treated as a standard tenant-protection measure focused on habitability and maintenance. Because the bill ultimately failed, the overall legislative outcome was unfavorable, even though the text itself reflects a straightforward regulatory update rather than a highly partisan proposal. The absence of recorded discussion makes it difficult to identify broader support or opposition beyond the final failure.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of landlord obligations and the new explicit heating standard. Landlords or property owners may have objected to the 68-degree requirement, the expanded maintenance expectations, or limits on shifting repair duties to tenants, while tenant advocates would likely support clearer habitability protections and stronger enforcement of safe living conditions. Another possible issue is the bill’s restriction on conditioning rental agreements on tenant-performed maintenance, which could be viewed as protecting tenants but reducing flexibility for landlords.