Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; early termination of rental agreement.
Summary
SB 884 amends the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to expand and clarify when a tenant who is a victim of family abuse, sexual abuse, other criminal sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking may end a rental agreement early. The bill allows termination when the tenant has obtained certain protective orders or when there is a conviction or criminal charging document related to the abuse, assault, stalking, or trafficking. It also requires the tenant to give the landlord written notice and a copy of the relevant order or charging document, and makes the termination effective 28 days after notice is served.
The bill also specifies that rent remains due through the effective termination date, prohibits landlords from charging liquidated damages, and preserves the tenant’s obligations under existing tenant-law provisions until termination takes effect. Co-tenants who are not the victim remain responsible for rent for the rest of the lease term. If the perpetrator is the only remaining tenant, the landlord may terminate the lease and seek actual damages from that person. Overall, the measure is designed to give survivors a clearer and more usable path to leave unsafe housing situations without additional financial penalties.
Impact
SB 884 changes Virginia Code § 55.1-1236 by broadening and refining the statutory process for early lease termination by victims of abuse and related crimes. It adds human trafficking to the covered circumstances, updates the notice period from 30 days to 28 days, and clarifies the documentation a tenant must provide. The bill affects landlords, tenants, co-tenants, and perpetrators who remain on the lease, while limiting landlords’ ability to impose liquidated damages in these cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support, especially in the Senate, where it passed after a failed motion to rerefer and then passed again after reconsideration. Committee and floor votes show meaningful support in both chambers, though not unanimous, suggesting broad agreement on the policy goal of protecting survivors while some members had reservations about the details. The House also passed the measure, and the Senate later agreed to the House substitute, indicating the final version was acceptable to both chambers.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to have been procedural and about the bill’s final form rather than the underlying purpose. The Senate vote to rerefer the bill to committee failed, showing that some senators wanted further review or changes, and the House committee reported a substitute, indicating amendments were significant enough to warrant revision. Likely areas of concern included the scope of covered offenses, the shortened notice period, and the allocation of rent responsibility among co-tenants and perpetrators, but the available record does not include transcript debate identifying specific speakers or objections.