CT Blue

There’s an old saying to the effect that you really don’t want to know how legislation or sausage is made. I’m not sure about the meat variety, but I’d actually love to know how this sausage was made. It is Section 57 of the budget bill just passed by our legislature. It reads as follows:

Sec. 57. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) As used in this section, “fire sprinkler system” means a system of piping and appurtenances designed and installed in accordance with generally accepted standards so that heat from a fire will automatically cause water to be discharged over the fire area to extinguish or prevent its further spread.

(b) When renting any dwelling unit, the landlord of such dwelling unit shall include notice in the rental agreement as to the existence or nonexistence of an operative fire sprinkler system in such dwelling unit and shall be printed in not less than twelve-point boldface type of uniform font.

© If there is an operative fire sprinkler system in the dwelling unit, the rental agreement shall provide further notice as to the last date of maintenance and inspection and shall be printed in not less than twelve-point boldface type of uniform font.

Now, you might ask, what does this have to do with the budget? The obvious and correct answer is: nothing. Presumably, someone snuck it in there, or was allowed to do so by leadership in order to buy that someone’s vote for the entire package. Why anyone would want it, is a mystery. Why anyone would inflict such a poorly drafted monstrosity on the state is an even bigger mystery.

I’ve been grappling with the language ever since I found out about it. I represent a local housing authority, so we will need to comply with it. In order to do that, we must know what it means. It’s meaning is not so clear as you might think on first reading, and the practical problems it poses are daunting. This statute proves there is merit to the committee process, where bills are vetted and where interested people might have a chance to point out problems.

For starters, what does the term “when renting any dwelling unit” mean? I think it means “at the beginning of a tenancy”, but it could arguably mean “during the period of a tenancy”. The housing authority has hundreds of tenants. Each has a lease. Do we have to get each of them to sign a new lease in October, or can we put this language in new leases? If the former, it’s an administrative nightmare, particularly because for the most part we have to do it in order to inform the tenants about something they don’t have: sprinklers. Wouldn’t it make sense to restrict the requirement to dwelling units in which sprinklers were required by code?

Normal private landlords will have their problems with this too, assuming that they even find out about it. The landlord-tenant act recognizes that there are many landlord tenant relationships that operate under what we refer to as an “oral” lease, i.e., an unwritten lease in which the relationship between the parties is governed by state law. I often advise private landlords to not bother with a written lease; the statutes work fine for both parties. How does this new statute apply to such leases? Does it implicitly ban them? After all, you can’t put something in 12 point bold faced type of a uniform font into an oral agreement. (Maybe if you give a very loud oral notice in a uniform volume that would count) The statute requires that the notice be “in the rental agreement”. That implies that it can’t be provided as part of a separate notice. Answer to question: who knows? Whoever drafted this statute clearly never bothered to run it by anyone with a passing familiarity with landlord-tenant law.

Well, you might say: no harm done. There doesn’t appear to be any sanction for failing to comply. At least there’s no express sanction. Which means a court would have to figure out what the effect of non-compliance would be. Is a non-complying lease void? Does non-compliance excuse non-payment of rent? Is it an unfair trade practice? Inquiring minds might like to know.

This is not a big deal in and of itself. My guess is that the statute will be ignored by all and sundry. But it does make one wonder what other potential disasters are lurking in this “budget bill”. And I’d really like to know who snuck this provision into the bill. Is there a legislator who sells sprinkler systems? Maybe Groton’s John Scott (R-Insurance Agent), can use this technique to get his insurance agent relief bills through next year.