Landlord and tenant; noncompliance as defense to action for possession for nonpayment of rent.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 906 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 906.
You're tracking SB 906
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 906 — Landlord and tenant; noncompliance as defense to action for possession for nonpayment of rent.
Last action — Left in General Laws and Technology
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House of Delegates
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Property; landlord and tenant; noncomplianceas defense to action for possession for nonpayment of rent. Removesprovisions limiting the discretion of the court in actions for possessionbased upon nonpayment of rent and actions for rent by a landlordwhen the tenant is in possession. The bill simplifies the law; statingonly that, in such cases, a tenant may assert as a defense the landlord'sviolation of his duty to maintain a fit and habitable premises.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The recent amendment to Bill SB 906 includes the addition of a new line while removing another. Specifically, a provision has been added that affects how certain sections of the bill are implemented, while an older provision has been taken out. This change is important because it may enhance the clarity or effectiveness of the legislation by updating it to better reflect current needs or priorities.
74.220.50.21674.220.50.48
Action History
-
Left in General Laws and Technology
-
Pursuant to Senate rule 20(g)
-
Recommitted to General Laws and Technology
-
Motion to recommit to committee agreed to
-
Read second time
-
Constitutional reading dispensed (37-Y 0-N)
-
Committee substitute printed 20107053D-S1
-
Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (9-Y 6-N)
-
Impact statement from DPB (SB906)
-
Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
-
Presented and ordered printed 20103576D
Sponsors
- Jr. William M. Stanley · Primary
- Mamie E. Locke · Cosponsor
- Jennifer L. McClellan · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 145 not signed on · 6 voted No
Sponsors (1)
Co-sponsors (2)
- Mamie E. Locke
- Jennifer L. McClellan
Not signed on (145)
145 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 145 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 37 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 37 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 93% | 0% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 60% | 40% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Barker, George L. | — | Yea |
| Bell, John J. | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Nay |
| Dunnavant, Siobhan S. | — | Yea |
| Ebbin, Adam P. | — | Yea |
| Hashmi, Ghazala F. | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| Kiggans, Jennifer A. | — | Nay |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mason, T. Montgomery "Monty" | — | Nay |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Nay |
| Ruff, Frank M., Jr. | — | Nay |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Nay |
| Vogel, Jill Holtzman | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 906 do?
- Property; landlord and tenant; noncomplianceas defense to action for possession for nonpayment of rent. Removesprovisions limiting the discretion of the court in actions for possessionbased upon nonpayment of rent and actions for rent by a landlordwhen the tenant is in possession. The bill simplifies the law; statingonly that, in such cases, a tenant may assert as a defense the landlord'sviolation of his duty to maintain a fit and habitable premises.
- Who sponsors SB 906?
- SB 906 is sponsored by William M. Stanley, Jr., Mamie E. Locke, and Jennifer L. McClellan.
- What is the current status of SB 906?
- This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 906?
- Track SB 906 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 906
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 906
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →