Derek and Beth have been living in Mr. Dawson's rental home in Colorado for several years. Recently, rent has started to fall behind, and Mr. Dawson senses tension every time he talks to either Derek or Beth.
Fast forward a couple of months, and the couple is significantly behind on rent, to the point where Mr. Dawson is considering posting a demand for unpaid rent, initiating the eviction process. All of a sudden, Beth sends Mr. Dawson a one-page self-attestation affidavit claiming domestic abuse by Derek. Derek is still living in the house, and they're trying to work things out, according to Beth.
Under the new law, House Bill 25-1168, Mr. Dawson must offer Beth a repayment plan within three business days. Beth gets to structure the plan as she wants, with only two requirements: a minimum monthly payment of $25 and a maximum duration of nine months. This is bad news for Mr. Dawson because he has already been making the last couple of house payments for the rental without receiving any rent. Now, this.
The Harsh Reality
Mr. Dawson's situation isn't unique - it's the new reality facing rental property owners across Colorado since House Bill 25-1168 took effect on August 6, 2025. As property management professionals, we understand that this law represents a fundamental shift in landlord-tenant relationships, one that prioritizes the protection of victims and survivors over traditional property owner rights.
While the legislature's intent to protect domestic violence victims is admirable, the practical implementation creates significant challenges for property owners who must navigate a legal framework designed to be broadly interpreted in favor of tenants. The hard truth is that Mr. Dawson's options are far more limited than most landlords realize, and every property owner needs to understand these new constraints before they find themselves in a similar situation.
The New Playing Field
This isn't just about lost rent anymore; it's about understanding that the self-attestation affidavit Beth provided fundamentally changes the entire landscape of evictions. Under HB 25-1168, that simple one-page document triggers a cascade of legal protections that effectively pause Mr. Dawson's ability to pursue standard remedies for non-payment. The law doesn't require police reports, court orders, or any third-party verification for the initial claim - a tenant's sworn statement alone is sufficient to invoke these protections.
What many property owners don't grasp is that the law intentionally sets the bar low for documentation. As stated in Section 13-40-104(4)(a)(III), a self-attestation affidavit merely needs to state that the tenant is a victim-survivor and that the incident "is the cause of, contributed to, or resulted in the alleged unlawful detention. This broad language means almost any connection between the claimed abuse and the rent default can trigger the protections. The tenant doesn't even need to provide the alleged abuser's name if they determine it's unsafe to do so.
The financial burden shifts to the landlord during this extended period. Mr. Dawson must continue covering his property expenses while potentially receiving minimal monthly payments for up to nine months. If Beth owes $4,000 in back rent, the law requires her repayment plan to address the full amount owed; however, she can structure payments as low as $25 per month over nine months. At minimum payments, Beth would pay only $225 during the nine-month plan ($25 × 9 months), leaving $3,775 still owed. This means Mr. Dawson faces a prolonged recovery process: nine months of minimal payments followed by additional collection efforts for the substantial remaining balance - potentially extending his wait for full payment well beyond a year.
The Human Cost on Both Sides
While Mr. Dawson genuinely sympathizes with Beth's situation - no one should endure domestic violence - he faces his own harsh reality. He's not a large corporate landlord with deep pockets; he's a small investor who depends on rental income to cover his mortgage and expenses. The prospect of receiving minimal payments for nine months while covering all the property costs is simply unsustainable for his financial situation. Like many small landlords across Colorado, Mr. Dawson is seriously considering selling his rental property and moving his investment into more predictable vehicles like stocks or bonds.
The increased regulatory complexity and financial exposure under HB 25-1168 raises questions about potential broader implications for Colorado's housing market. Industry professionals report that some individual investors are reconsidering their participation in the rental market due to these new requirements. Should small landlords choose to exit rental property ownership, this could impact the supply of single-family rental homes - often the most desirable and affordable housing option for families.
These properties typically get purchased by owner-occupants or large institutional investors, neither of which necessarily increases rental availability. While it's too early to measure actual market effects, housing advocates on both sides acknowledge that any reduction in rental supply could create additional challenges in Colorado's already tight housing market, potentially affecting the very populations HB 25-1168 aims to protect.
The Property Management Response
Property managers now find themselves walking a tightrope between compliance with HB 25-1168 and their fiduciary duty to protect their clients' investments. Property managers may need to adapt their practices to minimize exposure to these new risks, including more rigorous tenant screening, stricter enforcement of all lease provisions, and careful documentation of every tenant interaction.
The Non-Renewal Strategy Framework
Understanding the legal landscape is crucial: while HB 25-1168 creates strong protections against eviction during a lease term, landlords retain the right to non-renew leases at their natural expiration for legitimate business reasons. This distinction becomes even more important when considered alongside House Bill 24-1098, which requires "just cause" for most evictions during the lease term. Together, these laws make mid-lease evictions significantly more challenging, while end-of-term non-renewal remains largely at landlord discretion - making this distinction a critical risk management tool.
When a lease approaches renewal, property managers may scrutinize every aspect of the tenancy to build a documented case for potential non-renewal. This includes:
- Lease compliance violations (noise complaints, unauthorized occupants, pet violations)
- HOA or community covenant breaches
- Property condition issues beyond normal wear and tear
- Repeated late payment patterns (even if ultimately paid)
- Documentation of tenant communications and lease enforcement efforts
The Legal Requirements for Non-Renewal
For this strategy to be legally sound, property managers must ensure:
- Proper notice timing under Colorado law (91 days for yearly leases, 28 days for shorter terms)
- Legitimate business justification unrelated to protected characteristics or victim-survivor status
- Consistent documentation showing a pattern of violations or concerns
- Non-discriminatory application of standards across all tenants
The Strategic Advantage
This approach allows property managers to avoid the complex domestic violence protections that make mid-lease evictions challenging. Rather than fighting an uphill battle against HB 25-1168's provisions, they can simply allow the lease to expire and choose not to renew based on documented performance issues.
While property managers don't want to penalize genuine victims of domestic violence, this framework provides a legal pathway to end problematic tenancies without triggering the law's extensive tenant protections. However, these defensive strategies create an environment where all tenants may face increased scrutiny and reduced flexibility - an outcome that ultimately benefits no one in Colorado's challenging rental market.
