Nebraska Legislature Bill LB 880
- sarahcooper402
- Jan 28
- 3 min read
READ NOW:
About LB 880:
Prohibit residential landlords from prohibiting or charging extra fees for tenants' payments made by automated clearinghouse transfer
Why We Oppose LB 880
1. LB 880 Forces a One-Size-Fits-All Business Model
LB 880 mandates that all landlords accept ACH payments, regardless of size, structure, or business model.
Many MOPOA members are small “mom-and-pop” owners, not corporations with
accounting departments or payment platforms.
The bill strips landlords of the ability to choose how they accept rent—something no other small business is forced to do.
2. LB 880 Increases Unrecoverable Operating Costs
The bill prohibits landlords from charging tenants any fee for ACH payments.
ACH transfers are not always free, especially when processed through third-party
platforms, and fees can range from 3–5% per transaction.
If a tenant submits multiple partial ACH payments, landlords must absorb every
transaction cost with no recourse.
These unfunded mandates will inevitably lead to higher rents, harming tenant long-
term.
3. Forced Banking Raises Privacy and Fraud Concerns
Some landlords do not use online banking and do not feel safe exposing bank account information electronically.
Many have experienced fraud or identity theft and intentionally limit electronic access to their accounts.
LB 880 forces landlords into electronic banking, regardless of legitimate privacy and security concerns.
4. LB 880 Creates a Dangerous Eviction “Trap”
Under existing law, accepting rent—even partial rent—can waive a landlord’s right
to evict.
LB 880 provides no exception allowing landlords to disable ACH payments when a
tenant is in default or eviction proceedings are underway.
This allows tenants or tenant advocates to submit a last-minute ACH payment before trial, potentially derailing an otherwise lawful eviction.
The bill unintentionally invites abuse of the system and undermines the eviction
process.
5. The Bill Removes Balance and Shifts All Risk to Landlords
LB 880 removes landlord discretion, shifts financial risk entirely onto housing providers, and creates legal uncertainty.
It does nothing to encourage cooperation or flexibility, only mandates compliance.
Good policy should balance tenant protections without punishing responsible housing providers.
Bottom Line: LB 880 may sound simple, but its real-world impact is significant:
higher costs, reduced security, legal traps, and less housing stability.
Public Hearing:
Wednesday, February 4th, 2026 at 1:30pm
Room 1525
What Can You Do?
The MOPOA Board of Directors respectfully asks you to oppose LB 1007. Please consider using the text below - or modifying it as needed with a concise and impactful personal touch - to help convey the importance of not passing LB 1007 this legislative session.
Step 1: Click HERE
Step 2: Click the "Submit Comments Online for LB 880" button
Step 3: Once you confirm "I Understand" it will provide you a form to submit to our Judicial Committee
Step 4: Feel free to copy & paste the verbiage below
Step 5: Check your email to verify your submission (make sure to check your spam folder)
COMMENTS MUST SUBMITTED BY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4th AT 8:00am
Suggested Text:
You can copy and edit the below text.
OPPOSE LB 880: LB 880 forces all landlords to accept ACH payments and prohibits recovering any related costs. This one-size-fits-all mandate ignores how many small “mom-and-pop” landlords operate. Some do not use electronic banking due to fraud or identity-theft concerns, yet this bill would force them into it regardless of risk or preference.
The bill also shifts all transaction costs to landlords. ACH payments are not always free,
particularly through third-party platforms, and tenants may submit multiple partial payments with no limitation. These unrecoverable costs will ultimately increase rents.
Most concerning, LB 880 creates a serious eviction trap. Acceptance of rent—even partial rent—can waive a landlord’s right to evict. The bill provides no exception allowing landlords to suspend ACH payments during default or eviction proceedings, allowing last-minute payments to derail lawful evictions.
LB 880 removes discretion, increases costs, and undermines the eviction process without balance. For these reasons, I urge the committee to oppose LB 880.
Sample Form:
Comments