Fight against squatters could bring faster evictions for all Texas renters
The fight against squatters in Texas could soon affect every renter in the state. Lawmakers are considering SB 38, the so-called squatters bill, which would allow landlords to evict someone without a trial in as little as 10 days.
State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, the bill's author, said squatters don't have rights. He points to a case in Mesquite as an example.
The homeowner, Terri Boyette, said her handyman moved in while she was out of town and took over the home. When she called the police, Boyette said she was told it was a civil matter.
"I'm trying to live the American dream and somebody can walk in and destroy everything I have," Boyette said.
Bettencourt said his legislation is aimed at getting squatters out in less time, but critics say it will have devastating consequences for legitimate renters and could lead to increased homelessness.
Dallas eviction attorney Mark Melton testified against the bill in Austin, calling it "extremely and obviously unconstitutional."
Melton told lawmakers he believes the squatter issue has been overblown to make it possible to shorten evictions for all tenants.
"You could evict a tenant in 10 days without a trial? How is there due process in that?" Melton asked.
Lawmakers on the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee pushed back on his comments.
"I don't want people to be kicked out on the streets - no one does," said state rep. Jeff Leach. "But to allow someone to go months and months and months and months without paying rent? To continue to be able to stay there on procedural grounds seems to me to be patently unfair and wrong."
According to the current version of SB 38:
Another bill, SB 1333, would make squatting a crime, meaning property owners could get police involved and avoid the eviction process altogether. The author, state senator Bryan Hughes, said the legislation is more narrowly tailored to address the squatting issue.
"This bill would draw a distinction between folks who have overstayed their leases and not paid rent, and then those who just show up and occupy property without any legal basis whatever," said Hughes.
The debate in Austin happened as an extreme eviction case played out in Dallas.
It involved a couple living in a unit of a small apartment building on Gaston Avenue in east Dallas. The family that owned the property planned to sell the property, but could not go through with the sale until it was vacant.
The family filed the first eviction case against Aries Mitchell in September of 2023. Mitchell and her husband, Robert Mullins, won the first case on a technical issue. The family then filed more cases, which the couple appealed, putting the parties in multiple legal battles.
Mitchell and Mullins said they used to pay weekly, until the landlord stopped taking partial payments. Now she admits, the court filings are just a way to buy them more time in the apartment.
"If I had money to go, I'd go," Mitchell said. "I do not want to be here. I'm only here because I don't have nowhere else to go."
Mitchell had successfully appealed one of the eviction cases all the way up to the 5th Court of Appeals. Once that court set a hearing for April 29, the couple assumed that meant they were allowed to stay in the unit until at least that date. However, a separate case was still playing out in a Dallas County courtroom.
"These tenants were always one step ahead," said Terry McAuley, a member of the family that owns the building. "They're up there reading books, following, like, 'what's another loophole? How can we continue staying in here for free?'"
McAuley's sister, Kelly Medlock, echoed her frustrations.
"They keep going to court appealing... and they keep getting granted," Medlock said.
Last month a judge granted a writ of possession to the family. Twelve days later, the constable's office oversaw the eviction and Mitchell and Mullins were left sitting on the stoop with their belongings piled on the sidewalk, bringing an end to the 18-month fight.
The
shortest timeline for an eviction is typically 30 days
, but the process can take much longer than that.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Time Magazine
15 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump
The breakdown in relations between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk has played out over social media in spectacular fashion, with the two engaging in a tit-for-tat spat. The row initially started over politics. Musk expressed his vehement disapproval of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and encouraging people to 'kill the bill.' Meanwhile, Trump maintained that the fall-out was prompted by Musk being upset over the removal of electric vehicle subsidies —a provision that made Tesla vehicles more affordable. But the fight has since taken a far more personal turn, bolstered by Musk's allegation that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk said in a post shared via his social media platform, X. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this. The accusation has spurred Democrats to chase the full unsealing of the Epstein files. California Rep. Robert Garcia and Massachusetts Rep. Stephen F. Lynch—Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—sent a letter on June 5 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Kash Patel. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' read the letter titled 'Is Trump Suppressing The Epstein Files?' The White House responded, saying that the move by the Oversight Committee members was 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' Here's what to know about the Epstein files and the renewed push to declassify them following Musk's allegation. What do we know about the Epstein files so far? On Feb. 27, Bondi released more than 100 pages of declassified documents related to Epstein—as part of the Trump Administration's vow to be more transparent regarding the high-profile case. During the presidential election, Trump promised to appease the clamoring for the alleged 'client list' of Epstein's since his arrest and subsequent death by suicide in 2019. Though Bondi called this the 'first phase' of declassified files, people were underwhelmed by the published pages, as much of the text had been redacted. Bondi's release included Epstein's 'black book,' which had previously been published. It featured names like Trump and former President Bill Clinton, but as the New York Times reported, there were people in the book with whom Epstein had never even met, and thus listed names are not necessarily connected to Epstein's activities. One of the only never-before-seen documents included in the release was an 'Evidence List' of catalogued evidence obtained by investigators. Bondi blamed the FBI for the fact that the report was incomplete, suggesting in a published letter to Patel that the FBI had more information related to Epstein. Bondi ordered Patel to deliver the rest of the investigation documents and 'conduct an immediate investigation' to understand why she had only received parts of the files. There is much discussion as to whether a fully-fledged 'Epstein client list' even exists. Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider's legal correspondent who has covered the Epstein case for years, said via social media on Feb. 27: 'I should also point out that the 'Jeffrey Epstein client list' does not exist and makes no sense on multiple levels (you think he made a list???). But if Pam Bondi wants to prove me wrong, I welcome it.' Will the Musk allegations prompt the release of further Epstein files? Musks' allegations have brought the Epstein files back into the spotlight, but there were already calls for them to be published in full. In April, Trump was asked by a reporter about when the next phase of the files are due to be released, to which he responded: 'I don't know. I'll speak to the Attorney General about that. I really don't know.' Since then, Democrats have continued to push for more documents to be released. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York released a statement in May, 'demanding that [Bondi] promptly release the Jeffrey Epstein Files in full.' Spurred by Musk's allegation, Democrats including Garcia, Goldman, and Lynch are now renewing these calls for more transparency. But it remains to be seen whether or not the pressure will be enough for Bondi, Patel, or Trump to provide more answers. What do we know about Trump's relationship with Epstein? Trump's connection to Epstein dates back decades. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, he famously said that Epstein was 'a lot of fun to be with.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump told the reporter. In July 2019, NBC News' TODAY released unearthed video footage believed to be from 1992, which showed Trump greeting Epstein at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The two men could be seen laughing as they engaged in conversation. After Epstein's 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Trump made strides to distance himself. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in 2019, Trump said: 'I had a falling out with him [Epstein]. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.'
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants
A group of nearly 100 House Democrats is calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore tens of millions of dollars in federal family planning grants to more than a dozen organizations that have been frozen for more than two months. In a letter to Kennedy sent on Friday and seen first by The Hill, 95 lawmakers said the organizations which had their Title X funding frozen on March 31 — including nine Planned Parenthood clinics — are still in the dark about the status of their grants. At the time, the clinics said they received letters from the administration saying the grants were being 'temporarily withheld' due to possible civil right violations and President Trump's executive orders prohibiting the promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and 'taxpayer subsidization of open borders.' More than two months later, the lawmakers said the grantees 'remain without funding and have received no communication from the administration regarding the status of the investigations, the expected timeline, or the future of their funding.' HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'Congress has already appropriated these funds, and the administration has a responsibility to distribute them without undue delay or obstruction, ensuring that critical care is not disrupted for millions of people who rely on Title X services,' the group of lawmakers wrote. The letter was led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.), and signed by 91 other Democrats. Title X is the country's only federal program dedicated to providing affordable birth control and other sexual and reproductive health care to low-income Americans and has done so since the 1970s. The lawmakers timed the letter to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy regarding contraception and reproductive decisions. 'However, due to the actions of this administration, reproductive freedom is under threat,' the lawmakers wrote. The first Trump administration prohibited providers from receiving Title X funding if they mentioned abortion or referred patients for abortions. It also required clinics to construct separate facilities for the procedure and other services. More than a dozen grantees, including all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, left the program in protest because of the rule. The Biden administration reversed Trump's Title X rule in 2021.
