Texas anti-squatter bills could mean faster evictions. Here's what renters should know
Texas lawmakers want to prevent squatters from violating tenant rights and landlords' properties.
The Texas Senate passed Senate Bill 38, and it's now in the House. Meanwhile, the House introduced its own version of an anti-squatter bill, House Bill 32, that, if passed, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2026.
What do these bills say about tenant rights, and are they actually helpful for Texas renters and homeowners?
A squatter is a person who occupies an abandoned or unoccupied property without the legal right to do so. Squatters may move into a property for a variety of reasons, such as to find shelter, to avoid paying rent, or to claim ownership of the property.
In Texas, squatters can claim what is known as adverse possession, which allows the trespasser to legally claim ownership of a property after a certain amount of time has passed.
According to NOLO, adverse possession is a legal principle that enables a trespasser — often a neighbor but occasionally a stranger — to obtain rightful ownership of another person's land. Originating in early British legal traditions, this concept now primarily serves to ensure fairness. It applies when a property owner has neglected or overlooked a piece of land while someone else has continuously occupied, maintained, or utilized it for an extended period. Forcing the long-term occupant to leave under such circumstances could result in undue hardship or injustice.
According to CityJournal.org, the squatter must do the following to claim adverse possession: either occupy the property for three years with a color-of-title lease; live on the property with a deed in their name, pay property taxes and cultivate the land for five consecutive years; or occupy and improve the land for at least ten years.
Other requirements also include:
There is no valid lease agreement.
They must live on the property. The squatter must be physically present on the property as an owner to file a claim for adverse possession.
To file an adverse possession claim, the squatter must not share the property with anyone else. They must show that they're openly living on the property and can't share it.
The squatter has to live continuously on the property for three to ten years.
If the squatter abandoned the property for months or years, they are no longer considered in possession of it and, therefore, cannot file a claim for adverse possession.
On April 10, SB 38 passed the Texas Senate with a 21-8 vote. The bill was written by Senator Paul Bettencourt.
In a statement, Sen. Bettencourt said the current tenant laws allow squatters to occupy properties through legal loopholes.
"The current process is so broken that it punishes the rightful property owners while rewarding trespassers who know how to game the system, Bettencourt said. "In the interim hearing, a homeowner testified a squatter broke into her mesquite home, sold her belongings for pennies on the dollar, and then a JP in Garland, Texas ruled to keep the squatter in her home over the holidays denying her the right to come home for Christmas! You can't make these up, as squatter horror story after horror story was told."
Here's what's proposed under SB 38:
Establishes a fairer, faster process to remove squatters, requiring courts to act within 10 to 21 days of a property owner's filing, clarifying the delivery method for the Notice of Vacate.
Takes out appeals that stall evictions, reinforcing judicial discretion.
Confirms that Justice of the Peace courts may set a hearing to motion for summary disposition.
HB 32 in Texas introduces significant changes to eviction procedures, particularly affecting tenants.
Here are some key points from the bill:
The bill streamlines eviction suits, making it easier for landlords to remove unauthorized occupants.
It restricts counterclaims in eviction cases, meaning tenants may have fewer legal avenues to challenge evictions.
Only the Texas Legislature can modify eviction procedures, preventing local governments from enacting tenant-friendly policies.
Landlords must provide at least three days' written notice before filing an eviction suit for nonpayment of rent, unless a different period is specified in a lease.
According to a Texas Tribune article in March, legal advocates say HB 32 and SB 38 aim to simplify and expedite the eviction process, potentially enabling landlords to remove tenants with fewer procedural safeguards than currently required. This change may reduce the time tenants have to respond to eviction notices or present their case in court, making it more challenging for them to protect their rights.
Mark Melton, an attorney who leads the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center, said HB 32 is harmful to Texans' rights.
"There is nothing lawful or fair about this bill at all," he said. "In fact, it is extremely and obviously unconstitutional.'
Adam Swartz, a Dallas County justice of the peace judge said the bills are an exaggeration of what the actual problem is.
"This bill seems like trying to kill a mosquito with a shotgun,' he said.
Removing a squatter requires a law enforcement officer with a valid court order.
According to the Texas State Law Library, if a squatter or tenant on your property fails to make the required rent payments or is intruding on the property, you can initiate the eviction process by serving them with a three-day vacate notice.
If the three-day period elapses without any resolution, you can escalate the matter by filing an eviction lawsuit with your county's court. Typically, an eviction lawsuit takes approximately 2-3 weeks to reach a conclusion and may take longer if a notice of appeal is filed.
You can read more about the process of evictions at hemlane.com/resources/texas-eviction-laws/.
In March 2024, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted that Texans have a right to defend themselves from squatters through the Texas castle doctrine.
In Texas, the castle doctrine, a legal principle, grants residents the authority to employ force, even lethal force, in self-defense, the defense of their families, and the protection of their property against intruders or assailants.
However, legal experts in Texas have said you can not just shoot a squatter.
Geoffrey Corn, a professor at Texas Tech University's School of Law, explained in a Newsweek article that the Texas castle doctrine does not justify violence.
'Now, if I came home unaware someone had invaded my home, confronted that individual and demanded they leave, and was then attacked with deadly force, I would then be justified in defending myself with deadly force,' he said.
'But if I knew a squatter was in my home, and then attacked that individual with deadly force, my response would be excessive and the castle doctrine would not change that."
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: What the proposed Texas anti-squatter bills mean for landlords
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RIDE disability rights case settlement disrupts R.I. House final budget preparations
The Rhode Island Department of Education's Westminster Street entrance in Providence is shown. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) may soon have to pay $1.86 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the state had failed to provide special education services for students with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22. That news presented a last minute complication for the Rhode Island House Committee on Finance's fiscal 2026 state budget preparations Tuesday. 'We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget,' House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters at a press briefing on the $14.33 billion spending plan that began after 9 p.m. Tuesday night. He cited a figure of nearly $2 million needed because of an adverse ruling against RIDE, but details were unavailable at the time. The case of K.L. v. Rhode Island Board of Education is close to a settlement, Victor Morente, a RIDE spokesperson, confirmed via email on Wednesday morning. He said officials were still drafting a 'tentative' agreement that is still subject to approval from Rhode Island District Court as well as the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, RIDE's governing body. The settlement comes nearly seven years after a federal appeals court ruled that RIDE shortchanged students with disabilities in the 2010s. The class action suit began in 2014 with a single plaintiff: A Warwick parent filing on behalf of their daughter, a Rhode Island student on the autism spectrum who also had ADHD and severe anxiety. But the student, named K.L. in the lawsuit, aged out of state-sponsored educational accommodations at age 21, before she could finish her high school diploma — something she should have been eligible to receive until age 22 under federal disability laws, her attorneys argued. K.L. had an individualized education program (IEP), which tailors learning for students with disabilities and helps to address their needs. These support programs are the roadmaps to ensure local schools education agencies supply students with a free and 'appropriate' public education per mandates derived from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Students 'who were over 21 and under 22 as of February 10, 2012, or turned 21 before July 1, 2019,' Morente wrote, would be eligible for relief under the draft settlement if they did not receive their high school diploma and aged out of support services under previous Rhode Island law. When the case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, it ruled in favor of RIDE by determining that 'public education' under the federal law would not include adult learning for students with disabilities over age 21. The class members then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, which vacated the lower court's judgment. We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget. – House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi during a press briefing Tuesday Senior Judge Kermit Victor Lipez wrote in the first circuit's October 2018 majority opinion that the lower court had relied on too 'narrow' a definition of public education. 'At present, if a 21-year-old student in Rhode Island does not complete high school for a non-disability related reason — say, because she was previously incarcerated — the state will provide her the services needed to attain a secondary-school level of academic proficiency and a route to obtain a high-school level degree,' Lipez wrote. 'However, if the same 21-year-old does not complete high school due to a qualifying disability, the state currently does not offer her ability-appropriate services to attain the same level of educational achievement.' That imbalance violated disability law, the First Circuit decided, and the court boomeranged the case back to the District of Rhode Island for the two parties to determine remedies for class members. Sonja Deyoe, the attorney representing class members since the suit's inception, wrote in an email Wednesday that the First Circuit ruling was pivotal for disability rights in Rhode Island. 'The law previously had limited that education until the age of 21,' Deyoe wrote. 'This was a major change for disabled individuals in Rhode Island.' The First Circuit's ruling predates current RIDE leadership, and in August 2019, then-new education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green issued a memo instructing how state education officials should comply with the ruling. 'It is now clear that if they have not already done so, school districts … must comply with the recent First Circuit decision and should make services available and give careful consideration to the cost of prospective compliance,' Infante-Green wrote, adding that it was still unclear 'how appropriate remedies will be provided to those eligible class members.' Deyoe echoed that sentiment, saying that determining damages under the lawsuit 'did span a very long time,' with both parties trying to avoid forcing a legal decision as to whether individual class members could receive relief for damages. 'Whether individualized compensatory education damages could be awarded to the individual class members was always disputed by the RI Department of Education,' Deyoe said. The settlement also needs to be approved by the members of the class, Deyoe said. The currently draft spares class members from having to undergo individual trials to determine compensational education benefits. 'We are very hopeful the settlement will be approved, but the class members always have the opportunity to object and the Court may approve the settlement only with certain changes,' Deyoe wrote. 'We cannot predict that yet…While all of this took a long time to achieve, we do believe this is a good resolution for the class members.' The funding source to resolve the settlement was not immediately available from RIDE or the House on Wednesday. But Shekarchi detailed in a statement over email that the sudden news had cost the House some time on Tuesday. 'After the budget is posted for consideration by the House Finance Committee 48 hours in advance, there are always a number of policy decisions, options and calculations that must be finalized,' wrote the Speaker. 'The notification of a $1.86 million additional expense on the morning of the budget adoption certainly complicated the final process.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Senate passes budget giving Browns $600 million, tax cut to wealthy, more public school money
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Senate has passed a $60 billion state biennial operating budget, which includes a tax cut for the wealthy, some increased public education funding, and $600 million in funding to the Cleveland Browns for their new stadium. The total budget is expected to be around $200 billion once federal dollars come in. Ohio House Bill 96 was voted on mainly along party lines, 23-10. State Sen. Bill Blessing, R-Colerain Township, joined the Democrats to vote no. The senators increased the amount of money going to public schools from the Ohio House's proposal. The Senate budget gives public schools about $100 million more than the House. Although they follow most of the Ohio House's proposed budget, which only gives schools about $226 million of an increase for school funding, the Senate changed the funding 'guarantee' amount. Right now, some districts have guarantees that a portion of their funding will not be reduced, even if their enrollment goes down This $100 million added back would only go to high-performing or 'improving' districts. However, to be fully funded based on statistics from the Fair School Funding Plan (FSFP) from 2021, schools would need an additional $666-800 million, compared to the $226 million given by the House. Still, the Senate's version is closer to the FSFP than the House's. 'We're following the funding scheme that was put together in the first place,' Senate Finance Chair Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, said. 'Our bill is the closest way to get there.' They also raised the House proposal's cap on districts' rainy day funds to 50%, instead of 30%. This would mean that the schools would have to refund anything above that back to the taxpayer to provide property tax relief. 'The priority is not, obviously, in fully funding education, investing in our children and our future,' Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said. The Senate's budget proposal still includes $600 million for a new Cleveland Browns stadium in Brook Park. However, the funding structure differs from what the Browns proposed and what the House approved earlier this year. The House proposed borrowing $600 million by issuing bonds and repaying the debt, with interest, over 25 years, at a cost of about $1 billion. The Senate is proposing a $600 million grant for the stadium using unclaimed funds. That's other people's money that the state is holding, from things like forgotten bank accounts, rent, or utility deposits or uncashed insurance policies. The Ohio Department of Commerce's website states the state is sitting on $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds. Asked about the possibility of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoing that provision, Cirino noted that DeWine said publicly he did not like the debt arrangement of the House for the $600 million. DeWine himself had proposed raising gambling taxes. 'I'm pretty confident and feel good that the governor and the House will look at our approach to it,' Cirino said. Ohio Democratic lawmakers remain staunchly opposed to the project. 'If they could find that money for the Browns and their stadium's move to Brook Park, why didn't they decide to use those funds for the schools?' Antonio asked. The budget also includes a 2.75% flat income tax. There are three income tax brackets in Ohio. Those making up to $26,000 do not need to pay state income tax. Ohioans earning between $26,000 and $100,000 pay a tax of 2.75%. Those making more than $100,000 have to pay 3.5%. State data reveals that this flat tax could result in a loss of about $1.1 billion in the General Revenue Fund. 'The dollars that we're foregoing in the flat tax are already incorporated into our overall spending,' Cirino said. Funding for schools, Medicaid, libraries, lead abatement, food banks, and child care face funding decreases from the current status or from the governor's budget. Asked about these cuts these cuts to social services for lower-income people while giving a tax cut to the state's highest earners, Cirino said Republicans think it's going to be good for the economy. 'It's going to be good for attracting people,' Cirino responded. Antonio disagreed. 'It's a gift to the wealthiest among us on the backs of the poorest and lowest-income and middle-class folks in the state of Ohio,' she said. Senate Republicans propose giving $20,000 to top high school students to encourage them to stay in the state for their higher education. The Governor's Merit Scholarship was passed in the House budget. Already existing, the House language would extend the proposal that gives the top 5% of each graduating high school class $5,000 a year to attend a public or private school in Ohio. But the Senate version reduces the scholarship to the top 2% of students. The money would also have strings attached. The scholarship recipients would be required to reside in Ohio for three years after graduation. There would be an 'expectation' that the money would be returned if they leave within the three years. Now, the Senate and House leaders will enter a conference committee, a closed-door negotiation period to create a final budget. Once a decision is made, both chambers must pass the combined bill. If it passes through both sides, it will be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for review. In the past, he issued dozens of line-item vetoes on operating budgets. Line-item vetoing is the ability for the governor to pick and choose which policies within a larger piece of legislation get to stay or must go. The deadline for the budget to be passed is July 1. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump plans to punish Newsom
The Trump administration is considering cutting California's federal education funding, as a tit-for-tat battle with Gavin Newsom, the state's governor, reaches boiling point. Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested Mr Newsom should be arrested for his 'bad job' in handling a wave of anti-deportation protests, which erupted on Friday in response to immigration raids. It comes as Mr Newsom on Tuesday accused Mr Trump of a 'brazen abuse of power' when he deployed thousands of National Guard troops and 700 US marines in Los Angeles to quell the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. The state is suing the president for sending in troops without Mr Newsom's approval, marking the first time since civil rights protests in 1965 that a president sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest without cooperation from the state's governor. Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said the administration is 'committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream'. He added: 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the administration have been made.' In the wake of the row, White House officials may stop the education department's disbursement of 'formula funds' to California, Politico reported. The state receives $8 billion a year from the education department. Some of the payouts are used towards programs for students with disabilities and from low-income homes. Mr Trump's vow to cut funding to the country's most populous state began before his latest clash with Mr Newsom and his dispatch of Marines and the National Guard. He has already cut $126.4 million in flood prevention projects, and threatened to dilute California's tough vehicle emissions standards. Last month, he said he would halt federal funding after a transgender athlete took part in a sporting event. His pause to visas for students from China would also have an outsized impact on California as it enrols more foreign students than any other state. As the state was ravaged by a series of wildfires in January, Mr Trump directly blamed Mr Newsom for LA's struggling water supply, and threatened to bar California from accepting federal disaster funds unless they changed water policies. Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Trump described the LA protesters as 'a foreign enemy' and vowed to 'liberate' Los Angeles. A curfew has been enforced between 8pm to 6am in the downtown area of central Los Angeles, in what officials say is necessary to stop vandalism and looting. Mr Newsom has urged demonstrators – who have been protesting ICE raids since Friday – to remain peaceful and said Mr Trump's actions were fulfilling 'the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president' . Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
