Latest news with #HouseBill32
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Texas bill targeting squatters would also hurt renters, leaving some homeless
Texas legislators wanting to get tough on squatters may, in the process, negatively impact some of the millions of legitimate renters in the Lone Star State. More than 11 million Texans are renters. Renters and their families comprise more than 37% of the population. In 2023, approximately 400,000 families, or 3.5% of Texas renters, faced eviction. According to the Eviction Lab at Princeton University, there are approximately 291,290 renter households in Travis County. Of those, approximately 13,384, or 4.6%, were the subject of an eviction filing in the last year. Similar Texas statistics illustrate possible renter peril statewide. Texas rules require that an eviction hearing or trial be held in as little as six days after the tenant is served with a petition. Two bills making their way through the Texas Legislature would cut that time to just four days in an expedited process and allow a landlord to ask a judge to award back rent without evidence of the debt. Proponents of House Bill 32 and its companion bill, SB 38, claim the bills target squatters. The Texas Apartment Association, a trade association of the rental housing industry, maintains the bill would close loopholes exploited by squatters and make removing them easier and less expensive. But squatters are not tenants. They are trespassers — people who occupy dwellings without permission of the owner. The number of Texas squatters is unknown, but according to the National Rental Home Council, in 2024 there were just 475 in the Dallas-Fort-Worth area, or less than 0.1% of occupants in rental housing. Yet the so-called anti-squatters bill would also apply to the 99.9% of people in rental housing who occupy their homes by virtue of a written or oral lease. It would almost certainly increase evictions across the state, cause housing instability and negatively impact tenants' physical and mental health. Current Texas law already provides a fast track for landlords, requiring a tenant to appear before a judge more quickly than in any other type of civil matter. Typical response time in justice courts is 14 days. The law already gives tenants only six to 10 days to respond after being served with the petition, enabling a judge to quickly determine who is entitled to the premises and how much money, if any, a tenant may owe. Reducing response time to four days means a tenant served with eviction papers on a Thursday night would have to respond in writing to the court by the following Monday. Even when alternative housing can be found, tenants who are unable to respond in time are likely to find that the court has entered a judgment for back rent that is just like any other court judgment to collect a debt. We understand Texas landlords face a growing problem with squatters, and we believe the Texas Legislature should explore all available options. Any relief should be targeted to address the harm caused by the 0.1% of occupants of rental housing characterized as squatters. The Legislature could easily limit the bills' expedited process to squatters and even provide more stringent criminal penalties. Regardless of what course the Legislature chooses, it should not come at the expense of the due process rights of 11 million Texas tenants by giving them only four days to respond to an eviction suit. Mary Spector is a law professor and associate dean for experiential learning, and Julie Forrester Rogers is a Provost Faculty Research Fellow and law professor at the Dedman School of Law at SMU. Spector directs the Civil/Consumer Law Clinic and teaches and researches consumer law. Rogers teaches and researches property and real estate law. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: A Texas bill targeting squatters would ensnare legal renters | Opinion
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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 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 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
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Funding for electric school buses still possible
The Biden administration on Wednesday said it will provide funding to help school districts purchase clean school buses, most of them electric. Shown is a yellow electric school bus plugged into a charging station. (Photo by TW Farlow / Getty Images) A proposal to provide local school districts access to funds for electric school buses stalled in the Legislature, but money may still be available through the state budget. House Bill 32, which would have allowed school districts to replace traditional diesel school buses with electric or alternative fuel buses using funds from the Public Education Department, passed two House committees in February but has yet to be scheduled for a floor vote. However, President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque) carried Senate Bill 48, which would establish a community benefit fund for projects that would help reduce emissions and address the state's climate change goals. Those projects include purchasing electric vehicles and related charging infrastructure for public entities — a category that includes public schools. SB48 passed and awaits Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's signature. As such, funding for electric school buses was added to the state budget in House Bill 2. According to the March 18 Senate Finance Committee report, $60 million will be allocated to the Public School Facilities Authority for electric vehicle charging infrastructure for local school districts. The report specifies that the funds are contingent on SB48 passing and can be used for upgrading diesel fuel school buses to ESBs between Fiscal Years 2026 and 2028. Shelley Mann-Lev, executive director for advocacy organization Healthy Climate NM, one of several advocacy groups to back the original bill, told Source NM that the addition to the state budget is 'an excellent step' toward getting more ESBs on the road and upgrading public school bus fleets. According to the fiscal impact report for HB32, diesel school buses cost an average of $420,000 while diesel school buses cost about $103,000 – electric charging infrastructure costs between $16,000 and $46,000. More than 100 ESBs could be purchased with $60 million at these average prices. Mann-Lev added that vehicle-to-grid, an agreement companies or agencies enter into with local electric utilities to sell back excess power, is not approved for school districts at this point. Advocates originally pointed to vehicle-to-grid as another option to offset the high cost of electric buses. The state budget was passed by the Senate Wednesday afternoon and awaits a concurrence vote from the Senate. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas House bill would weaken renters' rights, advocates say
A proposal before the Texas Legislature billed as a way to clamp down on squatters would reduce legal protections for renters, accelerate evictions and increase homelessness, tenants' advocates told House lawmakers Wednesday. House Bill 32 would speed up the state's eviction process, make it easier for landlords to find judges who will side with them in eviction cases and make it harder for low-income tenants to obtain legal assistance, opponents of the bill said. If lawmakers enact the proposal, it's possible that tenants could get evicted without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom or knowing there was ever a case against them, they said. 'There is nothing lawful or fair about this bill at all,' Mark Melton, an attorney who leads the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center, told members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence committee. 'In fact, it is extremely and obviously unconstitutional.' The legislation — filed by state Rep. Angie Chen Button, a Garland Republican — is part of a push to help property owners deal with squatters, or people who illegally occupy a property. Property owners and landlord groups have told lawmakers that landlords have had increased run-ins with squatters, but existing laws and procedures are insufficient to help boot them from their property, costing them thousands upon thousands of dollars in the process. The state's top three Republican officials — Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dustin Burrows — have said that legislation to crack down on squatting is a top priority during this year's legislative session. House Bill 32 'is not about punishing anyone,' Button told the committee. 'It is about providing justice to the property owner and giving their property back.' Landlord groups in Texas see the bill as a vehicle not just to address squatting but to curtail state laws they say can trip up landlords when seeking an eviction — which landlords say they view as a last resort after efforts to resolve issues with their tenants have failed. Chris Newton, Texas Apartment Association executive vice president, said in a statement that 'squatting is a symptom of a broader problem — an eviction process that can be slow and inefficient.' 'For too long, inefficiencies in Texas' civil eviction process have led to delays that embolden those who unlawfully occupy properties and leave property owners struggling to regain control of their property,' Newton said. 'These delays reduce housing availability and affordability while jeopardizing the safety of residents and staff.' Opponents of the bill argue that cases of squatting are rare, and that Button's proposal wouldn't help property owners in those cases. Instead, they said, the bill would weaken the state's already meager legal protections for the state's 4.2 million renter households — a growing number of whom have faced increased pressure from rising rents. Legal aid lawyers, housing advocates and justices of the peace, the judges who handle eviction cases, told lawmakers that the proposal would deprive tenants of due process. An eviction can remain on a tenant's record for up to seven years, making it exceedingly difficult to find housing because landlords tend to reject applicants with an eviction on their record. Button's bill aims to accelerate the eviction process in a number of ways. State law requires landlords to give tenants written notice three days before they file for eviction. If passed, the bill would loosen rules for how landlords may deliver that notice to tenants. The proposal would only require landlords to give that notice in cases where tenants have fallen behind on rent. Housing advocates fear landlords would circumvent that requirement in nonpayment cases by ginning up other reasons to file for eviction. The bill would give landlords an avenue to obtain an eviction judgment without going to trial. Landlords could seek an automatic ruling in their favor without a hearing if there are 'no genuinely disputed facts' in the case. Tenants would only have three days to respond before a judge issues a ruling. Legal aid lawyers and housing advocates doubt renters, especially those who don't regularly interact with the legal system, could realistically respond in time. If tenants lose their eviction case, they would have fewer days to file an appeal before they're removed from the home. 'These are unsophisticated, poor people,' Melton said. 'They're never going to figure out how to file an affidavit in three days to respond. That's never going to happen. And that's why they drafted this way. Everybody knows that.' Some Republicans on the panel appeared uneasy that existing state law could be allowing tenants to remain in place if they're not paying rent, though they expressed willingness to see changes to the legislation that would work out common ground between landlords and tenants. 'I don't believe anyone on this committee or anyone that we're going to hear from today wants a complete denial of due process,' said state Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who chairs the committee. The bill would allow landlords to file their case in neighboring precincts, a measure intended to enable landlords to seek rulings from judges seen as more favorable. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, some judges have placed additional scrutiny on landlords who bring evictions and taken extra steps to give renters access to legal representation — often a deciding factor in whether a tenant avoids eviction. Research shows tenants are less likely to show up to court for their hearing if it's further away, and thus are more likely to lose their case. If a tenant doesn't show up, they wouldn't obtain legal representation that would help them avoid eviction, tenant advocates said. Housing advocates and legal aid lawyers predicted such a move would backfire on landlords — in fact slow down the eviction process because landlords would clog some courts with a glut of eviction cases and create a backlog. The bill also aims to require cities and counties that use public funds to provide legal assistance to tenants to also put up dollars to relocate tenants — a move that legal aid attorneys and local officials said would make it prohibitive to provide legal assistance to tenants. Dallas County recently began providing funds to the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center in a bid to tackle homelessness in the region, Commissioner Andy Sommerman said. 'By accelerating this notion of being able to be evicted so quickly, it will definitely decrease our ability to handle that homelessness,' Sommerman said. Lawmakers implored landlord and legal aid groups to hash out their differences and find middle ground to alter the proposal. There was already some agreement, for example, that legislators could perhaps find ways to speed up the process of returning possession of rental properties to owners after they win their case. State lawmakers have filed separate bills this year aimed at increasing criminal penalties for alleged squatters. But those cases are rare, said Judge Adam Swartz, a Dallas County justice of the peace. Swartz told lawmakers his court sees a 'handful' of squatter cases out of some 8,000 eviction cases each year. 'This bill seems like trying to kill a mosquito with a shotgun,' Swartz said. Disclosure: Texas Apartment Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. We can't wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more. Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Idaho governments can't require masks for infectious diseases, after governor signs bill
Idaho Gov. Brad Little gives a press conference after delivering his annual State of the State address on Jan. 6, 2025, in the Lincoln Auditorium in the Idaho Capitol. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed into law a bill that bans government and school mask mandates to combat infectious diseases. Little signed House Bill 32 into law Tuesday, according to his office's legislation tracker, after the Idaho Legislature passed the bill. The bill takes effect immediately through an emergency clause. The law prevents the state, cities, counties, school districts, public health districts and government officials in Idaho from mandating that an individual wear a mask or face covering to prevent or slow the spread of an infectious or contagious disease. The government mask mandate ban law has a few exceptions, allowing face mask requirements in certain job settings where masks are required and are needed 'to perform required job duties,' such as in health care, work with hazardous materials, or industrial settings 'where respiratory protection is vocationally required.' During the COVID-19 pandemic, Idaho never had a statewide mask mandate. But public health districts and other local governments issued health restrictions, such as mask requirements and limits on public gatherings. Little refused repeated calls for a statewide mask mandate, and instead left much pandemic control to local governments. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
