HB1104 would create a new Colorado crime of “squatting” for occupying real property without the consent of the lawful owner or the owner’s designee. The bill defines squatting as a strict liability offense and sets penalties that escalate for repeat violations. A first conviction would be an unclassified misdemeanor with a mandatory fine of up to $2,000 per offense, plus up to $1,000 for each day the person unlawfully occupied the premises. A second or subsequent conviction would carry the same fines and up to six months in jail.
The bill also requires courts to order restitution for property damage, legal costs, fees, and reasonable attorney fees caused by the squatter’s presence and removal. It directs courts to issue a ruling within 10 days after a person is charged and requires immediate vacation of the premises upon conviction. Before conviction, if the landowner presents proof of legal ownership to law enforcement, officers must remove the person within 24 hours without a court order. The bill further bars a person convicted of squatting from recovering damages from the landowner for damage at the premises.
Impact
HB1104 would amend Colorado law by adding a new criminal offense in Title 18 and a related civil-liability limitation in the landowner liability statute. It would give landowners a faster statutory process to remove unauthorized occupants and would impose mandatory fines, possible jail time for repeat offenders, and restitution obligations. The bill would also affect law enforcement procedures by requiring removal within 24 hours after proof of ownership is shown, reducing reliance on traditional eviction or court processes in these cases.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and the committee record suggest strong support for protecting private property rights and removing unauthorized occupants quickly. However, the voting history shows the measure did not advance out of House Judiciary: a motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole failed, and a motion to postpone indefinitely then passed. That pattern indicates the bill had some support for its policy goals but not enough consensus to move forward.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s aggressive approach to squatting enforcement. Supporters appear to favor stronger property-rights protections, rapid police removal, and mandatory penalties. Opponents likely objected to creating a strict-liability crime, allowing removal without a court order upon proof of ownership, and imposing mandatory fines and jail time that could sweep broadly. The failed advancement vote and subsequent indefinite postponement indicate disagreement over whether the bill’s expedited process and criminal penalties were appropriate or too expansive.