HB 6338 creates a new expedited process for the removal of an “unauthorized person” from real property, effective October 1, 2025. The bill is aimed at situations where someone is unlawfully occupying a dwelling unit but is not a current or former tenant and is not an immediate family member of the owner. Under the bill, a property owner or authorized agent may ask a state marshal to remove the occupant immediately if several conditions are met, including proof that the person is unlawfully present, has been told to leave, cannot show recent documentation of residence or a valid rental agreement, and there is no pending litigation over the property.
To trigger the process, the owner must submit a sworn affidavit with detailed statements about ownership, the unlawful occupancy, and the absence of a lawful tenancy or family relationship. The state marshal must verify the request and, if it appears valid, serve a notice to immediately vacate and restore possession to the owner. The bill also authorizes civil remedies for wrongful removal, including restoration to possession, actual damages, triple fair market rent, court costs, and attorney’s fees, and it subjects false statements in the affidavit to criminal penalties for false statement.
The bill would add a new statutory procedure to Connecticut law governing property possession and removal of unlawful occupants, operating alongside existing trespass and criminal enforcement laws. It expressly states that it does not limit an owner’s other rights or law enforcement’s authority to arrest for trespass, vandalism, theft, or other crimes. It also ties the removal process to existing statutes defining tenants, rental agreements, and family relationships, and it uses state marshals as the enforcement mechanism rather than requiring a traditional eviction action in every case.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced from a vote-to-draft with no opposition to a joint favorable committee vote of 12-6, suggesting substantial support for giving property owners a faster remedy against unlawful occupancy, but also meaningful concern from some members. No transcript discussion was provided, so the specific arguments are not recorded here, but the split vote indicates the measure was not entirely consensus-driven.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between property-owner relief and occupant protections. Supporters appear to favor a rapid, streamlined remedy for owners facing squatters or other unauthorized occupants, while opponents may be concerned about wrongful removals, due process, and the risk that people with disputed tenancy or ownership claims could be displaced without a full court proceeding. The bill addresses some of those concerns by requiring an affidavit, marshal verification, and civil liability for false statements and wrongful removal, but the 12-6 committee vote suggests those safeguards did not fully resolve all concerns.
The bill would create a new section of the general statutes establishing an expedited marshal-assisted removal process for unauthorized occupants of real property, effective October 1, 2025. It would affect property owners, authorized agents, state marshals, and occupants by defining when immediate removal is allowed, what affidavits must be filed, and what remedies and penalties apply for false statements, wrongful removal, and criminal trespass. It also interacts with existing landlord-tenant and trespass law by carving out a procedure for non-tenant unlawful occupants while preserving other civil and criminal remedies.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum in committee, with a unanimous vote to draft and a later 12-6 joint favorable vote. That pattern suggests broad support for addressing unlawful occupancy and squatting, but not full agreement. The absence of recorded transcript discussion limits the ability to identify detailed arguments, but the split final committee vote indicates some members remained concerned about the bill’s implementation and protections for occupants.
The likely central dispute is whether the bill provides a necessary remedy for property owners or creates too much risk of summary removal without adequate judicial process. Supporters would emphasize faster relief against unlawful occupants and clearer authority for marshals, while opponents would likely focus on due process, mistaken removals, and the possibility of disputes over tenancy, ownership, or family status being resolved too quickly. The bill tries to address these concerns through affidavit requirements, marshal verification, penalties for false statements, and civil damages for wrongful removal, but the committee split suggests those safeguards were not enough to eliminate all reservations.