An Act Concerning The Removal Of Unauthorized Persons From Real Property, Continuing Education Requirements For Real Estate Licensees, Requiring A Study Of Residential Real Property Wholesaling And Revising The Title Of A Real Estate Salesperson To A Real Estate Agent.
HB 7078 is a broad real-estate regulation bill that combines several distinct policy changes. Its most visible provision creates a process for the immediate removal of an “unauthorized person” from real property when an owner or authorized agent submits a sworn affidavit to police and certain conditions are met, including no valid lease, no proof of recent lawful occupancy, and no pending litigation. If the police verify the request, they must serve a notice to vacate and put the owner in possession. The bill also creates a civil remedy for wrongful removal, including restoration to possession, actual damages, triple fair-market-rent damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
The bill also revises Connecticut’s real estate licensing laws in a number of ways. It changes the title of “real estate salesperson” to “real estate agent” throughout the statutes, updates definitions and related references, and establishes a two-year renewal cycle with mandatory continuing education and an administrative processing fee. It increases late-compliance penalties for failing to complete continuing education on time, updates rules governing teams, supervising licensees, associate brokers, out-of-state brokers and agents, leasing agents, mortgage-broker disclosures, and residential condition reports, and makes conforming changes across multiple statutes that reference real estate licensees.
In addition, the bill directs the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to study residential real property wholesaling practices in Connecticut and hold at least one public hearing, then report findings to the General Assembly by February 1, 2026. It also makes technical and substantive updates to property disclosure forms, including detailed residential condition reporting requirements and a separate foundation condition report for properties in municipalities affected by crumbling foundations, with specific disclosure obligations regarding pyrrhotite, damage, and remediation.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it amends or adds provisions in many chapters of the general statutes affecting property owners, tenants, police, real estate brokers and agents, leasing agents, appraisers, mortgage professionals, and attorneys. It creates a new expedited removal remedy for alleged unlawful occupants, expands consumer-protection and disclosure requirements in real estate transactions, and standardizes the terminology from salesperson to agent across the real estate code. It also preserves existing rights and criminal enforcement tools, while adding a wrongful-removal cause of action to deter misuse of the new process.
The overall sentiment appears mixed but generally supportive in committee, with the bill advancing out of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee on a 9-4 joint favorable substitute vote. However, the later Appropriations Committee vote failed 19-30, suggesting broader fiscal or policy concerns. The main points of contention likely center on the new summary removal process for unauthorized occupants, especially due-process and wrongful-eviction concerns, as well as the added regulatory burden and fees on real estate licensees. The wholesaling study and the title change to “real estate agent” appear to be less controversial than the eviction-related provisions.
The bill adds a new statutory procedure allowing property owners or their agents to seek police-assisted removal of certain unauthorized occupants, while also creating a civil remedy for wrongful removal. It amends numerous real estate statutes to replace references to “salesperson” with “agent,” establishes biennial renewal and continuing education requirements for licensees, adjusts fees and penalties, and updates disclosure, supervision, advertising, and licensing rules across the real estate code. It also requires a Consumer Protection study of residential real property wholesaling and expands or revises residential condition disclosure requirements, including foundation/pyrrhotite disclosures in affected municipalities.
Committee action suggests the bill had meaningful support but not consensus. It received a favorable substitute vote in the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, indicating support for the real-estate regulatory package overall, but it later failed in Appropriations, which points to concerns about cost, implementation, or the policy choices in the bill. The discussion context provided no transcript, so the recorded votes are the best indicator of sentiment: supportive in the policy committee, but significantly more divided when fiscal and broader policy implications were considered.
The most contentious provision is the new expedited removal process for alleged unauthorized occupants, because it gives police a direct role in removing people based on an owner affidavit and limited documentary checks, while opponents may worry about wrongful removals, tenant-rights protections, and due process. The bill tries to address that concern by allowing a civil action for wrongful removal and damages, but that remedy may not fully resolve objections to the initial police-assisted removal. Other likely points of contention are the new continuing education and fee requirements for real estate licensees, the expanded disclosure obligations, and the study of wholesaling practices, which may be viewed as either consumer protection measures or additional regulation depending on the stakeholder.