HB 213 revises Florida’s property-rights and anti-squatting laws by creating a new expedited removal process for unauthorized occupants of commercial real property, while also tightening and clarifying the existing process for residential property. For commercial property, the bill allows an owner or authorized agent to ask the county sheriff to immediately remove unlawful occupants if the property was not open to the public when entered, the occupants are not authorized tenants, and no related litigation is pending. The owner must file a verified complaint under penalty of perjury, and the sheriff must verify ownership, serve a notice to vacate immediately, and put the owner back in possession if the complaint is valid.
The bill also authorizes the sheriff to use reasonable force, verify identities, and arrest occupants for trespass, warrants, or other legal cause. It allows the sheriff to charge fees for service and standby assistance while the owner changes locks and removes personal property. The bill limits liability for sheriffs and property owners for damage to personal property during the removal process, unless the removal was not carried out in accordance with the statute. It also creates a civil remedy for wrongful removal, including restoration of possession, actual damages, triple fair-market-rent damages, costs, and attorney fees.
Beyond the new removal procedure, HB 213 makes related changes to criminal and property statutes. It expands criminal mischief provisions to cover intentional damage to both residential dwellings and commercial real property by unlawful occupants or trespassers when damages are $1,000 or more. It also updates the fraudulent sale or lease statute to address residential real property, and reenacts references in habitual misdemeanor offender and racketeering statutes so those laws continue to incorporate the amended offenses. The bill includes technical changes to deed language in the property code as well.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s posture is supportive of stronger property-owner remedies and faster law-enforcement intervention against unlawful occupancy. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote breakdown, but the bill’s advancement through a companion measure that became law suggests the policy direction had legislative support. The focus of the measure is on deterring squatting, title fraud, and unauthorized commercial occupation while preserving a post-removal civil remedy for people wrongfully removed.
The main points of contention likely center on the speed and breadth of sheriff-led removals, the risk of mistaken or abusive use of the procedure, and the balance between property rights and occupant protections. The bill attempts to address those concerns by requiring verified complaints, excluding current or former tenants and pending disputes, and creating liability for false statements or wrongful use of the process. Even so, the authority to remove occupants without a traditional eviction proceeding, and the ability to remove personal property during the process, are the most likely areas of dispute.
HB 213 would add a new section to the Florida Statutes authorizing an expedited sheriff-assisted removal process for unauthorized occupants of commercial real property and would amend the existing residential anti-squatting procedure to clarify the complaint requirements. It would also expand criminal penalties for unlawful occupation coupled with intentional property damage, update fraud-related real estate offenses, and make conforming references in habitual misdemeanor offender and racketeering provisions. The bill would primarily affect property owners, unauthorized occupants, county sheriffs, and courts handling wrongful-removal claims.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable to property owners and law enforcement, with the legislative direction focused on faster removal of unauthorized occupants and stronger penalties for related misconduct. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, but the fact that the companion measure passed and this bill was laid on the table suggests the policy was ultimately advanced through the companion vehicle. The available context does not show organized opposition in the record provided, though the structure of the bill indicates an effort to balance enforcement with civil remedies for wrongful removal.
The most notable contention is the bill’s creation of an expedited, sheriff-driven removal process that bypasses ordinary eviction procedures for certain commercial properties. Critics would likely focus on the risk of wrongful removal, the potential for abuse by owners, and the authority granted to sheriffs to enter property, remove occupants, and handle personal property. Supporters would emphasize the need to combat squatting, title fraud, and unlawful occupation quickly, especially for commercial properties. The bill responds to those concerns by requiring sworn complaints, excluding tenants and pending disputes, and providing damages and attorney fees for wrongful removal.