CS/HB 213 expands Florida’s “limited alternative remedy” for removing unauthorized occupants from real property. Current law already provides a sheriff-assisted process for residential property; this bill adds a parallel process for commercial real property. Under the bill, a property owner or authorized agent may ask the county sheriff to immediately remove persons unlawfully occupying commercial property if the property was not open to the public when entered, the occupants are not tenants or owners, the owner has directed them to leave, and no related litigation is pending. The request must be made through a verified complaint, and the sheriff must verify ownership and, if the complaint is valid, serve a notice to vacate immediately and restore possession to the owner.
The bill also sets out procedures and liability rules. It allows the sheriff to use reasonable force, identify occupants, and arrest for trespass, warrants, or other legal cause. It authorizes the sheriff to charge fees similar to a writ of possession and, if requested, to stand by while the owner changes locks and removes personal property. The bill limits liability for sheriffs and property owners in connection with removal of occupants, while preserving a civil remedy for wrongful removal that can include actual damages, triple fair market rent, costs, and attorney fees. In addition, the bill strengthens related property-crime provisions by making unlawful occupation of commercial property with intentional damage of $1,000 or more a second-degree felony, and by expanding the fraudulent sale/lease statute to cover residential real property.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it creates a new statutory mechanism in chapter 82 for commercial property, changes the criminal mischief statute to expressly include commercial real property, and broadens the fraudulent real-estate advertising/sale statute. It also makes conforming references in Florida’s habitual misdemeanor offender and racketeering statutes so the new and amended offenses are incorporated into those frameworks. Overall, the bill gives commercial property owners a faster, law-enforcement-assisted path to regain possession when they believe a property has been unlawfully occupied.
The general sentiment reflected in the committee votes appears favorable. The bill passed the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee 15-2 and the House Judiciary Committee 17-2, suggesting broad support for the measure’s property-rights and anti-squatting goals. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader public arguments, but the strong vote margins suggest the proposal was viewed as a targeted enforcement tool rather than a controversial overhaul.
The main points of contention are likely the balance between property-owner remedies and due-process protections for occupants. The bill requires a verified complaint and includes penalties for false statements, but it still allows sheriffs to remove occupants quickly before a court order, which could raise concerns about mistaken removals, disputed ownership, or situations involving informal tenancy arrangements. The bill addresses some of that risk by excluding current or former tenants and pending litigation, and by creating a wrongful-removal cause of action, but those safeguards may not fully resolve concerns about abuse of the expedited process.
Creates a new chapter 82 procedure for immediate sheriff-assisted removal of unauthorized occupants from commercial real property, expands criminal mischief to cover unlawful occupation of commercial property with $1,000+ damage, broadens fraudulent real-estate sale/lease prohibitions, and makes conforming changes to habitual offender and racketeering references. It directly affects commercial property owners, sheriffs, and persons alleged to be unlawfully occupying property, while preserving civil remedies for wrongful removal.
Committee votes were strongly positive, with the bill passing 15-2 in the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee and 17-2 in the House Judiciary Committee. The available record suggests broad support for strengthening property-owner remedies against unauthorized occupation, with only limited opposition. No transcripts were provided, so the specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented in the supplied materials.
The likely controversy centers on expedited removal without a court eviction order and the risk of wrongful displacement. Supporters are property owners and law enforcement advocates who favor faster action against trespassers and squatters, especially in commercial settings. Opponents or skeptics would be concerned about due process, mistaken claims of ownership, disputes over whether someone is a tenant, and the possibility that the sheriff-assisted process could be misused; the bill responds by requiring a verified complaint and creating liability for false statements and wrongful removal.