Motor vehicles; issuance of separate license plates for hearses and ambulances; provide
HB 61, titled the Georgia Anti-Squatting Act of 2026, expands and accelerates procedures for removing alleged squatters and certain unauthorized occupants from real property. It revises the state’s unlawful squatting offense, authorizes magistrate courts to hear squatting-related cases, and creates a new process allowing property owners or their agents to request immediate law-enforcement removal of people unlawfully residing on property if specified conditions are met. The bill also sets out a verified complaint process, requires officers to confirm the requester’s ownership or authority in good faith, and allows officers to treat verified unauthorized occupants as trespassers subject to removal.
The bill also changes rules for innkeepers and guests by strengthening written occupancy contracts, allowing innkeepers to deny access and seek law-enforcement removal after a contract expires, and clarifying that day-to-day or week-to-week occupancy does not by itself create a landlord-tenant relationship. In landlord-tenant law, it requires public access to dispossessory court records to be restricted in certain cases, including when the tenant prevails, complies with a settlement, or after three years. It also adjusts writ-of-possession procedures by allowing landlords, under certain timing conditions, to use off-duty certified peace officers at their own expense if regular officers cannot execute the writ promptly.
The bill’s overall impact is to create faster, more owner-friendly removal mechanisms for alleged squatters and to broaden the legal tools available to property owners, innkeepers, and law enforcement. It adds new misdemeanor and felony penalties for unlawful squatting and for presenting false lease or deed documents, and it provides civil remedies for wrongful removal, including damages and attorney’s fees. It also grants immunity protections in some circumstances to officers and property owners acting under the new procedures.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests substantial support for the bill, though not unanimous agreement on all amendments. The House passed the bill overwhelmingly, and the Senate ultimately passed the substitute version after rejecting at least one amendment and a motion for the previous question. That pattern suggests broad legislative interest in addressing squatting and property-rights enforcement, while also indicating some disagreement over the details of the final language.
The main points of contention appear to center on due process, the speed of removal, and the balance between property-owner rights and occupant protections. The bill allows removal based on a verified complaint and law-enforcement determination of ownership, which could raise concerns about wrongful removals, especially where documentation is disputed or title issues exist. The inclusion of civil liability for wrongful removal and the requirement for officers to verify entitlement to relief appear designed to address those concerns, but the bill still strongly favors rapid enforcement and expanded police involvement in property disputes.
The bill amends multiple titles of the Georgia Code, including magistrate court jurisdiction, criminal trespass and unlawful squatting provisions, innkeeper-guest rules, dispossessory procedures, and ejectment law. It creates a new statutory framework for immediate removal of unauthorized occupants from real property, authorizes magistrate courts to hear squatting-related matters, adds criminal penalties for unlawful squatting and false occupancy documents, and restricts public access to certain dispossessory records. It also changes execution procedures for writs of possession and clarifies that certain short-term occupancy arrangements remain innkeeper-guest relationships rather than landlord-tenant relationships.
The voting record indicates strong overall support for the bill, with the House passing it unanimously and the Senate ultimately approving the substitute version by a comfortable margin. The Senate’s rejection of some amendments shows that members debated the details, but the final passage suggests the chamber broadly agreed with the bill’s goal of strengthening anti-squatting enforcement and property-owner remedies. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record reflects support primarily through floor votes rather than recorded committee discussion.
The most notable contention involves how quickly and on what showing a person can be removed from property, and whether the bill gives law enforcement and property owners too much authority before a full court process. Opponents or skeptics would likely focus on the risk of mistaken removal, disputes over leases or title, and the possibility that people with legitimate occupancy claims could be displaced before those claims are fully heard. Supporters, by contrast, appear to prioritize rapid restoration of possession, deterrence of fraud and vandalism, and clearer enforcement tools for owners and officers. The bill’s civil-remedy provisions and verification requirements are the main safeguards built into the measure.