House Bill 96 creates a new expedited civil process for property owners to remove “unauthorized persons” from residential property. The bill allows a property owner or authorized representative to file a complaint, obtain service by the sheriff, and receive a hearing before a magistrate within 48 hours of service. If the court rules for the owner, it must issue an order requiring the person to vacate within four hours after service of the order. The bill also provides for appeal to district court, sets a minimum $10,000 appeal bond in some cases, and makes failure to comply with a removal order a criminal trespass offense.
The bill also changes state law governing pet shops by preempting local regulation. It bars local governments from prohibiting or restricting pet shop animal sales or imposing additional licensing, operational, or regulatory requirements beyond state law, and gives the State Board of Agriculture exclusive authority to regulate pet shop operations under the statute. The Administrative Office of the Courts is directed to create the affidavit form needed for the new removal process by September 30, 2025, and the removal provisions take effect December 1, 2025.
HB96 adds a new Article 22D to Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, creating a separate expedited remedy for residential property owners dealing with unauthorized occupants and establishing new procedures for magistrates, sheriffs, appeals, immunity, and wrongful-removal claims. It also amends Chapter 19A to limit local government authority over pet shops and centralize regulation at the state level through the Board of Agriculture. The bill affects property owners, alleged unauthorized occupants, law enforcement agencies, magistrates, district courts, and pet shop operators, while also narrowing local regulatory power.
The bill appears to have been treated as a ratified measure, suggesting it ultimately secured enough support to pass both chambers and be presented for gubernatorial approval. Based on the text alone, the measure reflects a policy preference for faster property-removal remedies and statewide uniformity for pet shop regulation. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader public sentiment beyond the bill’s enactment.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between property rights and due process. Critics may focus on the very short timelines for service, hearing, and vacating the property, the high appeal bond, and the conversion of noncompliance into criminal trespass, while supporters would emphasize a faster remedy for owners facing unlawful occupation. The pet shop provision is also potentially controversial because it overrides local ordinances and removes municipal authority to impose stricter animal-sale or licensing rules, which could draw opposition from local governments and animal-welfare advocates.