HB332 creates a new criminal offense of “unlawful squatting” in New Mexico. A person who enters and resides on another person’s real property without the knowledge or consent of the owner, rightful occupant, or authorized representative would commit a fourth-degree felony. The bill also allows a property owner to recover double damages if the unlawful squatter damages the property, and it expands existing trespass-related civil damages to specifically cover unlawful squatting.
The bill establishes a process for law enforcement and the courts to remove an alleged unlawful squatter. A person accused of unlawful squatting would receive a citation and have three business days to provide documentation showing a lawful right to be there, such as a lease, rental agreement, proof of rent payments, or deed. If the person cannot provide documentation, the person may be arrested. If the accused submits a counter-affidavit claiming a legal right to possession, the matter goes to district court for a nonjury trial to determine possession rights, with possible writs of possession, rent recovery, costs, and other monetary relief for the prevailing party.
Impact
HB332 would add a new felony offense to Chapter 30 and create a new removal and adjudication procedure in Chapter 42 for disputes involving alleged squatters. It would also amend the existing trespass damages statute to authorize double damages specifically for property damage caused during unlawful squatting. The bill affects property owners, rightful occupants, law enforcement agencies, district courts, and people accused of occupying property without permission, while also preserving the ability of owners or their representatives to shut off utilities.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be strongly supportive of property-rights enforcement and anti-squatting measures. The bill’s sponsors frame the issue as a criminal and civil remedy for unauthorized occupation of property, suggesting a law-and-order approach. No contrary testimony or recorded opposition is included in the provided context, so no formal vote-based sentiment can be determined from the materials supplied.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s criminalization of squatting as a fourth-degree felony and the speed of the removal process. Critics could view the three-business-day documentation window and the arrest provision as potentially harsh for tenants, occupants with informal arrangements, or people unable to quickly produce paperwork. Another likely issue is the balance between property-owner rights and due-process protections, especially because the bill allows removal based on affidavits and shifts disputes into a nonjury district court process if a counter-affidavit is filed. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize rapid relief for owners, stronger penalties for property damage, and clearer enforcement tools for law enforcement.