To amend section 2909.07 and to enact sections 1923.16 and 2913.53 of the Revised Code to provide for the expedited removal of unauthorized occupants of residential property, to prohibit the use and sale of fraudulent deeds, and to declare an emergency.
HB295 creates a new expedited process for record owners of residential property to have county sheriffs remove unauthorized occupants, often described as a “squatter removal” procedure. Under the bill, an owner or authorized agent could request immediate removal if the occupant entered unlawfully, is not a tenant, family member, or co-owner, there is no pending litigation, and the owner first gave at least three days’ written notice to vacate. The request must be supported by a sworn complaint, a copy of the deed, and identification or agency documents, and the sheriff would then serve a notice to immediately vacate and restore possession to the owner without the usual eviction process.
The bill also creates a civil remedy for wrongful removal, allowing a person improperly removed to sue for restoration of possession, actual damages, triple the monthly fair market rent, court costs, and attorney’s fees. At the same time, it makes knowingly false statements in the complaint punishable as perjury and states that the procedure does not create a right of action against the sheriff or county for wrongful removal. The bill further authorizes the sheriff to stand by while the owner changes locks and removes personal property, with the owner paying a reasonable hourly rate for that service.
In addition to the removal procedure, HB295 adds a new criminal offense of “title fraud.” It prohibits presenting false leases, deeds, or other instruments to remain on property, and it bars listing, renting, selling, or encumbering residential real property when the actor has no lawful title or authority. Violations are graded as felonies, with the most serious conduct punished as a fourth-degree felony. The bill also expands the criminal mischief statute to expressly cover unlawful detention, occupation, or trespass on a residential dwelling that causes at least $1,000 in damage.
The bill’s impact on Ohio law would be significant for landlord-tenant, property, and criminal enforcement practices. It would create a fast-track alternative to traditional eviction proceedings for certain unauthorized occupants, shift some enforcement responsibility to county sheriffs, and add new penalties and remedies aimed at fraudulent occupancy and deed-related scams. It also declares itself an emergency measure, meaning it would take effect immediately if enacted.
Because HB295 was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative sentiment to measure from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the apparent policy direction is strongly pro-property-owner and anti-fraud, with the main likely point of contention being whether the expedited sheriff-removal process provides enough due process protections and whether it could be misused against people with disputed occupancy claims. The bill itself anticipates that concern by requiring sworn statements, documentary proof, and a civil remedy for wrongful removal.
HB295 would amend Ohio’s criminal mischief law and create two new Revised Code sections: one establishing an expedited sheriff-assisted removal process for unauthorized occupants of residential property, and another defining and punishing title fraud. It would give record owners a faster path than ordinary eviction proceedings in narrow circumstances, while also creating new felony offenses for fraudulent leases, deeds, and unauthorized sales or rentals of residential property. The bill would affect property owners, occupants, county sheriffs, courts, and parties involved in real-estate fraud disputes.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded sentiment from lawmakers in the materials. The bill’s structure and emergency declaration suggest a strong policy emphasis on protecting property owners from unlawful occupation and fraudulent conveyances. At the same time, the inclusion of sworn statements, perjury penalties, and a wrongful-removal lawsuit indicates an effort to address concerns about misuse of the expedited process.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s expedited removal mechanism, which allows a sheriff to remove an occupant without the standard eviction process once the owner submits a sworn complaint and deed documentation. Supporters are likely to emphasize speed, property-rights protection, and anti-fraud enforcement, while critics may worry about due process, mistaken identity, disputed tenancy, or wrongful removal of occupants with colorable claims. Another possible area of concern is the bill’s broad criminalization of title-related conduct, though the bill narrows its reach by excluding tenants, family members, co-owners, and cases with pending litigation.