Texas House Bill HB 2131

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 1/28/25

Caption

Relating to the unauthorized entry, occupancy, sale, rental, lease, advertisement for sale, rental, or lease, or conveyance of real property, including the removal of certain unauthorized occupants of a dwelling; creating criminal offenses; increasing a criminal penalty; authorizing a fee.

Summary

HB 2131 would create a new statutory process for removing certain unauthorized occupants from residential property and would add new criminal offenses related to fraudulent claims or transactions involving real property. The bill allows an owner or the owner’s agent to ask the county sheriff to immediately remove a person who unlawfully entered and is occupying a dwelling, so long as the property was not open to the public, there is no pending litigation over the property, the person has been told to leave, and the person is not a tenant or immediate family member. The complaint must be sworn, and the sheriff must verify ownership and eligibility before serving notice to vacate and restoring possession to the owner. The bill also creates offenses for presenting false lease, deed, or similar documents to gain entry or remain on property, and for knowingly selling, renting, leasing, or advertising residential property without legal title or authority. The advertising offense is a Class A misdemeanor, while actually selling, renting, or leasing without authority is a third-degree felony. In addition, the bill amends the criminal trespass/damage penalty structure in Section 28.03 of the Penal Code, including specific treatment for certain property damage and interference offenses, and it applies those changes only to conduct occurring on or after the bill’s effective date. HB 2131 would significantly affect Texas property and criminal law by adding Chapter 24B to the Property Code and new Penal Code sections 32.56 and 32.57. It also authorizes sheriffs to charge a fee equal to the amount they would receive for executing a writ of possession, and allows them to charge an hourly rate if they remain on site to keep the peace while the owner changes locks and removes personal property. The bill includes liability protections for sheriffs and, in most cases, for owners or agents, but preserves a cause of action for wrongful removal with actual damages, exemplary damages equal to three times fair market rent, court costs, and attorney’s fees. The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at addressing unauthorized occupancy and property fraud concerns, while also giving property owners a faster remedy than traditional eviction proceedings. The absence of recorded debate means the bill’s support or opposition cannot be measured from the provided history alone. The main points of contention likely involve due process, mistaken removal, and the scope of sheriff authority. The bill allows immediate removal based on a complaint and sheriff verification rather than a court eviction order, which could raise concerns from tenant advocates, civil liberties groups, and others worried about wrongful displacement. On the other hand, property owners and law enforcement supporters may favor the bill’s expedited process and fraud penalties as tools against squatting, deed fraud, and sham leases. The wrongful-removal remedy and sworn complaint requirements appear designed to address those concerns, but they may not eliminate disputes over proof of ownership, occupancy status, and whether a person is truly unauthorized.

Impact

The bill would add new criminal offenses to the Penal Code for fraudulent real-property documents and unauthorized sale, rental, lease, or advertising of residential property, and it would revise the grading of certain criminal mischief offenses under Section 28.03. In the Property Code, it would create Chapter 24B, establishing a sheriff-assisted process for removing certain unauthorized occupants from dwellings, along with related complaint, notice, fee, liability, and wrongful-removal provisions. These changes would affect property owners, occupants, county sheriffs, and prosecutors, and would apply prospectively to offenses committed on or after September 1, 2025.

Sentiment

The provided record contains no committee transcript excerpts and no vote history, so there is no direct evidence of support, opposition, or negotiated amendments in the available materials. The bill’s text suggests a policy goal of helping property owners respond quickly to unauthorized occupancy and real-estate fraud, which would likely appeal to landlords, homeowners, and law enforcement. At the same time, the expedited removal process and reduced reliance on court proceedings suggest likely concern from tenant-rights and due-process advocates.

Contention

The most notable controversy is the bill’s authorization for sheriffs to remove occupants after verifying a complaint, rather than requiring a conventional eviction judgment, which could be viewed as risking wrongful removal or insufficient due process. Opponents would likely focus on the possibility of disputes over tenancy, ownership, or family status, while supporters would emphasize the need to address squatting and fraudulent occupancy quickly. The bill tries to balance these concerns by requiring sworn complaints, sheriff verification, and a wrongful-removal cause of action with damages and attorney’s fees, but those safeguards may still be debated.