There are currently three bills moving through the Georgia State Capitol that are focused on defending property owners from squatters, who are people occupying a property without legal ownership or permission from a property owner. Although each bill has its own concentration, one bill is undoubtedly the most effective at dealing with squatters. This bill, House Bill 1017, transitions squatting to a criminal matter rather than a civil matter.
There are clear differences between criminal and civil cases through the squatter dilemma. Some scholars claim the civil process of evicting squatters is too lengthy, complicated and temporary, as there are six steps needed to evict a squatter: There needs to be a formal eviction notice; the owner must file a complaint; the court will issue a summons; the owner must attend a hearing; the judge must issue a writ of possession; and, lastly, a sheriff will execute the eviction.
Karl Johnson is a victim of this process, as his Fulton County residence was encroached on by a stranger for an extended period of time. Johnson went through the process of legally evicting the squatter. However, merely three months after the eviction, they broke back into the house and remained legally protected up until the next court order.
“She kicked the side door,” Johnson said. “I’m back down to square one.”
Conversely, under the new proposed bills, Johnson might need only a 911 call to evict current and potential squatters. This has the potential to transform the way squatting is handled across Georgia.
“When only a civil remedy is available, a property owner must often resort to eviction proceedings that take a substantial amount of time to resolve through the court system, particularly in states where courts are sympathetic to squatters or other de facto tenants,” said Adam Lamparello, an assistant criminal justice professor at GC. “By making this a criminal offense, law enforcement officers will be empowered to remove squatters immediately and thus enable property owners to avoid a protracted eviction process.”
In addition to the primary bill that transitions squatting out of civil cases, another bill out of the three enables off-duty officers and deputies to assist in evicting squatters. While this may not have instantaneous effect, this bill may have intensifying effects if passed alongside the primary bill.
“Allowing off-duty sheriffs and deputies to assist will not necessarily expedite the eviction process, which can be lengthy and difficult, particularly in states that are favorable to ‘tenants’ rights,’” Lamparello said. “However, it will facilitate the immediate removal of squatters because the conduct, if the legislation is passed, is now deemed criminal.”
Complications arise when considering the ethical dilemma of intensifying the response to squatters. Squatters are often low-income and homeless. By bolstering squatting defenses, it is likely to damage people experiencing poverty in the process of helping the middle and upper class.
“There are multiple perspectives to consider, deciding whether the bills are good,” said Josh Wilson, a junior accounting major. “For the low-income though, it might be detrimental in the long run because this bill will only add onto the current problems associated with being low-income.”
Contrarily, some may consider the negative effects on the low-income to simply unveil ongoing injustices. The sacrifice the low-income are making through these bills could be transposed amidst poverty-addressing solutions.
“They [the low-income] should be very conscious of local homeless shelters and know what their options are, what different communities and organizations there are in their areas,” Wilson said.
Regardless, these three bills are landmark in protecting property owners across Georgia. While ethical concerns are raised for those who need affordable housing, the effectiveness of solidifying property ownership quickly and forcefully is undeniable.
