Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Squatter Evict Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Hartman seeks streamlined eviction path for squatters in HB 3522; landlords and legal aid back bill
Summary
House Bill 3522 would allow property owners to use the standard forcible entry and detainer eviction process to remove squatters after 24‑hour notice, even when no forcible entry or landlord‑tenant relationship exists. Supporters ranged from the bill sponsor to landlord groups and the Oregon Law Center; committee closed the hearing with no vote.
Representative Vanessa Hartman told the Senate Committee on Housing and Development on May 12 that House Bill 3522 would correct “a glaring oversight” in state law that can leave new property owners unable to use the standard eviction process against unauthorized occupants who did not forcibly enter a property and where no landlord‑tenant relationship exists.
Hartman described a constituent who bought a foreclosed house only to have people who knew the previous owner remain in the property and claim rights of occupancy, forcing the new owner into a months‑long, costly civil ejectment lawsuit. “What should have been a milestone moment turned into a drawn‑out expensive ejectment lawsuit spending thousands of dollars and waiting months,” Hartman said.
The bill amends ORS 105.115 to allow owners or landlords to remove squatters using the forcible‑entry and detainer (FED) process after providing 24 hours’ notice even when there is no established landlord‑tenant relationship or evidence of forced entry, Hartman said. She emphasized the bill is not intended to harm people experiencing homelessness but to put property owners, responsible tenants and the rental market on equal footing.
Witnesses: Jonathan Clay of Multifamily Northwest said unlawful occupancy displaces lawful tenants and discourages housing providers from investing in rental housing; he and others representing housing providers supported the bill. An Oregon Law Center representative said the bill resolved an oddity in the statutes that made removal harder when a landlord‑tenant relationship did not exist and thanked Rep. Hartman for working with legal aid on drafting.
Discussion and next steps: Committee members had no substantive questions; the chair closed the public hearing and said no Senate public testimony sign‑ups remained. No committee vote was taken at this session.
