Oregon bill would let property owners use FED eviction process to remove squatters after 24‑hour written notice

House Bill 3,522 would let property owners and landlords use Oregon's forcible entry and detainer (FED) process to obtain possession of premises occupied by squatters after providing 24 hours' written notice to vacate, Representative Anessa Hartman told the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness on March 17.

Supporters said the change corrects a gap in state law that forces many new owners to pursue slower, costlier ejectment actions when there is no evidence of forced entry or an established landlord–tenant relationship.

“House Bill 3,522 allows property owners to reclaim their premises from squatters by providing a 24‑hour written notice to vacate,” Committee staff summarized. Representative Anessa Hartman (D‑House District 40) said the bill responds to constituent complaints and law‑enforcement concerns after new owners who purchased at auction could not use the standard FED process because there was no landlord–tenant relationship or proof of forced entry.

The bill’s dash‑1 amendment extends the change to cover landlords as well as property owners. Hartman said the measure “does not target those who are struggling with housing insecurity” and does not change eviction law for legitimate tenants; it is intended to prevent unauthorized occupants from using procedural protections to delay removal of rightful owners.

John Van Landingham of the Oregon Law Center (Lane County Legal Aid) told the committee that the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act has long defined tenants and excluded squatters, and that HB 3,522 would explicitly allow the FED process to produce a court judgment of possession that a sheriff can enforce. “The benefit of this bill is that it would make clear that squatters can be removed using the FED process,” Van Landingham said.

Jonathan Clay of Multifamily Northwest, an association of housing providers, and representatives of the Oregon Rental Housing Association spoke in strong support, saying delays in removing unauthorized occupants can lead to property damage, safety concerns and loss of rental inventory. Tia Politi, the association’s president, told the committee that ejection proceedings are costly and often beyond the means of many property owners.

Several property managers described recent local incidents in testimony, including claims of property damage, safety problems and protracted sheriff lockouts. Ron Garcia, a Portland‑area property manager, described multiple cases in 2024 where occupants who were not on leaseholds remained in units for months, alleging criminal or disruptive behavior that required sheriff intervention.

Representative Boomer Wright and other lawmakers who spoke during the hearing offered anecdotal examples to illustrate the bill’s supporters’ point: without access to the FED process, owners who take title can face lengthy and expensive civil ejectment actions to regain possession.

Witnesses from the Oregon Law Center and multifamily housing providers said the FED judgment would give landlords a clear legal path to regain possession without resorting to self‑help measures that might create safety hazards.

No formal committee vote on HB 3,522 was recorded during the March 17 hearing; the measure remained in public hearing with additional testimony taken.

The bill as introduced cites ORS 105.115 in its summary and the committee heard references to the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and to prior statutory definitions of “squatter” used to explain how the change interacts with existing landlord–tenant law.

For now, the bill’s supporters said, the measure is intended as a narrow procedural change to speed legal recovery of possession for owners and landlords who acquire property and confront unauthorized occupants. Opponents were not recorded in the hearing record on March 17.

The bill will return to the committee for further consideration and potential amendment before any committee action.