Judiciary committee sets aside bill to speed removal of unlawful occupants after court raises concerns

Representative George Rauscher introduced House Bill 159 as a targeted civil process to let property owners or their authorized agents request law-enforcement assistance to remove unlawful occupants from residential property when there is no lease, no family relationship and no pending litigation. Rauscher told the House Judiciary Committee that the proposal "provides property owners with a faster and safer and more practical way to regain possession of residential property when it has been unlawfully occupied by individuals with no legal right to be there."

The bill would also add criminal penalties for deceptive acts tied to property—making forgery of rental agreements and fraudulent selling, leasing or advertising of dwellings criminal offenses in some cases—and would treat unlawful entry and continued occupation that causes significant damage as a felony in some circumstances. Rauscher’s staff described the measure as preserving current trespass statutes while creating an "immediate removal mechanism for clear cut squatting cases," requiring sworn affidavits and verification by a peace officer, and allowing wrongfully removed occupants to sue for damages.

Nancy Mead, general counsel for the Alaska Court System, told the committee that the bill contains two provisions that directly affect court rules and that the committee should consider changes. Mead said the bill’s change to the eviction timetable—shortening the window for a hearing from 15 days to seven days—could be difficult for courts to implement and could harm tenants and landlords by limiting time for service, continuances, attorney representation and mediation. "Moving it to 7 days I fear would be difficult for us to implement," Mead said, noting that most eviction hearings currently occur within 15 days and that service and related steps commonly take place during that period.

Mead also noted that one uncodified section of the bill would indirectly change the civil-attorney-fee rule by allowing a wrongfully removed occupant to recover full reasonable attorney fees, which she described as a policy decision for the legislature because it would alter the existing rule that currently awards a discretionary percentage of fees (she described ranges the court applies as sometimes 20% and sometimes 50%, depending on complexity). Mead emphasized that the rule-change aspects are separable from the bill’s core alternative civil process for properties without leases.

Committee members questioned several substantive details during discussion. The bill sets a $1,000 damage threshold in one subsection for elevating criminal trespass to a higher class; members asked why that amount was chosen and whether it is the right benchmark. The bill also uses the term "dwelling" in criminalizing unauthorized sale, lease or advertisement of property; members asked whether that term covers undeveloped residential real property. Members raised concerns about how the measure would interact with local governments’ code-enforcement practices and asked sponsors to consult with the Municipality of Anchorage and the Alaska Municipal League.

Sponsor George Rauscher and his staff acknowledged some provisions would benefit from refinement and said they would work with the committee and court system. Rauscher told members he was "amicable" to changes, including restoring the longer eviction timetable if the committee preferred.

After discussion, the committee did not vote on HB 159; the chair said the bill would be put aside to be brought up at a later date. The committee record states the bill will be revisited after further consultation with legal and agency stakeholders.

Votes at a glance: No formal motion or committee vote was recorded on HB 159 during this hearing; the committee set the bill aside for revision and future consideration.