House Judiciary committee advances amendments to H2 and H21 to let any sheriff serve writs of possession

The House Committee on Judiciary voted to advance committee amendments to two bills, H2 (amendment draft 5.1) and H21 (amendment draft 2.1), that would remove language limiting service of writs of possession to the sheriff of the county where the property is located and instead direct any sheriff in the state to serve the writ and put the plaintiff into possession.

The changes, discussed during the committee’s floor session, strike the limiting language in the current statutory text and replace it with a provision directing “any sheriff” to serve and execute a writ of possession. Eric, a legislative staff member who reviewed the drafts for the committee, said the execution element remains part of underlying law and did not have to be rewritten in the amendment text.

Committee members said the amendments aim to align sheriff duties across jurisdictions and reduce inconsistency in practice. “This amendment will align the sheriff’s duties in situations where they’re serving and executing writs of possession with all the other duties that they have,” said Committee member, who spoke in support of the change and referenced testimony heard earlier from a judge. Jack, Legislative Council staff, said there had been “some disagreement about the bill,” but added: “I think everyone appreciated the quality of the writing.”

Committee procedure and technical points were clarified before votes. Eric and Betsy Anne Ross of the clerk’s office explained that the language is presented as a committee amendment rather than an individual member’s amendment; when adopted in committee the calendar and paperwork will show the amendment as from the House Committee on Judiciary rather than from an individual sponsor. Committee members also noted that individual amendments are allotted four minutes when offered by a single member, but a committee amendment carries different procedural labeling.

Votes at a glance

- H2 (as amended by draft 5.1): Committee motion to find H2 as amended favorable was moved and approved by roll call. Recorded responses in the roll call included: Dolan — yes; Harvey — no; Molly — yes; Oliver — yes; Rachelson — yes; Frederick — yes; Malone — yes; Harrison — absent. The committee reported the amendment favorably and plans to move the bill forward.

- H21 (as amended by draft 2.1): Committee motion to find H21 as amended favorable was moved and approved by roll call. Recorded responses included multiple affirmative votes (examples recorded in the transcript: Dolan — yes; Renault — yes; Jose — yes; Harvey — yes; Hawaii — yes; Oliver — yes; Rachelsson/Christine — yes; Curtis — yes; Paula — yes). A committee member indicated the amendment addresses the same substantive issue as H2 and that the revised text removes the county-only limitation.

During debate, members described the change as a corrective measure intended to preserve smooth operation of sheriff duties statewide after an identified problem in the existing statutory scheme. Eric summarized the substance of the amendment as striking the lines that limit service to the sheriff of the county where the property is located and replacing them with a requirement that any sheriff serve the writ and put the plaintiff into possession. He also agreed with a member’s observation that the execution function remains governed by the underlying law and did not need a separate textual change.

Next steps

Committee members said they would prepare a section-by-section explanation and the basic rationale for the floor. One member noted the bills were expected to be placed on the calendar for Wednesday. Alicia (committee member) indicated willingness to report the bill, though she said she might reconsider after additional review.

The meeting record shows procedural motions, a straw poll on the H2 amendment, then formal motions to find both amended bills favorable; both motions were reported out of committee for further consideration by the full chamber.