Kansas hearing examines expedited process to remove unauthorized occupants from homes

House Bill 23-78, the "Removal of Squatters Act," drew extended testimony in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about creating a procedure for property owners to request law enforcement remove unauthorized occupants from dwelling units.

The measure would allow an owner or authorized agent to submit a notarized affidavit to a local law enforcement agency stating that a person has entered and remains unlawfully in a dwelling, that the person is not a tenant, and that the affiant has requested the person vacate but they have not. After verification, the bill requires law enforcement to serve a notice to vacate in at least 24 hours; the bill also creates a civil cause of action for wrongful removal and a criminal penalty for knowingly filing a false affidavit.

Supporters described the bill as a narrow, expedited tool to restore occupied property to productive use. Representative Will Carpenter, who sponsored the measure in the House, told the committee he revived the bill after revisions and said it passed the House 114–9. Mark Toome, vice president of governmental affairs at the Kansas Association of Realtors, said the bill targets people who “have really no connection to a property” and is not intended to replace eviction procedures for tenants.

Proponents also included a representative of Pacific Legal Foundation, who argued that delays in removing unauthorized occupants can amount to an improper taking of property and said the measure aligns with similar statutes passed in other states.

Neutral and critical testimony stressed due process and implementation questions. Attorney Rebecca Gaston, who recently handled many eviction cases, said Kansas eviction statutes and criminal trespass laws already provide remedies and expressed concern that the bill creates a largely post hoc enforcement regime: if an affidavit proves false, the remedy would occur after a person has already been removed. She warned that people without counsel—tenants or others—may not learn of their right to bring a wrongful‑removal suit or be able to afford litigation.

Law enforcement witnesses asked for operational clarifications. Jeff Easter, legislative chair for the Kansas Sheriffs Association, recommended allowing any law enforcement agency (not only the county sheriff) to serve the affidavit and asked whether the bill contemplates arrest or other action if the person refuses to leave after notice. Proponents countered the bill is meant as a straightforward tool and that criminal charges such as trespass remain available in cases where removal by arrest is appropriate.

Other implementation questions included how officers should verify identities and whether the owner’s submission of an affidavit constitutes permission for officers to enter the dwelling to check occupants; proponents said verification would typically be possible with the owner’s consent. Committee members also asked about the statute’s “immediate family” exception; the reviser explained the bill defines “immediate family member” to include spouse, children, grandparents, siblings, in‑laws, aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews (biological, step or adoptive).

The bill would permit law enforcement to charge up to $50 for serving the affidavit and would exempt law enforcement acting in good faith under the act from civil liability; it also authorizes a wrongful‑removal plaintiff to seek possession restoration, actual damages, attorney fees and punitive damages up to triple the fair market rent.

Committee discussion covered concerns about the vagueness of some terms, the lack of contemporaneous judicial review, and practical questions about proving “fair market rent” for punitive damages. Proponents said many of those issues have been considered in committee amendments and that the measure is intended to be narrowly tailored to non‑tenant situations.

The committee heard proponent, neutral and written opponent testimony and then closed the hearing on HB 23-78 without a recorded committee vote during the hearing record.

What’s next: The bill record shows extended stakeholder engagement during the hearing; committee members requested clarifications and noted possible future amendments to address due‑process and operational concerns.