Bill to let landlords use marshals without court review draws sharp criticism; wholesaling rules also face debate

A bill that would let property owners seek rapid removal of "unauthorized persons" without a court eviction hearing drew widespread opposition at an Insurance and Real Estate Committee public hearing, while other parts of the same measure proposing new disclosure rules for real-estate wholesalers also prompted concern from industry and consumer groups.

Supporters said the removal provision is aimed at true break-ins or people who take over vacant seasonal homes; critics from legal-aid organizations, tenant advocates and state marshals said the language is overbroad and risks stripping long-established due-process protections for occupiers.

Why it matters: Connecticut's summary-process eviction procedure determines who has a legal right to possess a dwelling and includes court review, mediation and limited execution by marshals after a judicial judgment. Opponents say HB 7078's affidavit-driven marshal remedy would permit landlords or new owners to bypass those protections and produce wrongful removals, especially for tenants with oral leases, household members not named on a lease or occupants in lower-income communities.

Court-backed process vs. affidavit enforcement

Raffy Podolsky, an attorney who works on housing law, told the panel that the bill "will have an enormous, undesirable, probably unintended effect on a large number of tenants, thousands, potentially thousands of tenants," saying the measure would expand situations in which a marshal could remove someone without court adjudication. "If you live there, you don't get to get rid of people without going through the court process," Podolsky said.

Representatives of legal-aid groups and veterans' legal services amplified that view. Giovanna Shea of Greater Hartford Legal Aid said Connecticut already has summary-process statutes and that the courts provide mediation and an opportunity for occupants to assert defenses. "We're extremely concerned regarding a potential for abuse if a landlord can just give a marshal an affidavit and have someone removed from a unit and do an end run around summary process," Shea said.

State marshals and law-enforcement limits

Brian Mezick, president of the State Marshal Association of Connecticut, told the committee the proposal would create what he described as a powerful legal writ issued on an affidavit rather than after judicial review. "I like being a marshal. I don't like being a judge," he said, urging that the remedy be kept within the court system or converted to an expedited court process.

Marshals and other witnesses suggested alternatives such as an expedited judicial track for truly egregious break-ins, rather than permitting marshal enforcement based solely on a landlord affidavit.

Landlord and property-owner perspective

John Souza, president of the Connecticut Coalition of Property Owners and a landlord, urged the committee to preserve a faster remedy for property owners who find unauthorized occupants in seasonal or vacant homes or where someone has forcibly occupied a unit. "If I have to go through the eviction system, especially if they do fight, it could take three to four months," Souza said, adding that in some cases police decline to intervene.

Tenant advocates rebutted that those factual scenarios are already addressed by criminal law when a forcible entry or breaking-and-entering occurs and by the summary-process court for occupancy disputes.

Real-estate wholesaling, disclosures and penalties

HB 7078 also contains provisions to regulate real-estate "wholesaling"—transactions where a buyer (often an investor) obtains assignment rights to a purchase contract and then assigns that contract to a third-party buyer. The committee heard sharply divided testimony about whether new disclosure requirements and civil or criminal penalties are appropriate.

Joanne Breen of Connecticut Realtors said the association supports disclosure language to ensure sellers understand they are assigning contract rights and that the wholesaler may profit from the transaction. "We are not looking to ban wholesale transactions," she said, but to require a clear "notice to sellers" form.

Wholesaler and investor witnesses said the proposed condition-report and criminal penalties would chill a useful, low-cost market that helps sellers in distress and often delivers faster, simpler transactions. "If we tell a seller that there's no cost, no fees, we're gonna cover your conveyance ... we're covering everything," said Adam Devine, a managing broker, describing one business model that serves sellers who want fast, no-fee closings.

Consumer-protection and enforcement concerns

Opponents including consumer advocates and some real-estate attorneys urged stronger safeguards: they recommended a public disclosure form, an oversight or education requirement for wholesalers, and civil remedies—rather than a class A misdemeanor—for any intentional misrepresentations.

Committee context and possible next steps

Multiple committee members asked witnesses to work with staff on tightened language. Marshals and legal-aid representatives requested a formal gate in court for any removal procedure; real-estate industry witnesses asked for clearer, workable disclosure forms and higher thresholds before any penalties apply. Several lawmakers noted they had received complaints on both sides and asked advocates to supply model language the committee could consider.

At the hearing, no formal vote or committee action occurred; committee members asked for follow-up from stakeholders and staff drafting to find narrower, enforceable solutions that protect occupants while addressing genuine break-in situations.