Montana bill would let owners ask police to remove unauthorized occupants after verified complaint

Representative (sponsor) opened the hearing on House Bill 501, describing it as "an act revising laws related to unauthorized occupancy of residential dwellings" that would provide a limited remedy allowing owners to submit a complaint to local law enforcement and require certain documentation before removal. The sponsor said the draft borrows language from other states and seeks to protect both owners and occupants by requiring identity verification and providing a civil cause of action for wrongful removal.

Sharon Lodge, testifying online in opposition, said the bill "is a bad bill" that risks turning property owners into the "bad guy" and duplicates existing civil remedies such as writs of assistance. "Right now, we have the civil action in court in which sheriffs charge a writ of assistance for," she said, adding that inconsistent enforcement by sheriffs and county attorneys is the core problem and that procedural burdens in the bill would hurt owners.

Committee members pressed the sponsor for specifics. Representative Griffith asked whether the bill was drafted to avoid triggering the 1977 Landlord Tenant Act; the sponsor said the intent is to exclude tenants with valid written leases. Representative Caleb Hinkle asked the sponsor to distinguish "unauthorized" occupants from criminal trespass; the sponsor said the bill seeks to protect evidence and rights for both parties while enabling law enforcement to intervene when an owner provides verifiable documentation.

Representative Judd Hinkle raised concerns about documentary burdens on elderly owners, asking whether cadastral records could suffice in lieu of a purchase date; the sponsor suggested title searches or quick checks by a title company could verify ownership. Representative Howell and others asked whether verbal leases or silent-lease guest arrangements could be swept into the bill; the sponsor said the bill’s deceptive-practices language is intended to prevent abusive or arbitrary evictions and that disputes could be litigated in court.

The sponsor closed by asking for a due pass, saying he believed the bill "gives some benefits to both parties" while protecting owners’ remedies. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing.

The hearing record shows recurring concerns about scope and drafting: opponents argued the measure could criminalize matters already handled civilly, while supporters and the sponsor said it carefully narrows who is "unauthorized" and preserves remedies for wrongfully removed occupants. The committee requested clarification from the sponsor on connections to existing forcible entry and detainer statutes and on evidentiary requirements before any enforcement action.