Georgia Senate passes amended bill limiting overnight removals from extended-stay hotels after heated debate

The Georgia Senate passed House Bill 61 on March 19, 2026, approving a committee substitute that changes how extended-stay hotels and innkeepers may remove guests who have stayed long periods. The final vote on passage was 32 yeas to 18 nays.

The bill, offered on the floor as a public-safety and property-rights measure, had been transformed in committee into a multi-part substitute that includes provisions addressing unlawful squatting, magistrate-court procedures and processes for removal of disruptive or criminal guests. On the floor the chamber debated two competing amendments that drew distinct majorities: Amendment 1, which would have conferred fuller landlord-tenant protections after a 90-day threshold, failed 22-28; Amendment 1a (making the 90 days consecutive) failed 24-26. A compromise, Amendment 2, was adopted without objection; it provides that guests who have lived at an extended-stay facility for 90 or more consecutive days should not be put out overnight for nonpayment and must be given a defined notice and a 10-day period to respond or cure before removal; the amendment also includes measures addressing eviction records and certain procedural safeguards.

Senator (48th District), the floor author of the substitute, told colleagues the replacement language "clarifies the difference between innkeeper and guest" and that it was intended to protect hotel staff and property owners while responding to criminal-squatting risks. In floor remarks opposing the stronger tenant protections, the senator warned that shifting long-standing innkeeper-guest law toward a landlord-tenant regime would "change forever the relationship of what hotels are meant to be" and risk raising rates and unintended consequences for the industry.

Proponents of Amendment 1, led by Senator (14th District), argued that some extended-stay facilities advertise to vulnerable people as long-term housing and that a 90-day tenant-protection rule used in other states is needed to prevent abrupt displacement. The senator repeatedly invoked an advertisement phrase used in testimony and materials: "stay a night or stay forever," and said the ad reflects a business model that can draw people into housing insecurity. "When you avail yourself of something... you need to come correct," the senator said in urging the chamber to adopt the 90-day standard and fuller judicial protections.

Senator (30th District), who sponsored Amendment 2 and described it as a negotiated compromise worked out with housing advocates and the hospitality industry, said the amendment "says that if someone's been living in a hotel for more than 90 consecutive days, they should not be put out overnight for nonpayment" and that it creates a clear, 10-day notice process while allowing innkeepers and guests to reach alternative remedies if they agree. The sponsor emphasized the amendment was balanced to protect families and provide certainty for businesses.

Floor exchanges focused on practical consequences: several senators raised concerns that expanding landlord-tenant status could reduce extended-stay supply and raise costs for users including out-of-town workers; others pointed to state Supreme Court precedent and county-level studies showing families and children living in extended-stay hotels at high cost and poor conditions.

The roll-call tallies on the amendment votes were recorded on the chamber floor: Amendment 1a (90 consecutive days technical fix) failed, ayes 24, nays 26; Amendment 1 (broader tenant rights) failed, ayes 22, nays 28. Amendment 2 was adopted without objection and the committee substitute as amended was then adopted; the final passage vote for the bill by substitute was ayes 32, nays 18.

The Senate record shows the bill passed the required constitutional majority in the chamber and will now proceed to the next steps in the legislative process. The floor debate highlighted a central policy trade-off the Legislature faces: protecting long-term residents of nontraditional housing arrangements while preserving the availability and business model of extended-stay lodging. The bill as passed creates a statutory pathway for notice and cure for long-term guests and includes provisions intended to limit sudden, overnight removals for those who meet the 90-consecutive-day threshold.

The Senate transcript records sustained, bipartisan exchanges between members pressing for both stronger tenant protections and for predictability for innkeepers; senators cited a Georgia Supreme Court decision from 2023 (Efficiency Lodge v. Neeson) in the course of arguments. The legislative action closes with the Senate adopting the substitute as amended; the next procedural step for HB 61 is transmission to the other chamber or whatever next-stage action the legislative calendar requires.