Fight against squatters could bring faster evictions for all Texas renters
State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, the bill's author, said squatters don't have rights. He points to a case in Mesquite as an example.
The homeowner, Terri Boyette, said her handyman moved in while she was out of town and took over the home. When she called the police, Boyette said she was told it was a civil matter.
"I'm trying to live the American dream and somebody can walk in and destroy everything I have," Boyette said.
Bettencourt said his legislation is aimed at getting squatters out in less time, but critics say it will have devastating consequences for legitimate renters and could lead to increased homelessness.
Dallas eviction attorney Mark Melton testified against the bill in Austin, calling it "extremely and obviously unconstitutional."
Melton told lawmakers he believes the squatter issue has been overblown to make it possible to shorten evictions for all tenants.
"You could evict a tenant in 10 days without a trial? How is there due process in that?" Melton asked.
Lawmakers on the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee pushed back on his comments.
"I don't want people to be kicked out on the streets - no one does," said state rep. Jeff Leach. "But to allow someone to go months and months and months and months without paying rent? To continue to be able to stay there on procedural grounds seems to me to be patently unfair and wrong."
According to the current version of SB 38:
Another bill, SB 1333, would make squatting a crime, meaning property owners could get police involved and avoid the eviction process altogether. The author, state senator Bryan Hughes, said the legislation is more narrowly tailored to address the squatting issue.
"This bill would draw a distinction between folks who have overstayed their leases and not paid rent, and then those who just show up and occupy property without any legal basis whatever," said Hughes.
The debate in Austin happened as an extreme eviction case played out in Dallas.
It involved a couple living in a unit of a small apartment building on Gaston Avenue in east Dallas. The family that owned the property planned to sell the property, but could not go through with the sale until it was vacant.
The family filed the first eviction case against Aries Mitchell in September of 2023. Mitchell and her husband, Robert Mullins, won the first case on a technical issue. The family then filed more cases, which the couple appealed, putting the parties in multiple legal battles.
Mitchell and Mullins said they used to pay weekly, until the landlord stopped taking partial payments. Now she admits, the court filings are just a way to buy them more time in the apartment.
"If I had money to go, I'd go," Mitchell said. "I do not want to be here. I'm only here because I don't have nowhere else to go."
Mitchell had successfully appealed one of the eviction cases all the way up to the 5th Court of Appeals. Once that court set a hearing for April 29, the couple assumed that meant they were allowed to stay in the unit until at least that date. However, a separate case was still playing out in a Dallas County courtroom.
"These tenants were always one step ahead," said Terry McAuley, a member of the family that owns the building. "They're up there reading books, following, like, 'what's another loophole? How can we continue staying in here for free?'"
McAuley's sister, Kelly Medlock, echoed her frustrations.
"They keep going to court appealing... and they keep getting granted," Medlock said.
Last month a judge granted a writ of possession to the family. Twelve days later, the constable's office oversaw the eviction and Mitchell and Mullins were left sitting on the stoop with their belongings piled on the sidewalk, bringing an end to the 18-month fight.
The
shortest timeline for an eviction is typically 30 days
, but the process can take much longer than that.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who will win the White House in 2028? JD Vance favorite, but Dems have better odds
Donald Trump is a little more than halfway through his first year in office, and already people are jockeying for position for the 2028 presidential election. It was about a year ago when Trump overtook Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as the favorite to win the election and he cruised from that point on. The tides have turned once again, and now democrats are favored to win back the White House in 2028. But last July, Harris was the overwhelming favorite to defeat Trump, so things can change in a hurry. According to a Democrat is -110 to win the 2028 Presidential Election. Republicans come in at +100. So while the lead is ever so slight, it is noteworthy that for the first time in about a year, Democrats are favored to win the next presidential election. If you think an independent can win, that's where the real money is. Independents are +2000 to win. 2028 presidential betting odds When it comes to individuals, nobody has really been able to pull away from the pack. Vice President JD Vance remains the top choice on the betting market. He comes in at +250. Trump himself comes in at No. 2 in betting odds at +900. Right now he can't run again, but Vegas believes that could change. On the Democratic side, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the top two favorites, both coming in at +900. Bettinglectionodds also has their odds. That site has Vance as the favorite to be the next president with a 23.9 percent chance of winning. He's followed by Newsom (8.2 percent), Ocasio-Cortez (6.6 percent), Pete Buttigieg (4.9 percent), Josh Shapiro (3.7 percent), Ron DeSantis (2.5 percent) and Ivanka Trump (2.4 percent) as the favorites. This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: 2028 presidential betting odds: Vance, Trump, Newsom, AOC favorites
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's EPA puts California in its crosshairs with its proposed car rules
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to repeal its own 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health marks a major U-turn for the nation's climate progress. While it's impact will be felt nationwide, the plan takes direct aim at California. In supporting documents released in the wake of Tuesday's proposal, the nation's top environmental agency outlined the justifications for its plan to rescind the so-called endangerment finding and roll back its longstanding regulations for planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from all motor vehicles, including cars and trucks. 'As a result of these proposed changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers would no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of [greenhouse gas] emissions for any highway engine and vehicle,' the agency wrote in its rule summary. But the documents, including an 80-page notice of proposed rulemaking and 60-page draft regulatory impact analysis, also contain several nods to California policies, referencing the state by name 27 times — by far more than any other state. That's largely because for more than 50 years, California has been granted unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emissions than those mandated by the federal government. This authority, obtained through waivers issued by the EPA, has been critical to the state's efforts to address its notorious smog and air quality issues, which are driven partly by transportation emissions and by California's unique topography that traps pollutants in its interior basins. The waivers were also the basis for California's nation-leading plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and transition to electric vehicles. The EPA's documents repeatedly state that California's waivers have officially been repealed. As of publication, however, the Trump administration's unprecedented effort to do so in June is still winding its way through the court system following a lawsuit from the state. Notably, the EPA's own analysis of the possible outcomes of its proposal indicate that without California's leadership — and without the tax credits created under President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act — national adoption of electric vehicles will decline. At the same time, gasoline prices will increase because of the higher demand from more gas-powered vehicles on the road. 'They don't seem to have put together that strong of a case,' said Chris Busch, director of transportation and a senior economist with Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, a nonpartisan think tank, who reviewed the analysis. 'What this shows is that the net impact is less favorable when you reduce the California [Advanced Clean Trucks rule], when you take away the California waivers and remove the IRA credits.' In a statement this week, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said repealing the endangerment finding would have economic benefits for the American people. 'If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families,' Zeldin said. According to the EPA, that $1-trillion savings would come from rescinding vehicle regulations built upon the endangerment finding. That includes the Biden administration's electric vehicles sales target, which the agency refers to as an 'EV mandate.' The EPA also said removing the endangerment finding would save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards. Busch said he could not readily see how the agency arrived at that figure based on the analysis provided. With California's rules repealed, 'you end up with fewer EVs, more gasoline cars, more demand for gas and higher gas prices,' he said. The EPA also argues that electric vehicles are sucking up energy that could be better used elsewhere — 'from factories to data-center servers to air-conditioning.' It uses California as an example of this perceived misappropriation of electricity, pointing to a 2022 memo from the California Independent System operator that urged people to reduce energy use, including EV charging, during a record-breaking heat wave. The EPA's announcement stunned many members of the environmental community who condemned it as a dangerous abdication of the agency's mission to protect human health and the environment. Among the agency's many claims are that no technology currently exists to reduce greenhouse gases enough to measurably affect global climate change concerns without risking greater harm to public health and welfare, such as increased vehicle prices. But major U.S. automakers such as GM and Ford have already committed to an electric future — as have international competitors such as China, which is investing heavily in electric vehicles. According to the California Energy Commission, about 22% of new vehicles sales in the state in the second quarter of this year were zero-emission vehicles. 'Despite Trump's full-on attack, Californians are choosing the clean simplicity of ZEVs,' read a statement from CEC Commissioner Nancy Skinner. 'Make no mistake: California is not backing down from its ZEV goals. We will continue to heavily invest in accessible and reliable ZEV infrastructure, making the ZEV driving experience better each day.' Busch said California has several tools at its disposal to defend itself and preserve its clean vehicle progress. In the heavy-duty space, the California Air Resources Board already has the Clean Truck Partnership — an agreement with nearly all truck manufacturers in the state to meet advanced emissions reduction targets. The state's heavy vehicle incentive program also provides funding opportunities for fleet owners to replace older heavy-duty diesel vehicles with zero-emission ones. There are also legislative possibilities, such as Assembly Bill 914, which would give CARB more authority to regulate indirect sources of pollution such as warehouses. One way those warehouses could meet those rules would be by increasing their electric truck fleets, Busch said. CARB also employs a clean-mile standard for transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft, which will see them gradually increase their zero-emission miles, and a similar tactic could be employed for the freight sector, he said. 'States have a lot of options still,' Busch said. 'There is a lot of momentum.' In a statement this week, CARB chair Liane Randolph described the EPA's proposals as 'the latest moves from this feckless federal government that choose polluter fantasyland over proven science.' 'Meanwhile, back on Earth, the planet continues to suffer from the consequences of unchecked carbon pollution as heatwaves, floods and wildfires threaten increasingly uninsurable communities everywhere,' Randolph said. 'Unlike this negligent administration, California won't turn our backs on what is happening right before our eyes. We choose reality, science and innovation — and we know we are not the only ones.'
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Smithsonian explains why a Trump reference was removed from impeachment exhibit
The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., has removed references to President Donald Trump in a display about impeachments, despite Trump being the first and only president in American history to be impeached twice. But the museum says the move is temporary. The Washington Post first reported the change on Thursday, July 31. On Friday, Aug. 1, the Smithsonian clarified the museum's removal. Here's what we know. Smithsonian: Display restored to 2008 appearance The "impeachment" display is housed within the larger, permanent gallery called "The American Presidency," which opened in 2000, according to an emailed statement from the Smithsonian. It features information and artifacts about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, according to the display's companion website. Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. In September 2021, a "temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump" was added, according to the Smithsonian's statement. "It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025." The display has since been returned to how it appeared nearly 20 years ago, according to the Smithsonian statement and the Washington Post's report, which also noted that the exhibit now says, "only three presidents have seriously faced removal," omitting Trump. 'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed," the museum's statement said. "Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the 'Impeachment' case back to its 2008 appearance." Website highlights other impeached presidents The companion website for the display does not include a dedicated section for the Trump impeachments but notes in an introductory sentence, "The House of Representatives impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868, William J. Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and again in 2021. In all four cases the Senate voted to acquit." It includes sections about Johnson's impeachment, including tickets and newspaper clips from the time; Nixon's Senate hearing and resignation, including testimony papers and photos from the proceedings; and Clinton's trial, with tickets and Senate question cards. 'All impeachments' coming in the future "A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments," the Smithsonian statement said, noting that updating and renewing permanent galleries"requires a significant amount of time and funding." The Smithsonian declined to answer further questions about the change and the timeline for an updated exhibit. The controversy around the Smithsonian's change to the display comes after the White House in May pushed for the removal of art director Kim Sajet from her role as director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, citing her "strong support" of "DEI." In March, Trump also signed an executive order demanding the removal of "anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian and other cultural institutions.
