AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29 and Title 66, relative to real property.
If enacted, SB 795 would significantly impact existing state laws related to property rights and tenant eviction processes. It introduces specific criteria that property owners must meet to utilize this expedited removal process, which includes confirming that the property is residential, that the unauthorized individual is neither a tenant nor an immediate family member, and that there is no pending litigation regarding the property. This legislative shift empowers property owners with a more immediate and effective legal mechanism for reclaiming their properties from unauthorized occupants, potentially reducing court caseloads related to eviction disputes.
Senate Bill 795, also known as the Limited Alternative Remedy to Remove Unauthorized Persons from Residential Real Property, seeks to amend the Tennessee Code to enhance the rights of property owners regarding the prompt removal of unauthorized occupants. The bill establishes a streamlined process through which property owners or their agents can request the immediate removal of individuals unlawfully occupying their residential properties. It emphasizes preserving property rights and deterring criminal activities such as vandalism and theft implicated by unauthorized occupations.
The sentiment surrounding SB 795 appears to lean positively among proponents who advocate for stronger protections for property owners against unlawful occupancy. Supporters argue that the bill provides essential safeguards for property rights and enhances the ability to prevent criminal behavior linked to unauthorized inhabitants. However, there are concerns from tenant advocates and some attorneys regarding the potential for abuse, as the expedited removal process may disproportionately impact lower-income individuals or those facing housing insecurity, potentially leading to wrongful evictions.
One notable point of contention is the definition of 'unauthorized occupants' and the potential for misuse of provisions allowing property owners to swiftly displace individuals. Critics raise alarms over the lack of protections for individuals who may find themselves in precarious situations, particularly if eviction processes can be expedited without comprehensive legal oversight. The debate highlights the balance between ensuring robust property rights for owners and maintaining fair protections for vulnerable tenants who may lack secure housing.