Texas House Bill HB556

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/17/09
• Voted on by House: 5/11/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/23/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/26/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/31/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to payment of attorney's fees in certain actions to recover possession of real property.

Impact

The introduction of HB556 brings significant implications for landlords, property owners, and those involved in real estate disputes. By making it mandatory for the losing party in adverse possession cases to cover the attorney's fees of the titleholder, the bill could discourage individuals from pursuing claims of adverse possession unless they have substantial grounds. This could reduce the number of contested cases and streamline the legal process in property disputes, as potential claimants may reconsider their positions knowing the financial risks involved.

Summary

House Bill 556 aims to amend the Civil Practice and Remedies Code in Texas, specifically addressing the payment of attorney's fees in actions concerning the recovery of possession of real property. The bill stipulates that in cases where a person claiming under record title brings suit against an individual claiming by adverse possession, the latter must pay the costs and reasonable attorney's fees of the party claiming possession under record title. This change establishes a clear financial responsibility for those who claim adverse possession when the title holder prevails, aiming to deter frivolous claims that could otherwise burden the judicial system.

Contention

While HB556 seeks to clarify the financial obligations in property disputes, it may also raise concerns among advocates for property rights and those with legitimate claims to adverse possession. Critics may argue that this measure could create a chilling effect, preventing individuals from asserting valid claims due to fear of incurring high legal costs. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that different laws will apply to cases filed before its effective date, potentially leading to confusion during the transition period and complicating the legal landscape for ongoing litigation.