SEVENTY-FIRST DAY — FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2025

SB 38, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to the eviction from real property of certain persons not entitled to enter, occupy, or remain in possession of the premises.

REPRESENTATIVE BUTTON: Whenever I lay out my bill, usually it's kind of short and sweet—just like my size. But this SB 38 had a lot of people getting involved and a lot of good input for a very extensive conversation. So I'm going to spend some time giving you more details.

SB 38 updates eviction procedures in Texas by providing uniform rules for venue, notice, court procedures, and appeals. The bill is designed to prevent delays, eliminate unnecessary local requirements, and ensure landlords and tenants alike can rely on a fair, consistent, and a timely legal process, protecting property rights while having an effective and efficient process and showing compassion. It clarifies justice court jurisdiction and bars counterclaims or joinders in eviction suits. It establishes standardized venue rules and the timelines for trial and service. It limits the ability of the Supreme Court to suspend eviction rules unless applied uniformly, modernizes notice delivery options, and clarifies tenant timelines under federal law. It requires sworn petitions and limits local courts' ability to add pretrial mandates. It creates a summary that positions procedures for uncontested evictions. It streamlines appeals, repayment applications, and writ insurance. It mentions protections for military tenants and low-income tenants filing appeals.

What this bill does not do: It does not remove a tenant's right to appeal or contest an eviction. It does not reduce or eliminate notice requirements. It does not prevent tenants from raising valid legal claims. It does not interfere with federal tenant protections, including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. There are a few amendments that members have discussed with me previously––including communication with the author, Senator Bettencourt—that I plan to accept and that might address some of your concerns, so please be patient. Chairman Vo, if you'll allow me to go ahead and work on the pre-agreed amendments, that might ease up your concerns. I know you have excellent questions, and I'll be glad to answer.

REPRESENTATIVE VO: Is your bill dealing with commercial properties or residential properties?

BUTTON: It's both. But let me share with you—this one came to my attention because I got a lot of complaints from my district, my constituents, and also people outside my district. They say this is something we need to take a look at, and that's how I get in.

[Amendment No. 1 by Button, Hayes, Leach, Moody, Gates, M. González, and Canales was laid before the house.]

BUTTON: I can go through all the details, but I would like to share the privilege of explaining to everyone with my two other colleagues, who have put in a lot of time and effort.

REPRESENTATIVE GATES: This first amendment is going to deal with making sure that if a notice to vacate—that it's put into a conspicuous place inside the unit. If you hand it to someone, they have to be 16 years or older. And for an off-duty officer who gives notice, they have to present themselves and give identification showing that they're an officer.

[Amendment No. 1 was adopted by Record No. 3408.]

[Amendment No. 2 by Little was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE LITTLE: We're in a group effort here, as I think you can see. One of the concerns that I'm going to express to you about the bill has to do with the venue changes. I think you're going to want to pay attention to this. If you're a civil practitioner, this is important. I think this is important.

In a forcible entry and detainer case, you can just take the words "forcible entry" and "detainer," or "forcible" and "detainer," and just understand it means "eviction." In an eviction lawsuit, the rule is—currently, today—that if you're being evicted by your landlord, you must be sued for eviction in the precinct and place where the property is. This bill seeks to modify that and, on the motion of the landlord, force the tenant to defend the eviction in an adjacent precinct. So in Houston and Dallas—I want you to think about how big and how many precincts there are in Houston. An adjacent precinct can be an hour away. In Dallas, an adjacent precinct can be an hour away. I think there are some pretty sincere problems with potential forum shopping—that a landlord, or someone who owns a residence, could then force their tenant to defend that eviction as long as an hour away. My understanding is that, potentially, Representative Button or the Texas Apartment Association is going to amend this to limit it to within five miles. I think that would be an okay amendment to the amendment. What I don't think is okay is forcing a tenant to defend an eviction proceeding far away from where they are living. It seems like it's going to have a disproportionate effect on poor people, who are going to have to find a way to get to that court to defend that proceeding. They're going to have to—because of the statute—do it very fast because it has to occur within three weeks. So that is the reason for my amendment, and I will just simply ask for your adoption of it.

REPRESENTATIVE DEAYALA: Mr. Little, I was listening to your explanation of your amendment. This is also an area in which I practice in. Just to be clear, the current bill requires the landlord to file suit in the precinct where the property is located. That's mandatory, right?

LITTLE: That's accurate.

DEAYALA: Okay. And only if certain things happen can they move to an adjacent precinct?

LITTLE: You're correct about that. Can I make a clarification?

DEAYALA: In just a minute, because I want to get to the bill. Only if the sheriff or constable cannot serve, process, or some other good cause—I think we both know that there are just some judges out there that will just never evict a tenant. That sometimes is the case, right?

LITTLE: I believe there are some.

DEAYALA: Okay. When we talk about the bill, and we talk about the venue and the forum shopping, I don't see this bill as venue or forum shopping. I see this bill as trying to find an expedited way to fix a problem. But the suit must be filed in the precinct where the apartment is located.

LITTLE: The problem from my perspective, Representative DeAyala, is there are very important things that are being addressed by this bill. I do believe it is more difficult in some places to obtain an eviction in Texas than others. And yes, the suit has to start in the precinct where the property is located. But in my experience, the criteria for a venue transfer are criteria that apply in almost every FED case I've ever had. Meaning, for whatever reason, it doesn't get tried within 21 days; then it's an automatic basis for a venue change. In every FED case I've ever had, there was a continuance or a reason it wasn't tried within 21 days. Another basis for a venue change under this proposed statute is the sheriff or constable didn't get them served within five days. That happens in almost every case I've been a part of, either because the constable's busy, the sheriff's busy, or the person is difficult to find. And then the last catchall provision is any other reason on the plaintiff's motion. I think this is overly broad. I think it is overreaching, and the potential effects on the tenant, to me, are pretty significant. I have done this myself, believe it or not. I had to evict someone out of my house. It took me close to nine months. I have an FED trial—a jury trial. It was appealed to county court, where we had a trial. And then my tenant filed for bankruptcy, and I had to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay in federal court to get this person out of my house. So I understand there are delays for a number of reasons. What I don't want to do is give the landlord a basis to forum shop somewhere else where the suit doesn't belong.

DEAYALA: I don't think that this bill is attempting to do that for the primary reason that it must be filed in that precinct. You start there, and that shows you're not forum shopping. If there are language modifications to try to take some of these unnecessary, excessive delays out of there and allow the adjacent precinct to adjudicate this case—if there's some language to tighten that up—I think that'd be helpful for the bill.

LITTLE: I think it would be helpful, too. I don't want to try to solve one problem by creating another one. If you look at the precinct map in Dallas, the central business district in Dallas—downtown—is encompassed by one precinct, and it spreads east and west. So if I had an eviction for a tenant in downtown Dallas, I could literally make them go to east Dallas under this bill. Or I could make them go to west Dallas. That, to me, is a bridge too far.

DEAYALA: Fair enough.

[Amendment No. 2 was adopted by Record No. 3409.]

[Amendment No. 3 by Hayes, Button, and Moody was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE HAYES: What this amendment provides for is if you're being evicted because of nonpayment of rent and you haven't been delinquent in your payment of rent before, then the landlord must send you a notice to pay the rent—or to vacate if you don't want to pay the rent. And if you've never been late before, he has to take the rent. That's what it boils down to.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: As I understand, your amendment—if the person is behind on the rent and the landlord files an eviction but the person still attempts to pay the rent, the landlord has to take it. Is that correct?

HAYES: This amendment deals with one situation, Chairman Dutton. It deals with if you haven't been late before. Then they must take your money. But if you've been late five or six times before, then the landlord isn't—under this amendment—obligated to take the rent.

DUTTON: And does that cure and start the clock over again? For example, they're late this month, but they pay it, and the landlord accepts it. Then two months later, they're late again. Would your amendment affect that situation?

HAYES: It would not. This is just—you're going to get one mulligan and—

DUTTON: One for the duration of the lease?

HAYES: Correct. So when you renew your lease—that is, if you continue to pay your rent and you sign a new lease for another year, it would restart.

DUTTON: It would restart at the beginning of a new lease?

HAYES: New lease.

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIER: Representative Hayes, I really do appreciate this amendment. It's very helpful, because my constituents are very concerned about how this bill is going to impact them. So if I have a 12-month lease, under your amendment, if I am late one time, the provisions of this bill—this amendment—would allow, or require, the landlord to accept my late payment of rent?

HAYES: That's correct.

COLLIER: Okay. Now, say for instance I renew my lease for next year for a 12-month period. My "never been late before" starts all over again?

HAYES: That's correct, because you're in a new lease.

COLLIER: It's a new lease, so that's how it reads. If it's a new lease—even though I'm staying in the same apartment complex or the same unit—I still would be eligible for the provisions of this amendment?

HAYES: Yes. And I don't mean to take all the credit for this amendment. Senator West suggested this, and I told him I would be pleased to carry it.

COLLIER: I have a bill that does exactly this, so I appreciate it.

[Amendment No. 3 was adopted by Record No. 3410.]

[Amendment No. 4 by Gates, Button, and Moody was laid before the house.]

GATES: What this amendment does is just ensures that if you try to go for summary judgment, it doesn't apply on an eviction case—a forcible entry and detainer. You can't get summary judgment under that.

[Amendment No. 4 was adopted by Record No. 3411.]

[Amendment No. 5 by Goodwin was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN: Members, this simply gives a little bit more time in this process. Rather than holding a hearing on a certain date, it says that it will set the hearing by that date. And also that the county court may grant a continuance for good cause.

BUTTON: I appreciate your interest in this bill. This is truly a negotiated bill, and we have not had a chance to analyze your amendment or discuss it with the numerous stakeholders that have visited with us. I think it is very important that we respect the negotiation and understanding, but I do appreciate your interest.

[Representative Button moved to table Amendment No. 5.]

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3412.]

[Amendment No. 6 by M. González was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE M. GONZÁLEZ: Members, I'm not sure about you, but if you've ever lost your debit or credit card and then had to redo all of those payments, sometimes you forget, and you miss one. I know that my Netflix account has sometimes been disabled because I lost my credit card and had to redo it. Imagine if your bill pay was connected to your rent, and imagine, then, that you didn't notice the first day. This bill would have very real consequences, because it shortens the time from what is currently established to only three days. So what this amendment would do is very straightforward. It simply standardizes a notice to vacate period to seven days. Seven days to give tenants a fair chance to pay back rent and fees before eviction filing moves forward and nullifies lease terms that shorten this window.

Members, it's really costly to go through an eviction process. It's not ideal for either the landlord or the tenant to have to go through this process. Empty units don't help anyone. This amendment helps landlords get paid and families remain housed. It's a win-win for everybody. It's a win-win for the state and local governments. Every eviction avoided means fewer families in shelters, fewer emergency services used, and fewer public dollars spent on problems that could have easily been resolved prior to going to court. This is smart policy that standardizes vacate periods. It protects private property rights while also helping tenants. And I will say, these ideas and this amendment that we are offering have been discussed both in committee and before this bill was brought to the floor. There is a chance to adopt this amendment.

BUTTON: I always appreciate my dear friend, Chairwoman González's interest in my bills, but, respectfully, I move to table the amendment.

[Representative Button moved to table Amendment No. 6.]

COLLIER: Chair Button, I have a question about the notice to vacate. Under this amendment, the proposed amendment, it would say that they have to get—the tenant is given seven days for the notice to vacate. My question is: Once a notice to vacate is issued and served on the tenant, will the proceedings—the forcible detainer or the eviction proceedings—continue, or could they continue, even if the tenant pays the full rent or the amount due?

BUTTON: Under the current law—I'll tell you what, let me have an attorney answer. I'm a CPA; I'm not an attorney. But I know that's a good question. You were asking why I oppose this amendment?

COLLIER: No. I was asking how this was going to work in practice if the amendment were to work in practice. You oppose it. I'm trying to get to that point—laying the groundwork for asking a question about how it's going to work and then why she would oppose it.

BUTTON: I oppose the amendment because this is now previously negotiated, and it's last minute. So I move to table the amendment with respect. That's the reason behind my motion.

COLLIER: I understand you're tabling it because you didn't have a chance to read it; is that what you're saying?

M. GONZÁLEZ: Members, if you've never been late on a bill, if you've never had constituents who have been late on a bill, if you've never accidentally missed something because of bill pay—three days. We're not asking to give more time; we're only asking for seven days. Seven days. This is a good balance to me.

REPRESENTATIVE RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Representative, in your layout of your amendment, you said—if I recall correctly—you had conversations with the bill's author regarding a provision for an extension of days?

M. GONZÁLEZ: I will say that during the committee, there was a conversation about the limited time allotment. Also, I know there have been negotiations. All of these ideas have been brought to all the stakeholders. I do sympathize. The chairwoman has been navigating this very complex bill, and there have been lots of ideas. This idea was presented. It was rejected by the stakeholders, but I will say this—it was not by the stakeholders. It was rejected by one certain group of stakeholders. But for the people who are advocating for renters, they were very clear that this is necessary to have happen. So I think the idea that "Oh, we haven't heard this before" is not accurate.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: So what you're saying—the way the current bill is, without this amendment, is that I, as a tenant, have five days to evict or to—after the notice. But what you're saying is to make it seven.

M. GONZÁLEZ: It's three days, and we're trying to make it seven.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: It's three days that I have to vacate the property, but you're trying to make it seven? So for a working family, an additional four days—because, as the bill reads, this includes holidays and weekends. So giving the other four days over the holidays and weekends, it's not—it would put any working family in a bind, correct?

M. GONZÁLEZ: Yes. Think about it. Think if you just got your paycheck and you have to go to the bank to get it cashed. Sometimes banks won't immediately cash your checks, so now you may not have the income in order to pay your rent. We're not saying we're not trying to support businesses, and we understand that sometimes you do have to evict people who have overstayed their payment. But we're only asking for seven days. It's a reasonable measure, which would make sure we don't have people who don't have a home to live in. Imagine being a mom. You just got your paycheck, but you couldn't get to the bank in time that night. So now you put it off to the next day, and now the next day, you're being evicted. That is a wild idea to me.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: It is wild, because, I think, Representative, for a mom like you just referenced, getting her paycheck on Friday night and getting that notice on Friday night—there are banks that don't open on Saturday, or for maybe half a day. In situations like this, there are some tenants who have to work on Saturday morning, so maybe they can't get to the bank on Saturday morning to address this issue. What your amendment is allowing is for life situations to happen. Just a few more days for their children not to be removed from stability, from a stable home, for just a matter of days to allow a little more planning for the family. Correct?

M. GONZÁLEZ: Correct. And honestly, I would venture to say that not all of it is going to be because you just got your paycheck. I bet you half of these evictions—because it's such a limited time period—are going to be because of an accident. "I didn't change my bill pay code." "I got a new credit card and didn't realize it." Or, "My debit card expired, and I didn't know that, so when they tried to do the charge, it didn't happen." I bet you so many of these evictions will just be because of pure accidents. And again, we're not asking for 30 days. We're saying seven days to recognize there is a problem. You could remedy it quickly and responsibly.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: And these issues were brought up in the hearing during committee?

M. GONZÁLEZ: Yes, completely.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: So the bill author did have an opportunity to make these considerations and make it more amenable for working families and is choosing not to.

M. GONZÁLEZ: I will just say one last thing: Who are we considering "stakeholders" in this conversation? What I'm trying to add is that renters are human beings. Renters are families who are just trying to create a stable home, and they should also have—we're not asking for a lot. This is a very balanced amendment. I'm praying to all the legislative gods and wish—like Ken King likes that I do—that she will adopt this amendment.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3413.]

[Amendment No. 7 by Wu was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE WU: One of the things in this bill that you may not be aware of that it did—because it's kind of hidden in there—is that the governor of the state and the Texas Supreme Court have the ability to pause some of these court actions. During COVID-19, when everyone was stuck in their house and before we had virtual courtrooms set up—while we were told that we could not leave and while we were forced to be at home—the Texas Supreme Court paused eviction proceedings in the court system to facilitate—to make sure—that during this time of emergency, people were not being kicked out of their homes unnecessarily and then causing a public health crisis. Because they would be forced into local shelters that were, basically, not open at the time—and also to give the courts a chance to change their process so they can actually have these hearings virtually.

This legislation, right now, as it exists, would take away not only the ability of the courts but also it would take away the ability of the governor to do the same. In its place it says that only the legislature can. While this is noble, the problem is that when we're outside of session, the only time we can meet is when the governor calls a special session. And as you have seen for yourself during the massive hurricane devastation after Hurricane Harvey, we did not call a special session even to address that mounting crisis. During COVID-19, when we needed extra funds, we did not get a special session, even though many of you asked for it. This amendment provides a little safety valve that, if we cannot meet, we should keep our existing law that gives the Supreme Court and the governor the ability to temporarily pause some of these proceedings so that we can take care of the emergency first. That's all this amendment does. It just puts us back to the current law, where the governor and the Texas Supreme Court—both of whom are elected officials in this state—have a pressure relief valve.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Does your amendment give any new powers to the courts or to the governor?

WU: Absolutely not. This would only return us to the powers they have existing right now, instead of stripping it from them.

TURNER: So this would simply maintain the status quo?

WU: Absolutely. In fact, this amendment may help prevent a conflict of the separation of powers because, again, the courts have the complete ability to run their own court system and tell their courts how to operate. That is the purview of the Texas Supreme Court and the judicial branch. This amendment would put back their ability to control their own membership and control their own process.

TURNER: If I understand what you're saying, essentially this is going to preserve some flexibility around eviction procedures in the event of a future unforeseen emergency. Is that fair to say?

WU: Absolutely. As we have seen, we cannot predict what is coming next. If we could, we could address everything well before it happens. But the problem is we never expected COVID-19 to come. We expected Hurricane Harvey, but not to the extent that it happened. Many of those things caused what we call "statewide emergencies"––catastrophic emergencies. This amendment would put back the safety valve that has always been in place to allow us to have our public officials, our highest-level officials, make snap decisions in times of extreme emergency. Without this amendment, that safety valve is gone. You need to listen carefully, because if we have some kind of event in the future, there will be no one to blame except the members of the legislature.

TURNER: I think it's really important that we maintain some flexibility for our state's leaders in times of extreme emergency and crisis that, again, are unforeseen. We can't predict what they will be or when they will come, so this is a good amendment. I hope the author accepts it.

WU: Let's say, even if in a time of extreme emergency—a statewide disaster—that the governor would have to call for a special session. The legislature would need time to meet, need time to file bills, need time to debate bills, and all those things. Meanwhile, Texans are suffering for weeks and weeks while we wait for that process.

REPRESENTATIVE MOODY: I'm just reviewing this. The bill's section that you're affecting is Section 2. Is that right?

WU: Yes. It starts on page 1, lines 23 to 24, but then we skip over to page 3. The section that we're talking about is starting on line 11 and ends on line 25.

MOODY: Got it. I just wanted to make sure. So the bill, as I understand it as written, doesn't affect the Supreme Court's ability to close courts.

WU: Right.

MOODY: It simply says that if they do close, they must do it uniformly. Is that your reading of the bill as is?

WU: My understanding of the bill is that it affects both the governor's office and the Texas Supreme Court. If I'm wrong about the Texas Supreme Court, then it's still true for the governor.

MOODY: That's why I'm reading this section of the bill. This section does not affect the authority of the Supreme Court to modify or suspend certain provisions for the conduct of any court proceedings affected by a disaster under the disaster code in the Government Code. But such a modification or suspension may be applied to an eviction suit only if we've got a suspension that's applicable to all that are similarly affected by a disaster. Then it recreates some writing that is available to the public. I understood the bill to say that if we're going to close, we need to close uniformly. So with the amendment, it would permit closures of some courts and not others?

WU: I think that is up to the Supreme Court. I think if you have a disaster—again, with Hurricane Harvey, there were no issues up in North Texas. But South Texas and the coastline was devastated for months. I think that's a situation where you would want the ability to—

MOODY: I agree with what you're saying—(b)(1) is the one specifically talking about an eviction suit. So we're talking about JP courts? With your amendment, the supremes could suspend action in a JP court only, but not in the other courts? I am just trying to understand with the amendment on the bill, because my understanding is the bill itself creates uniformity of closures, if there is a closure, depending on the region. So if courts are closed, courts are closed. But with the amendment, you would be able to, even in one region—like you said, Harris County disaster declaration. Some courts could be open, and some courts could not be open?

WU: Right.

MOODY: That's what your amendment would do. Why would we want to have a lack of uniformity in court closures where a disaster is in place?

WU: The way I understand this is that the provision of this part would change only the region. What I want to do with this amendment is just leave the current law where it is. Allow the Supreme Court to make those decisions on their own without this. To allow them to have the leeway to make those emergency decisions unimpeded.

MOODY: Is it your position that the bill changes the Supreme Court's authority to make those modifications?

WU: I believe it does.

MOODY: I guess the way that I read that section is that their authority isn't curtailed in terms of closures; it is requiring uniformity of closures. That's the way I understand it. I appreciate your answers.

COLLIER: I understand you're doing this amendment because there may be special circumstances that happen in one particular location, and you want them to have the flexibility to be able to address that concern. It may not be a declared disaster, but it's a disaster in that court.

WU: And again, it's not for me to respond but for the governor and the Supreme Court to respond.

COLLIER: Absolutely. Thank you. You have a great amendment.

BUTTON: I appreciate the conversation, but I move to table.

[Representative Button moved to table Amendment No. 7.]

WU: Members, I just ask you to maintain the safety valve that we have in place in current law. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3414.]

[Amendment No. 8 by V. Jones was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE V. JONES: Members, this is an amendment that is straightforward and is a legal fix for this bill. SB 38 currently includes language that conflicts with federal eviction protections—like those established under the CARES Act—which requires a 30-day notice to vacate. State law cannot override federal law. Attempting to do so only invites litigation and more confusion on a process that is already complicated. This amendment strikes the language to ensure compliance and prevents costly legal battles. It's a matter of following the law and respecting the courts. I hope that following the law is something that is of interest to the author, and I ask that she accepts.

BUTTON: I appreciate your interest. Once again, move to table.

[Representative Button moved to table Amendment No. 8.]

COLLIER: Representative Jones, I want to ask: If there's a violation of the federal law, what is the recourse? If they evict someone earlier than what they are allowed by law, then that could subject the landlord to additional penalties; is that right?

V. JONES: Absolutely. Not only additional penalties, but evictions settled could be overturned if it is done in conflict with federal law.

COLLIER: Are there any—is there a recourse for the tenant who is wrongfully evicted under that process?

V. JONES: I don't think so at this time. I think that's why we want to make sure that we put in laws and guardrails to this bill to make sure that everyone is protected in this. If we put this bill forward right now, there will be issues that renters can face with no recourse, and they will be removed from their homes and unable to get back in their homes if errors are found. So I think we have to make sure that we do the necessary work to get this right the first time.

M. GONZÁLEZ: Thank you, Representative, for bringing this important amendment up. I think what's getting lost is that this is not only helpful for tenants, but it's also good for business owners. When we align federal law and state law, it makes things less confusing. When we have different state laws and different federal laws, it's just confusing for everybody. Is that accurate?

V. JONES: Very much so—accurate.

M. GONZÁLEZ: So I think what we are offering in some of these amendments is a balanced approach to help both tenants and the people who run our apartments. These two elements have to work together. Doing this is extremely important to make sure we are being both pro-business and pro-tenant at the exact same time. These are not binary components, right?

V. JONES: That is correct.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3415.]

[Amendment No. 9 by J. González was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE J. GONZÁLEZ: This amendment addresses a simple but important issue. What happens if a tenant shows up to file an appeal at 4:30 p.m., but the justice court is already closed? SB 38 does not account for this, but the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do. It's not unusual for justice courts, particularly in rural areas of our state, to not have regular business hours. Even in our cities, some courts are unavailable during regular business hours. For this reason, the Texas Supreme Court, long ago, established rules that extend deadlines in justice courts to the following day if a court closes before 5 p.m., so as to accommodate for these irregular hours. My amendment aligns eviction cases with existing court practices, giving tenants until the next business day if the court closes early. This is about ensuring access to justice and preventing procedural traps. No one should lose their right to appeal because a local court closes early or closes unexpectedly.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Going into your amendment—you're referencing page 3, but the page before that talks about the computation of time, correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: And that's what you're referencing. So the notice when we're talking about the computation of time—we're allowing under this bill, the author's bill—it includes—the clock starts ticking not on the day that the event begins and not on the day that they receive the eviction. But it includes that Saturday, it includes the Sunday, and it includes any state or federal holidays. The clock is ticking to get the family out on those days, including the last day of the period. And it's maybe extended the next day if there's another provision there, but what you're saying is we want—at least—the clock not to start ticking on the day if the court is closed and they didn't have the opportunity to file an appeal. Correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Absolutely, yes.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: The way the bill is written—it's expediting so mom or dad—it's really requiring them to do something on the Saturdays, Sundays, and state and federal holidays, when the courts are closed. And what you're saying is, "Hey, if the courts are closed on one of those days and they're not open, then allow them the opportunity—not 40 days later—but at least 12 hours later." Correct?

J. GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: It's a great amendment.

[Representative Button moved to table Amendment No. 9.]

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Thank you for yielding to questions. We're talking about people's livelihoods. We're talking about homelessness and families getting kicked to the street. It's unfortunate that the bill's author would not answer any questions. I appreciate you answering questions about your amendment—the importance of not kicking families out on the streets and giving them a minimum of 12 extra hours. This amendment is something that anybody, any reasonable person, would accept if we really care about families, considering a third of Texans are tenants. One out of every three people. Were you aware that one out of every three people in Texas is a tenant, not an owner, of a property?

J. GONZÁLEZ: I was not.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Yes, and in fact, were you aware that in my district, two out of three people are tenants?

J. GONZÁLEZ: That's a lot of people.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: That's a lot. In fact, the bill's author—one out of every three people in her district is a tenant. Were you aware of that?

J. GONZÁLEZ: I was not.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Allowing people less than 12 hours to figure out what they need to do if, in fact, courts close, I think, is very reasonable. It's unreasonable to not answer questions when we're talking about lives, families, and homelessness.

[Amendment No. 9 was tabled by Record No. 3416.]

V. JONES: I stand today in opposition of SB 38. As someone who represents a district that has over half of its residents as tenants, I have heard the concerns of my constituents. I know that they have met with Chairwoman Button and Senator Bettencourt on this matter on numerous occasions. While the purpose of SB 38 is to target squatters, its broad language poses a significant threat to the rights and well-being of legitimate Texas renters. By expediting the eviction process and reducing the time tenants have to respond to eviction notices, this bill undermines fundamental due process. The expedited timeline of this bill fails to account for the realities that many renters face. Finding legal assistance, understanding the complex legal proceedings, and securing alternative housing all takes time. This drastically shortens the response window that could lead to unjust evictions, increase housing instability, and negatively impact tenants' physical and mental health. While addressing the issue of squatters is important, it should not come at the expense of the rights of millions of law-abiding Texans. SB 38, in its current form, risks harming vulnerable tenants by creating a system that favors speed over fairness. I urge the members of the house to carefully consider the implications and amend the bill to ensure adequate protections for renters while addressing the concerns regarding unlawful occupants.

WU: I know that this bill was brought as a bill against squatters, which, I think, is dealing with a bad problem. But this bill doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's premised on a lie. This bill is about the 40 percent of Texans who rent and who do not own a home—mostly people who are young, people who are poor, people who are minorities, people who are in the working class of Texans, and people who struggle to live month to month, paycheck to paycheck, and sometimes day to day. We premised this bill on the idea that evictions—the eviction process—is not efficient; it's out of hand; cases are going on too long; and cases are going on 60, 90-plus days. That's a lie. It is demonstrably false. In 2023, in Harris County, the average time to eviction was 21 days. In Dallas County, it was 18 days. In Travis County, it was 20 days. In Bexar County, 22 days. In looking at how many cases actually go past 60 days—in Harris County, it was under two percent. In Dallas County, it was zero percent. Travis County, two percent. Bexar County, two percent. The current eviction process, with its safeguards and with its requirements for due process, works. It works now. It continues to work. It has worked in the past. So our efforts to say we're going to come here and fix the eviction process is premised on a lie.

I was one of a few people—very few people—who voted against the property tax bill back a few sessions ago. And the reason I voted against that bill is because it did nothing for renters. It did nothing for 85 percent of my district. And while most people in this body have less than 60 percent—some of you are down in the 20s, maybe 30 percent renters. No matter how big this population is, they are permanently an underclass. They are permanently forgotten by this body. I have taken those votes, and I'll take this vote again today to tell them that you are not forgotten. There are people here who see you. There are people here who understand the struggle. There are people here who understand that you are busting your ass every single day and barely making it. Things like this—if you are suddenly just late by a few days, they can't just take your apartment away or kick you out simply because you were late a couple of days. All these different protections that we have in the current law are being stripped away.

COLLIER: Representative Wu, are you concerned about page 6, Section 24.00506, Rules of Court, which says that "a court may not adopt local rules, forms, or standing orders for eviction suits that require" the petition to follow—to have specific content in it about why you're late?

WU: Absolutely. That is just one of many provisions in this bill that takes a process that we had created in the past to be a fair process, to be a process where we don't take sides on who should win and who should lose, and instead, what we are putting in its place is a one-sided law that gives ample opportunities—unlimited tools—to those who seek evictions but limits the ability of people who are fighting it to fight back.

COLLIER: In fact, it authorizes sloppy paperwork, because it says that the court may not "authorize the dismissal of an eviction suit on the basis that the petition is improper if the petition can be amended."

WU: Absolutely. We have heard horror stories from not just my district but from many other places. People say, "I paid my rent. I paid all of my rent and paid it on time, but because of their mistake, they filed an eviction notice anyway." Or "They filed the eviction notice for my neighbor and put my name instead." Or they did something else. Time and time again people will say, "This is not proper. This is like they filed an incorrect petition. They didn't do the right thing; they didn't serve me with process"—whatever it is. And this bill now says a court can't just toss out a case just because it's wrong.

COLLIER: Right.

WU: A power that every court in this state has. But if the petition comes in and it is flatly wrong, you have the ability to say, "No, get that out of here."

COLLIER: In fact, here at the Capitol, in the house, if the paperwork is wrong, we send it back.

WU: We call them points of order.

COLLIER: That's right.

WU: That's the whole point. We are now being so heavy-handed against the people in this state who are working-class people—against people struggling to survive, people who rent because they have no other choice. We are telling them, "We're going to put our thumb on you. We're going to put our boot on you, and we're going to take the side of the other side. We're going to take the side of one side against you."

COLLIER: And in fact, it's pretty much bleeding into the judicial system by telling the courts what they can and cannot do in their courtroom in terms of what paperwork is acceptable.

WU: This is a violation of people's due process. This is a ham-handed approach to give almost unfettered power to landowners and to landlords. I hope the people at home, I hope the people––the 40 percent of Texans who rent, I hope they're listening, and I hope they're watching what their elected officials do. And you know what? I hope they go vote.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: To those residents of Texas—40 percent who are tenants, who are not yet homeowners—for many reasons, we have people who are not yet homeowners. Number one, it's difficult to buy a home. With our market values increasing, this bill will impact a lot of Texans—especially our young generation—because many of those are tenants.

What we're saying in this bill is we don't care if you are tenants. We don't care if we're going to exacerbate the homeless problem in Texas. We don't care because there is a powerful lobby here in Texas that is fighting on behalf of those owners and not the working families of Texas. This bill says, "We don't care that you—if you're served with an eviction petition—you only have as few as four days to file a legal response. We don't care that the courts may be closed. We don't care if it happens during the weekends or on a federal holiday." Tenants—the majority of Texans—we don't care. We don't care that we're giving landlords up to 21 days to get to trial, yet tenants only have a few days to get to trial if they object to this. We don't care because it's not about you—working families and tenants. We don't care if your stuff is going to be thrown on the curb and your children are asking, "Mommy and Daddy, what are we going to do? Where are we going to go?" This bill is saying, "We don't care." We don't care if you see more families homeless on the streets. We don't care. We've done nothing to make property ownership more available and easy for you, Texas residents. But we're going to make sure that the opportunity gap widens more and more. We don't care that this bill allows a writ of possession—meaning physical removal from the home to be issued almost immediately after judgment, with no real time to appeal. Tenants of Texas: We don't care. We don't care that it allows a tenant to lose their case and their home just for missing a couple of rent payments or being late. They made a modification for one late payment a year—or term of your lease—but after that, we don't care. We don't care that the federal government has a financial stranglehold on families. We haven't given you health care. We're taking away SNAP benefits. We are denying representation, and we don't care if you're on the streets with your family.

Every procedural step in SB 38 is designed to be as short as possible—from notice to response, trial judgment, and removal of the renter. How is the renter ever supposed to recover from a mistake or delay? Guess what, Texas? The bill author and the power of the majority here is saying, "We don't care." And that is unfortunate. And yes, unfortunately tenants, Texans, and working-class families don't have a powerful, financially backed lobby. But what you do have is your voice. And we hope that you fight back and say, "You know what? In November, we do care, and we're going to stop this insanity."

COLLIER: Representative Rodríguez Ramos, I'm not sure—I want to ask. I'm not sure if the bill author is going to come up and answer questions, so I figure you and I can speculate.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Care—we care. Yes, we care.

COLLIER: We can speculate on what this bill does—and it's nothing good to me. I don't see anything good about this. But on page 11, it deals with the appeals after the JP court has heard the case. On line 17 it says, "The county court shall hold a trial not later than the 21st day after the date the transcript and original papers are delivered to the county court." Now, what happens if the trial doesn't happen within the 21st day? What if it's a Saturday or a Sunday? What happens if the court is backlogged? Some courts—some county courts—do criminal cases, family cases, and they do civil cases in these smaller counties. So are they to prioritize eviction suits over those cases?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Well, unfortunately the bill author, who has been working on this bill for a while, probably has the best answer for this. But since she's not answering questions, I would say it doesn't matter. We don't care. Whatever is faster to get the tenant out of that property and get them evicted is what's going to happen.

COLLIER: And that's what's unfortunate. Because these rigid deadlines that are in here for the county court may not work in reality because there are other cases they have to hear. Are they expected to set aside those cases to accommodate this new law?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Well, you would think if you cared about people, we would give—

COLLIER: Flexibility.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Flexibility for the tenant.

COLLIER: And the court. This is not giving the court any flexibility.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Right, and we know the courts and the dockets are still packed. But unfortunately, in Texas, we don't care.

COLLIER: That's really unfortunate. I hope that the bill author will come up and address this provision in here.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Well, that would be democratic. That would be a full, robust democracy to answer questions on a bill that you author and that you've been working on. But unfortunately, that's not the case here.

REPRESENTATIVE TOTH: You had mentioned several times about a lobbyist. I want to know who the lobbyist is that you're talking about.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Representative, you have access to the same information I do, but I'm not the one who filed the bill. You should ask the bill author which lobby she's been working with.

TOTH: I'm just not clear what lobbyist you're talking about that's behind this bill.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Sir, it's public information. Look at the lobbyist. But you know what? We know how the system works. You and I know very well.

TOTH: We absolutely do, and I know that there's no lobbyist behind this bill that's supporting the efforts of Ms. Button. Here's my next question: If a squatter stays in a house and someone that makes $80,000 to $100,000 a year owns that house, who cares about that person? Who cares about the person who's going to lose their house to the bank? Then the bank ends up putting the squatter out instead of the homeowner. Does that matter?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: That's a great question for the bill author. Maybe you should ask her. Maybe that's a question she'll take.

TOTH: Well, I want to know from you. Don't you care?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: I didn't write the bill.

TOTH: Do you not care about the people that own the house? They might not be wealthy. Do they not matter to you?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: They matter to me. The answer is: Ask the bill author.

TOTH: Evidently, they don't.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: You're making assumptions, sir.

TOTH: You're making assumptions as well by saying that this is controlled by the lobby.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: I wouldn't have to make assumptions if the bill author clarified any questions, but that's not the case, is it?

TOTH: You're making assumptions that people that own private property—rental property—that they're controlled by lobbyists and that somehow they have millions of dollars to be able to keep people in a house when someone doesn't pay their rent.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: You're wrong that I'm making that assumption. What I'm saying is the bill—

TOTH: Do you care about people that will lose their property?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: What do you think?

TOTH: Do you care that people will lose their property because their renter won't pay their rent?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: What do you think?

TOTH: I guess you don't care.

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: Okay, well that's your opinion.

REPRESENTATIVE FLORES: Isn't it true, Ms. Ramos, that this bill does not address the issue of squatters in what is currently the bill?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: That's correct.

FLORES: And didn't we just pass a bill—a criminal bill—to address the issue of squatters yesterday on this very floor?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: That's correct.

FLORES: So would it be fair to say that this bill is more about shortening the amount of time renters have—and shortening their due process rights—in order to make sure that these people are evicted as soon as possible? Isn't that right?

RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS: That's correct. And unfortunately, the previous colleague who asked those questions completely muddied the water and gave misinformation to the public, because this is not about denying the owner access to their property. This is not about that at all. They want to muddy the waters and confuse people that individuals do not care about the property owners, the lease owners, or the landlords—that we don't care about that. This has nothing to do with that bill, because this bill allows the property to be returned to them. We're just talking about a matter of days. So it's unfortunate that they like to give misinformation, continuing—but we know that's par for the course. So thank you very much for clarifying that.

FLORES: Thank you for caring about the renters of this state. I care, too.

REPRESENTATIVE J. JONES: Today, I rise to take off my legislator hat and put on my child hat—the child who lived from pillar to post, the eldest of five children raised by a single mother who gave everything she had to keep us going. My mom worked overtime; she often didn't have a car. Sometimes we didn't have a working phone, but she never stopped trying. This bill is literally traumatizing me. From ninth grade to 12th grade, we were evicted again and again. Not because we were squatters, not because we didn't care, but because we were poor. I remember one eviction like it was yesterday. We came home, and the doors were off the hinges. All of our belongings––everything we owned––were thrown outside. We lost clothes, furniture, and heirlooms. My father was an artist; he had prints. When I grew up, I was going to get to keep them. They got thrown outside, and we lost them. The only physical memories we had of him—they were just gone. That does something to you. My mother would have missed court dates under this bill. Not because she didn't care. One—she couldn't afford to miss work during business hours because she was working overtime just to keep us afloat. Two—we often didn't have transportation. We didn't have a car. We didn't have money for a taxi. I had to walk to school—far. I would literally pray that one of my teammates would see me and give me a ride. That was normal for me. It was survival. Sometimes my mom dropped us off at my best friend's house or dropped my sister off at her best friend's house just so we had a place to sleep. The next morning we'd go to school wearing somebody else's clothes. You try showing up like that and feeling like you belong. It's because of that trauma that I made two promises to myself. One—that I would own a home so I would never get evicted again. Two—that I would own a home so that my son would never have to be evicted like we were.

SB 38 would have crushed my family. It lets landlords evict people with almost no notice, no hearing, and no understanding of the lives behind these walls. This bill isn't just about property; it's about people—poor people. Black people, brown people, poor people, working moms, and children—they will bear the weight of this. Those of you from Houston know who Marvin Zindler is. He used to say, "It's hell to be poor." People labeled us because my mother worked from paycheck to paycheck, and the paychecks didn't even work for the next month's rent. It doesn't make a lick of sense that I'm a woman about to be 60 years old in a few months, and I'm up here traumatized over how I was forced to live as a kid because people don't understand poverty. You label us as squatters. This isn't about squatting. This is about eviction, and it's real. The same person that everybody labeled—my single mother—raised a lawyer. That's me. My other sister is a physician and an MBA. My baby sister is an accountant. Y'all are treating us like we don't deserve, and it's just not right. This bill is wrong. And very rarely do I show emotion, but I'm literally traumatized by this bill and the way that the bill's author won't even allow people to ask her questions and talk. These are real issues. We are real people. I urge you to vote against this bill.

BUTTON: Some of you remember my background. I was born and raised in Taiwan when my parents escaped communist China. They dropped everything—just brought my grandma. You all know that I grew up in a family of seven in this 300-square-foot little house made of bamboo and mud. It did not have a bathroom, it did not have a kitchen, and my ma cooked on the street. And that's not just when I was a little kid but in high school and junior high school. When my ma passed away three years ago, two weeks before her passing away, she said, "Angie, I appreciate you so much. When you were in high school and junior high, I did not have to spend any money on you when you go to the school." I said, "Mom, I don't even remember that. I was just a nerd studying all the time." Then she said, "You remember all your school clothes were donated by the church members?" Okay. But at that time, we were renting a little apartment. Sometimes I opened my lunch box—it was purely rice and three pickles. But we never––my family and my parents tell us the discipline, the respect. We never missed a house payment to the landlord. I want you to know that I wasn't born with a silver spoon like some of the people might like to portray me. I am a CPA; I'm not a lawyer. My husband and I have lived in the same house for 35 years in Garland. We don't own any rental property.

The reason I filed this bill is because I have constituents coming to my office and sending me e-mails saying that they saved all their life to make some extra money in order to buy the home, pay the mortgage, and the taxes. Well, they can now claim the homestead exemption for their rental property, you know, and save their money in order to send their kid to school, save some for when they retire, get old, and subsidize their family living. Those are the people I'm sponsoring this bill for, not any lobbyist or whatever you want to say. Those are ordinary folks you get to see in your district. I don't know the statistics about my district––two-thirds or whatever are renters. I don't really know that. But my neighbors––maybe I'll stop there, because I never like to say anything negative about any of my colleagues. It doesn't matter which party they belong to, because I think that's a basic respect. I see that some of my colleagues are nodding their head. That's just my style.

But I do want to answer some of the questions. Yes, SB 38 does address squatting. SB 38 includes an expedited process called "summary disposition" that allows property owners to request judgment in any case of unauthorized occupancy—many of which are squatting cases where there are no disputed facts that would prevent a judgment for a property owner. In response to concerns raised by some members of this wonderful legislature, I have agreed to accept some amendments to SB 38 in order to limit the application of the summary disposition process to only forcible entry and detainer evictions. So it is really a squatter bill. But it also streamlines the process because we respected property rights earlier. A Democratic representative friend came to me and said––I'm not going to mention his name to embarrass him, okay, because I didn't have his permission. He has some properties, and he did say, "Wow, you know what? We have to pay our mortgage in order to keep those properties." I say, "Exactly."

I do want to give some feedback to the very important questions that had been asked previously, but I don't want to drag on too long because I know a lot of important bills are still pending. About the data—actually, there's another set of data I got. In Dallas County, there are so many squatters' cases. The people usually take 48 days to 68 days—and 78 days, 110 days. And just this morning, I got an e-mail––which I'm not going to mention the name because our constituents want to share their information––talking about how she has to wait for so long in order to get her property back.

COLLIER: Chair Button, will you commit to keeping all of the amendments on this bill that have been adopted today? Even if this bill goes to conference, will you commit to working to ensure that these amendments stay on the bill?

BUTTON: I am doing my very best, but I can only be responsible about what's going on in the house. The senate part—sorry, my arms are not that long to reach.

COLLIER: Will you commit to fighting to make sure that the house amendments that were added––that you represent the house when you go talk to the senate—that you keep the amendments and that you'll fight to keep the amendments on?

BUTTON: I will try my very best, especially if you support this one.

COLLIER: Well, I can't support it, but I do agree that we need to have an expedited process to eliminate squatters. My concern is that we're throwing tenants in, so we're blurring the difference between a tenant and a squatter. I agree, we have to have a quick process to remove a squatter, but your bill just lumps them in together. So under your bill, the way it's been amended, is there an expedited process to evict or remove a tenant?

BUTTON: It's a streamlined process and also a standardized process, like the issue about the Supreme Court decision for the emergency cases. It's part of the streamlined and standardized process.

COLLIER: Yes, but they will not be allowed to do the summary judgment if it's a tenant. Is that right?

BUTTON: That's right.

COLLIER: Okay. So then there's no expedited process for tenants, but there is an expedited process for squatters.

BUTTON: That's right. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that very much.

REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS DAVILA: Are you aware that I filed similar legislation to yours this session?

BUTTON: Kind of. I don't remember. There are so many bills.

HARRIS DAVILA: No worries. I'll just let you know, I wasn't the only member that did that. I think several members of this body filed similar legislation, and I am just thankful that you brought this. Are you aware that I have constituents who have been struggling with this as well? And are you aware that I met with a couple even in March of this year, and they were asking me to please support this bill and how important it is?

BUTTON: I heard about that.

[SB 38, as amended, was passed to third reading by Record No. 3417.]