Georgia CommonsComité Judiciary de la Cámara de Representantes
Comité Judiciary de la Cámara de Representantes, 26 de marzo de 2026
2025-2026 Regular Session · 132 CAP · 27 min
Esta es una transcripción automática del video de la Asamblea General, hecha por un modelo de reconocimiento de voz. No es un registro oficial y puede entender mal palabras, nombres y números. No se identifica a quienes hablan. El video es el registro: cada marca de tiempo enlaza al momento en que se reproduce.
El video es de la Asamblea General y se reproduce desde su canal de Vimeo. Seleccione cualquier tiempo de abajo para reproducir ese momento. Ver en el canal de Vimeo de la Asamblea General
Resumen
Escrito por un modelo de IA (gpt-6.1-sol) a partir de la transcripción. No forma parte del registro, y el video es lo que se dijo.
El comité retomó la consideración de SB 463 y aprobó un texto sustitutivo sobre los huéspedes de hoteles y las estadías prolongadas. Los miembros rechazaron cinco enmiendas que abordaban los registros de desalojo, la notificación y las oportunidades para subsanar incumplimientos del contrato, la participación de las fuerzas del orden, el restablecimiento del texto aprobado por el Senado de Georgia y la condición de inquilinos para los residentes de hoteles con estadías prolongadas. La presidencia confirmó que se habían recibido testimonios por escrito. Un miembro señaló que las personas que regresaron a la reunión no tuvieron oportunidad de testificar. El texto sustitutivo se aprobó mediante una votación a mano alzada, sin que se anunciara el recuento de votos, y el comité levantó la sesión.
Proyectos de ley tratados (1)
Cada relato abarca el tramo de la reunión que indica. El número del proyecto de ley se dice en ese tramo, salvo cuando era el único proyecto en la agenda de un comité.
SB 463. Specialized Land Transactions; business enterprises or business enterprises controlled by natural born persons from owning an interest in more than 500 single-family residential properties; prohibit
Desde 0:10:15 · turnos 1 a 129
Un miembro presentó una moción para aprobar un texto sustitutivo sobre los huéspedes de hoteles y las estadías prolongadas. Cuando se le preguntó por qué se habían eliminado las protecciones de los registros de desalojo, el miembro lo calificó de una decisión de política pública; el patrocinador dijo que no había solicitado su eliminación. Un miembro propuso cuatro enmiendas: restablecer las protecciones que impedían el acceso público a los registros de desalojo cuando los inquilinos ganaran el caso, cumplieran los acuerdos o hubieran transcurrido tres años desde la resolución; modificar las reglas sobre estadías en hoteles y notificaciones, incluido un umbral de 90 de cada 100 días, la exclusión de los fines de semana del plazo de notificación y las oportunidades para subsanar incumplimientos del contrato; eliminar una disposición sobre las fuerzas del orden; y restablecer el texto aprobado por el Senado de Georgia. El miembro dijo que los cambios en las reglas para hoteles evitarían la manipulación mediante cambios de habitación y permitirían a los huéspedes subsanar los incumplimientos. El miembro argumentó que la ley vigente sobre entrada o permanencia no autorizada en una propiedad era suficiente y que las fuerzas del orden ya estaban sobrecargadas. La vicepresidencia respondió que las fuerzas del orden necesitaban facultades más específicas y dijo que la legislación anterior sobre ocupantes ilegales había ayudado a reducir los casos pendientes en los tribunales. Los miembros también discreparon sobre si restablecer el texto del Senado de Georgia encajaba con el tema del texto sustitutivo. Otro miembro propuso tratar como inquilinos a los huéspedes que residieran en una habitación durante al menos 90 de cada 100 días, y dijo que esto respondería a una solicitud de la Corte Suprema de Georgia de definir la condición de inquilino. Las cinco enmiendas fueron rechazadas. La presidencia confirmó la recepción de testimonios por escrito; un miembro señaló que los asistentes que habían regresado no podían testificar. El comité aprobó el texto sustitutivo mediante una votación a mano alzada, sin que se anunciara el recuento.
Transcripción
132 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.
- 0:09:55
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're just a minute or two after 1:00, so we're gonna reconvene at this point. Uh, Representative Kelly.
- 0:10:07
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, uh, know before we left, uh, I had made a motion do pass on the underlying bill, Senate Bill 463. I would withdraw that motion, uh, at this time, and make a motion do pass on the committee sub LC492872S.
- 0:10:26
All right.
- 0:10:26
Second.
- 0:10:27
All right, got a motion and a second. And is there any discussion by the committee?
- 0:10:36
Representative Evans.
- 0:10:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It looks like the, um, expungement language was taken out, and I was wondering either from you or from the author why that has been removed when it sounded like the intention was to only move a copy with that language in it when we were here earlier.
- 0:10:58
Representative Kelly.
- 0:10:59
I appreciate, uh, that question since I made the motion on the sub. Uh, despite the author having, uh, you know, being willing to leave that in, that was the decision, um, that I felt was the proper policy working with others. And, um, I think that's all the explanation had. I understand your concerns. I understand the author and how he explained, uh, and discussed with you earlier, but, uh, that was just, uh, the path that, uh, decided to offer as his substitute.
- 0:11:31
Thank you.
- 0:11:34
All right.
- 0:11:39
All right, we got a motion and a second. Do ... Um, I know that there were some amendments submitted, and, uh, Representative Evans, you were ... You had about eight of those, I think. Uh, you should have a list that conforms to the sub that we have.
- 0:11:55
Yes, and I appreciate, um, that being put together.
- 0:12:01
And I guess I'll have, um ...
- 0:12:04
Thank you.
- 0:12:08
The first amendment that I would like to make would be to add back the expungement language from Senate Bill 61 as passed the Senate, and I'm just trying to find that.
- 0:12:23
Six.
- 0:12:23
So that would be Section 6 of HB61 SCSFA, which is to add language, um, the introductory language, but also the text would be, "A court of competent jurisdiction shall order all records of the court relating to a dispossessory proceeding to be made unavailable to the public when the tenant has prevailed in the proceeding, has met all the conditions of a settlement agreement, or three years have lapsed since the resolution of the dispossessory action," which we all had a copy of that, um, version earlier this morning.
- 0:12:59
Okay.
- 0:13:00
So I would move that as an amendment.
- 0:13:02
All right. Got a motion and a ... Do we have a second?
- 0:13:06
Second.
- 0:13:06
All right, we got a motion and a second. Uh, Chairman Smith.
- 0:13:10
Mr. Chairman, I, I do have a question, uh, just pure curiosity to my colleagues, uh, from the law opposition. Even with these, uh, this amendment or any other amendments that are proffered, uh, does that change y'all's vote in favor of the bill?
- 0:13:29
I mean, I can't speak for my colleagues. It, it depends. I ... One or all or less than some may or may not make a difference.
- 0:13:39
Okay. I, I'm reminded of William Jefferson Clinton, uh, and his definition of is almost, uh, with that one. But I, I, I understand. Thank you.
- 0:13:52
Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. Um,
- 0:14:00
any further discussion to this amendment? Hearing none ... Oh, wait a minute. Hang on.
- 0:14:06
This amendment was not objected to by the author of the Senate. Am I correct about that?
- 0:14:13
Ma'am, I did not, I did not ask for this to be removed.
- 0:14:17
I'm sorry?
- 0:14:18
I did not ask for this to be, for that to be removed.
- 0:14:20
Okay.
- 0:14:22
Okay. All right. Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor of this amendment say aye.
- 0:14:31
Aye.
- 0:14:31
Any opposed?
- 0:14:34
No.
- 0:14:34
Okay. Let's raise of hands. All those in favor raise your hand.
- 0:14:41
All those opposed.
- 0:14:45
It, it fails. All right. Um, next one.
- 0:14:52
Yeah. And the next one would be a collective amendment 'cause it's all in the same section. Um, and that would be starting on line 108,
- 0:15:07
to insert between,
- 0:15:16
between s- stays and for more than, insert the words on the premises. So that would say, "Shall not require a guest who stays on the premises for more than..." Um, and then on that same line, insert of 100 after the word 90. So that line would read, "That an innkeeper shall not require a guest who stays on the premises for more than 90 of 100 consecutive days." And the purpose of that amendment is to try to present, try to prevent some gamesmanship in moving in and out of different rooms.
- 0:15:56
Um, and 90 of 100 days, um, also provides some protection against gamesmanship. And then part of the same amendment would be on line 109 to delete the word, "Such guest's room," or, um, which just is a part of the changes in line 108. And then on line 110 to insert, "Weekends and," between the words "excluding" and "legal holidays." So until at least 10 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays.
- 0:16:38
And then on line 12, um, in an attempt to create some ability to cure, which we discussed this morning, seemed to have some bipartisan support, um, inserting the language I'm gonna read in just a minute between the words "vacate" and "shall be posted" on lines 112. Insert, "And the amount due to cure the alleged breach of contract." And then on line 117, and I think...
- 0:17:08
Do, is this passed around, this little sheet, Rob, so pe- people can follow around a little bit? Okay. So insert the words, before the, before the phrase, "The guest may be restrained," insert, "if the contract breach is cured." So that all goes to the, um, to the attempt to give some ability to cure, and to make that clear, um, to do that. And then on the last part of this collective amendment, 'cause it's all the same purpose and subject matter, that on line one, dele- deleting lines 133 to 139.
- 0:17:45
Oh, wait. I'm sorry. That's actually not true. Hold that thought. Delete lines 148 to 150, because that would, if we left that in, it would undermine what we're, what I'm proposing that we add in on the ability to cure. So basically, everything on your sheet except for the delete lines 133 to 139, and I would move that as an amendment.
- 0:18:04
Second.
- 0:18:05
All right. I have a motion and a second. Everybody understand the amendment? Any questions from the committee? Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment say aye.
- 0:18:21
Aye.
- 0:18:22
Any opposed?
- 0:18:26
No.
- 0:18:26
You want, you wanna count?
- 0:18:27
Division.
- 0:18:28
All right. Raise your right hand if you're for it.
- 0:18:32
All those opposed.
- 0:18:36
Okay, it fails.
- 0:18:41
All right. Uh, any other amendments?
- 0:18:44
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've got two more.
- 0:18:46
Okay. Oh, you got the 133 to 139.
- 0:18:49
Yes, and then I've got one more after that.
- 0:18:50
All right.
- 0:18:51
Um, the next amendment would be to, to delete lines 133 to 139, and this is because this section deals with, uh, essentially creating a new route to involve law enforcement, um, that is already strapped and that we've already put a lot more on this session. Um, and especially because we already have a law of criminal trespass that has elements and, and procedure in, I submit we don't need to add more. And so as a result, I propose as an amendment, or move as an amendment, deleting line 133 to 139.
- 0:19:22
Okay.
- 0:19:23
Second.
- 0:19:23
I got a motion and a second. Any discussion of the amendment? Vice Chair.
- 0:19:29
I remember this same argument two years ago regarding the original squatters bill, that criminal trespass laws are enough, they're sufficient. The folks in law enforcement said it's not. They needed something more specific in order to remove a squatter. And so, I oppose the amendment for that reason. I think the, the law two years ago helped clean out dockets in Gwinnett and Fulton, and this will do the same in hotels.
- 0:19:55
Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
- 0:20:00
Aye.
- 0:20:01
All those opposed?
- 0:20:03
No. Divisions.
- 0:20:06
All right. Raise your hand if you're for it. We got same number. Uh, those opposed.
- 0:20:16
Okay, it fails.
- 0:20:19
And one further amendment, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:20:20
Mm-hmm.
- 0:20:21
And that is to move that we add
- 0:20:29
at line
- 0:20:35
35, 335,
- 0:20:43
the entirety of the original Senate Bill 463, LC59-0336S, uh, a bill by Senator Dolezal that passed the Senate, um, would be to insert starting at lines 15 of that, of that bill to the end, insert at line 335, and then also to make the, the necessary additions from line one through 14, um, at the end of line 17.
- 0:21:14
And the, the point of this amendment would be to, um, allow Senator Dole- Dolezal's bill, which did pass the Senate-
- 0:21:21
Okay
- 0:21:21
... to continue through with, uh, the new version of Senate Bill 463. I would move that as, as an amendment.
- 0:21:27
Second.
- 0:21:27
All right. Motion and second. Um-
- 0:21:32
I'll, I'll yield to Representative Kelly-
- 0:21:34
Okay
- 0:21:35
... if, if he went first.
- 0:21:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we may be on the same vein here. I, you know, I offer this as a committee sub. We've, uh, get a motion to pass on the committee sub, which had specifically removed, uh, that language. Mr. Chairman, I feel this issue's already been, been taken up. I would ask us to, uh, have that motion out of order.
- 0:21:58
Vice Chair.
- 0:21:59
And I'd further make the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair, whether, um, the previous Dolezal substance is germane to hotel squatting.
- 0:22:08
Okay.
- 0:22:13
I have a question on that point. Uh, well, if, if Senator Dolezal's bill originally is not germane to the issue of squatters and long-term motel stays, then I would question whether the substitute would be germane to the original bill, whether we could do what we're trying to do in the first place.
- 0:22:29
I, I think we can. Um, all right, who's over here?
- 0:22:35
Mr. Chairman, it would be my, my position that if, if the bill is stripped out in a blank slate, then it's germane to whatever we put in there.
- 0:22:43
Mm. Agree. All right. So where am I at? I've lost my, lost my place. We got your motion and a second. Oh, all right. So all those in favor, raise your hand. Go ahead and count. All those opposed?
- 0:23:04
All right, that motion fails. All right, so we're back to...
- 0:23:13
Do you have something?
- 0:23:14
Turn it off.
- 0:23:14
Oh, you're trying to turn it off? Okay. All right. Any further amendments?
- 0:23:22
Representative Oliver?
- 0:23:23
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, uh, to do what I believe the Georgia Supreme Court asked us to do, which is to define tenancy for, uh, residents of long-term extended hotels. And therefore, the amendment, and I've made a copy of this, this is something that, um, was offered in the Senate and was not passed, but I'm gonna give it another chance here today. Uh, beginning on line 107, after the semicolon, uh, insert the language that, "Provided, however, that a guest who resides in a room for 90 days or more in 100-day period of time shall be deemed a tenant under Chapter 7 of Title 44.
- 0:24:07
For purposes of this paragraph, the term reside shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 16-7-21.1." The point of that is to define tenancy for a person who has lived in an extended hotel for 90 days out of 100.
- 0:24:26
Okay. I have a motion.
- 0:24:28
Second.
- 0:24:29
All right, I have a motion and a second. I'll start over here on 16, Chairman Smith. No?
- 0:24:35
No.
- 0:24:35
All right. Uh, who's got 12?
- 0:24:39
Mark.
- 0:24:41
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, maybe the, uh, the, the great attorney sitting next to me has just answered my question. Never mind.
- 0:24:51
Vice Chair Reeves?
- 0:24:52
Representative Oliver, did, did this amendment pass the Senate?
- 0:24:55
It did not.
- 0:24:55
Okay. Thank you.
- 0:24:56
I'm giving it another chance in a body with greater wisdom. And I have the perspective of both bodies that I can assert that opinion.
- 0:25:06
Okay. All right. Uh, Chairman Smith?
- 0:25:10
After, after this amendment, Mr. Chair.
- 0:25:12
Okay. All right.
- 0:25:16
Then I'll clear it.
- 0:25:16
Okay. Uh, any further discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, uh, all those in favor raise your right hand.
- 0:25:26
Okay. And, uh, those opposed? It, it fails. All right. Now, Chairman Smith.
- 0:25:36
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the previous question.
- 0:25:38
All right. Representative Evans.
- 0:25:44
I just wanted to, to, um, ask if we received any written, uh, testimony.
- 0:25:49
We have.
- 0:25:49
And we did have a number of people, just for the record, we had a number of people come back and, um, no ability to offer any testimony was had.
- 0:25:57
Understood. Thank you. All right. Um, all those in favor of the passage of... Let's see, we're doing
- 0:26:08
the substitute on Senate Bill 463, 492872S. Uh, those in favor raise your hand.
- 0:26:22
All those opposed?
- 0:26:26
Okay. All right. It, it passes. Uh,
- 0:26:34
substitute passes, so that's it. That it?
- 0:26:38
Yeah.
- 0:26:38
We're adjourned.