House Judiciary Committee, March 26, 2026

Transcript

320 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:14:28

   All right, ladies and gentlemen, uh, I have a quorum and I think we're about ready to go, and I'm gonna call on our vice chair to open us up.

2. 0:14:36

   Let's pray. Dear Lord, the week left to go in this session, we pray that you will redeem the time here under the Gold Dome, and we ask for your blessings on these proceedings. In Christ's name, amen.

3. 0:14:46

   Amen. All right. Uh, okay, let me, uh, explain a little bit. Um, I got some good questions yesterday from, uh, Mary Margaret about what in the heck are we doing?

4. 0:15:01

   She phrased it differently.

5. 0:15:02

   Yeah. Y- y- you did. So, uh, um, I don't think we're going that route today. And, uh, the reason we're doing all of this is this is a House bill that was tabled here and never got vetted by a House committee, and it has now come over from the Senate in House Bill 61, and so we've got to vet this, and that's why we're here.

6. 0:15:33

   That's what we're doing today. So I just wanted to explain that to y'all so that you kinda understand what the foolishness was all about from yesterday. All right. So, uh, with that, uh, we're gonna take up ... You have a copy of HB 61 SCSFA is the LC number on it. Is that right?

7. 0:15:57

   Uh, 6301 77S is what I have.

8. 0:16:07

   Okay.

9. 0:16:08

   SCSFA is what I have?

10. 0:16:09

    Yep.

11. 0:16:10

    Okay.

12. 0:16:14

    So this is the Senate substitute.

13. 0:16:16

    Yes, sir.

14. 0:16:16

    Okay.

15. 0:16:17

    All right.

16. 0:16:22

    All right, so g- go ahead and, uh-

17. 0:16:25

    Okay

18. 0:16:25

    ... hope you have a chance to get familiar with it.

19. 0:16:28

    I'm pretty familiar with it.

20. 0:16:30

    Okay.

21. 0:16:30

    Um, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleagues here. This language got added to Senate Bill, uh, House Bill 61, Senate, uh, substitute, and it's come over to the House for an agree, disagree. And I ask the chairman and the speaker to speak to this committee before we bring that to the floor for a vote, 'cause I value all of your opinions and I, and I appreciate the hard work that we've put into this, um, so I didn't want it to be the first time you heard it to be on the floor of the House.

22. 0:17:05

    Is that fair?

23. 0:17:06

    Yes. Thank you.

24. 0:17:09

    So House Bill 61, um, it went over to the ... I had a House Bill 61 that was a EMS license plate bill that went over to the Senate. That issue was resolved administratively by the Department of Motor Ve- Motor Vehicles, and Senator Albers, uh, stripped the bill and put his squatter legislation in the bill, and I added my innkeeper legislation in the bill. That's what you see before us, is, uh, this has been through many revisions, 'cause we continued to work on that bill in the Senate, um, all the way up until the floor vote, where you added an amendment on the floor vote.

25. 0:17:52

    Uh, a couple of you brought to my attention regarding long-term housing, people that stay in extended-stay hotels for more than 90 days. We added an amendment, uh, Senator Halpern, uh, drafted an amendment that allows a 10-day grace period before, uh, anybody can be removed. Um, that was a big, uh, plus. Uh, also added to 61 was, um, an amendment that will wipe evictions off of a person's record who gets served an eviction, but they never get convicted, or they never get evicted.

26. 0:18:31

    So if they pay their fees, after three years the eviction will be expunged from the record. Those were two amendments made on the Senate floor. Um, the rest of the bill,

27. 0:18:48

    the rest, rest of the bill addresses squatting. Uh, addresses squatting and tenant-landlord relationships, the first part of the bill. Um, and it closes some loopholes that we unanimously passed in this house in 2024 regarding squatting in homes. You go on vacation, somebody moves into your house, changes the locks. You come home and you can't get in your house. Nobody agrees that that's fair. Um, it was a, a long process for you to get back in your house, so you're having to find temporary housing while you go to the courts and ask for adjudication to get some, a, a thief out of your house.

28. 0:19:29

    House Bill 61 will change that. Upon sworn affidavit by you that they don't have a right to be there, they will be removed by the police, and they have the opportunity to go to the court system and get their right to be in your house adjudicated if they ch- if they so choose to. If they refuse to leave, they'll be arrested. Um, that's the gist of that part. In Section 5, and y'all are learned, uh,

29. 0:19:57

    learned attorneys, so, um, I'm not gonna try to read the-

30. 0:20:01

    Representative Seabaugh, with that last one that you were just talking about, um, could the reverse happen? Have a squatter come in and say, "That's my house," and swear up and down that, that it is, and then have the true owner kicked out?

31. 0:20:18

    Um-

32. 0:20:19

    Under the language of this-

33. 0:20:20

    It could h- it could happen, but, um ... So w- we put in there the sworn affidavit. You have to sh- the owner would have to swear on affidavit.

34. 0:20:28

    Well, but if he's not the owner and he's a squatter and he's a-

35. 0:20:31

    They would have to show a deed to the home. They'd have to show Proof that they own the home. Did it, uh, specify the proof? In other words, is- Uh- ... they gonna have to do a warranty deed or a quick claim deed?

36. 0:20:46

    It does, it does, uh, it does require that. Um, I can find it if you need me to, but it, it does, uh- It does specify the- It does specify ... the type of- Okay. Um- Yeah, uh, that's on line 285.

37. 0:21:05

    Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can ask the sponsor a few questions. Yeah. Um, uh, Floor Leader Seabaugh, uh, House Bill 61 in the Senate, did it pass on a bipartisan basis with Senator Halpern, um, Howard, uh, Manuel Jones, Rhett and Wicks voting for it? Um, I believe that's correct. And would you agree that with the World Cup coming to Georgia, and with summer travel season coming up, with hotels being used by paying customers, that we need hotel rooms to be available for paying customers?

38. 0:21:39

    We do. That is the crutch of the bill. Not the World Cup, but there's been some noise in the Hall, and I know there's been some concern, um, about women and children staying, extended stay, getting thrown out of hotels if this passes. This actually protects those individuals. This is for criminal squatters that have no right to be in a hotel room, or that come into a hotel room for a day and they, they will not leave. And now they're exploiting the system, uh, making the hoteliers go through an eviction, a long, drawn out eviction process that's costing millions of dollars.

39. 0:22:18

    Um, and that's what this, this tackles. And Georgia's not the only one doing this. Florida just recently passed, uh, this same type legislation. Chicago, I believe, has passed some, uh, strong legislation including hotel squatters. Um, it's, it's a nationwide problem. It's a big problem in Georgia. What we did, uh, were able to accomplish in 2024, it helped a lot. I'd say over 50, 50, 60% of our squatting cases have, have gone away.

40. 0:22:51

    Um, this just closes the, the loopholes that are continuing to be used by these criminals, is what they are. I mean, these are not the, the mothers and fathers that have fallen on hard times and need temporary housing. That is not who this addresses. It actually protects those folks. It protects paying guests that have a contract, um, and makes sure that our temporary housing is available to the people that need them. And we have a number of non-profits and NGOs, that's their purpose, uh, i- in life, is to help clothe and feed our most vulnerable f- folks, and the hotel is a piece of that.

41. 0:23:31

    It's not all of that, but it is a piece of that. But it is a business. Hotels are not a charity, and, um, they become a charity because of these, uh, folks that don't have a right to be there. And you mentioned Florida enacting a hotel squatter law. Did Florida do that after we enacted our squatter law in 2024? Uh, they j- they just, uh, recently added the h- hotels and business community to that. They had a residential squatting law about the same time we did.

42. 0:24:01

    Uh, but they've just now added their, uh, entertainment, hotel, and businesses to this as well. We, this happens at businesses, they move into a corporate office and claim it as their own. So it's a, it's a big problem. Um, so I hope that answers your question in a long, drawn out manner. All right. Uh, Representative Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Seabaugh, um, and you are the governor's floor leader, and you've been addressed as such as this meeting.

43. 0:24:33

    Is this the governor's bill? It is not. Um, uh, I have a little bit of a question about the posture that we're in, um, but I wanna ask you your intention. So I know that House bills, you told us what happened with House Bill 61 over in the Senate, and I understand the chairman saying we're gonna vet the Senate changes to 61 before they come over here. But you came in here today prepared to talk to us about House Bill 183, and you read off the LC number for that bill, and that's the bill we came in here to talk about yesterday that didn't get pulled off the table.

44. 0:25:08

    So I can only assume that, until this morning at least, your intention was to move for an agree as amended by the House or some, some sort, that had the language of LC63-0177S. M- Ms. Evans, that wasn't him. That was me. Okay. Well, I wanna ask him, though, if the intention is to move the language from 630- 0177S. And the reason I ask that is because while it includes some of the language that the Senate added, it does not include the amendment that would allow expungement of evictions.

45. 0:25:44

    And so I want to be very clear in asking you publicly today, what is your intention, and do you have an understanding that anyone has a different intention on which version to move for the agree? It's in section six. I'm asking a question to the- Yeah ... to the presenter. Yeah. No, my intention is to move House Bill 61 that will hopefully come to the floor of the House for an agree. Your intention is not to move a version of 61 or 183 or any other number regarding the topic that we're here to talk to today that does not include the expungement language?

46. 0:26:21

    It does. House Bill 61- Right ... that we're discussing right now includes the expungement language. I'm asking if you have any intention to move on the House floor as part of the agree, disagree process any version of these bills that would not include the expungement language. I do not. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

47. 0:26:41

    which, which one are you ... Is that 16?

48. 0:26:45

    This is 16. Okay. Got it.

49. 0:26:49

    I'd like to begin, if anybody knows, how much money did we give the metro chamber to support the hotel industry for the FIFA people coming?

50. 0:27:00

    I don't know.

51. 0:27:02

    60 million? 40 million? Does anybody know?

52. 0:27:07

    I do not know the answer to that. I'm not on that.

53. 0:27:09

    No, you're 18.

54. 0:27:11

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm not on for that, but I will say that I personally brought, um, the organization Partners for Home to meet with Speaker Burns this summer. And, um, they pressed very hard, and I'm very pleased to say that the governor is including $50 million in the proposed budget, um, for the homeless. And, um, I think that's, I think that's a very generous amount to try to help these people that, that are not, that don't have housing.

55. 0:27:36

    W- the $50 million is something we've all been supporting for years, and I'm very happy that that came forward this year. I'm just trying to figure out the exact financial transaction we made with the hotel industry and-

56. 0:27:48

    I, I know of no such transaction.

57. 0:27:51

    Uh, if I may, if, if it's back to me, Mr. Chairman.

58. 0:27:54

    Go ahead.

59. 0:27:55

    I'd like to begin where this issue began, particularly with the extended stay hotel families. Uh, can you tell me where in the case the language was set forth by, um, uh, Justice Clarence Thomas' law clerk, M- Justice Pinon, that, uh, tenants have some rights, residents of long-term hotels have some rights to tenancy?

60. 0:28:25

    Sure.

61. 0:28:25

    Can you begin... That's where I'd like to begin our analysis today.

62. 0:28:28

    Yeah, I'd-

63. 0:28:28

    What did that case say that brings us to this analysis?

64. 0:28:32

    Well, excuse me. I'm not an attorney. I don't want to litigate Neason v. Efficiency Lodge. But you are correct that in the case of Neason v. Efficiency Lodge, the court found that under the specific facts of that case, uh, that the individual who had stayed in an extended stay property for a prolonged period of time and paid on a recurring basis could be considered a tenant rather than a guest. My understanding is that decision was based on the particular circumstances before the court.

65. 0:29:04

    Do we know how long that particular tenant had been staying in that extended stay hotel?

66. 0:29:11

    I do not.

67. 0:29:13

    Uh, do you have an opinion yourself as to how long a family living in a hotel room for an extended stay should be there, whereupon they then would be granted some form of tenant rights as thought through-

68. 0:29:29

    Yes

69. 0:29:29

    ... in this case by Justice Pinon?

70. 0:29:31

    So I'll say this. Nothing in House Bill 61 prevents a hotel or, uh, uh, running an extended stay from entering a lease tenant agreement with someone. Extended stays in hotels operate off of contracts from date certain to date certain. And by the conclusion of that contract, the rights and privileges of occupying that room are withdrawn, and they s- have to sign another contract.

71. 0:30:04

    They're usually on... Most of them are on day-to-day, week-to-week basis.

72. 0:30:08

    Okay. In your language of 61-SCSFA sets forth a new contract where specifically in this bill for families living in extended stay hotels?

73. 0:30:22

    It d- it does not. It,

74. 0:30:27

    it's, it operates under... W- what we're trying to do is clarify the innkeeper-guest relationship, doesn't clarify tenant-landlord relationship. It's innkeeper-guest relationship. And at no time does length of stay become the sole determining factor, um, for someone under contract staying in an extended stay become a tenant.

75. 0:30:51

    Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I think that's exactly what Justice Pinon asked this Georgia General Assembly to do, is to clarify what this relationship is. And I'm not... I'm trying to get towards what does this particular HB 61-SCSFA tell us is the new relationship that may exist. That's what I'm trying to get towards, and I'm, I'm tr- I'm stumbling here about how this bill helps us.

76. 0:31:19

    Okay. Well, call on, uh, the whip. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On line 141, I think this answers the question, uh, if I'm not mistaken. "Notwithstanding any provision of law, when an innkeeper furnishes accom- accommodation to a guest on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis, an innkeeper-guest relationship shall be presumed to exist regardless of such guest length of stay or frequency or method of payment." Does that, does that go to your question?

77. 0:31:43

    I don't know what that means. It, it might go to the, the question that Justice Pinon said, but I'm just not sure what that means. I think that the court... This is what I think, and of course, it's my view. I think the court asked us to be specific to define this relationship, but I don't believe this does.

78. 0:32:03

    On line 152, Representative, it s- uh, it says, "Nothing in this code section shall be construed to prohibit the innkeeper and guest from agreeing to an alternate remedy in lieu of removal from the property upon the expiration of a written contract under this code section."

79. 0:32:20

    And I agree that's what it says, and that's my problem. It doesn't give us a bright line for defining for this family who's been there six months to years, paying $75 to $100 a day, uh, what their relationship is with the hotel industry.

80. 0:32:35

    Well, I think it says, it says right here, "Guest length of stay, frequency, or method of payment, provided that such guest entered into a valid contract designating the relationship," so 145 Between the parties as innkeeper and guest, such congregations will provide a day-to-day or week-to-week. So I think that clearly says that regardless of how long you stay, if you've been there 15, 15 months, you're on a day-to-day to week-to-week. You're not on a yearly, annually, or monthly.

81. 0:32:56

    And I don't think that's what the Georgia Supreme Court intended. That's, that's my view of that case.

82. 0:33:02

    Just because there was no guiding language? Is that, is that your position?

83. 0:33:06

    I think that they want us to give guiding language, and I-

84. 0:33:10

    But you don't think-

85. 0:33:11

    ... sorry to my colleagues, I don't believe this gives us such language.

86. 0:33:13

    I think this is pretty, pretty clear guiding language in that if you are staying there for a year, you're still on a, on day-to-day, week-to-week basis. Is that your understanding, um, uh, Representative Seabaugh? That is. Representative Seabaugh, um, thank you for being a champion for this whole issue. Thank you for walking us through this process. Thank you for allowing us to vet this bill. I think this is a measure that is going to be helpful. I think we've been backwards for so many years, uh, in the state of Georgia, where if you come home and someone's in your home, then you have to go to court and prove that that's your home versus, uh, being able to take your property back and then require that person, who is basically just taking possession of your home, to go and make their case.

87. 0:33:55

    This is a, a common sense bill. I've had many folks, not just in Atlanta or metro area, in rural Georgia, I had a woman call me and say that a man just moved in on her property, uh, with a camper, and now she is having to foot the bill for an attorney and go to the magistrate court and dispossess this guy and make the case that he shouldn't belong there, and he just found a, a vacant piece of property he can move on to. This would provide for a, uh, property rights, uh, position or, uh, a property...

88. 0:34:27

    It's more property rights friendly in my opinion in that you bought the property. You went through the process of hiring an attorney to closing the property. It is yours. You have the, the right to sole possession, and if somebody just moves in on your property, you should be able to kick them off without having the, uh, to hire an attorney and, and spend 60 to 90 days in rural Georgia. In, in, in Atlanta, I think it's more like 18 months to get someone dispossessed. This is a good provision. Thank you for bringing the provision. Thank you for allowing us to vet.

89. 0:34:56

    Mr. Chairman, I'm happy for Mr.... for the whip and I to go back and forth out of order if, if he wants to. But he's talking about squatters. I'm talking about hotel extended stay, and that's the distinction I'm trying to make with my colleagues. I'm not talking about squatters. I'm talking about extended stay hotels.

90. 0:35:15

    Okay. Thanks. And I would, I would submit to you that a squa- a squatter can be s- squatting in an, in a hotel if they're not making the payment to stay there.

91. 0:35:25

    I think there's two different... Th- the... One of the problems, one of the challenges we have, and this is not an easy challenge, tenant, hotel occupant, extended stay. And extended stay is where I'm trying to focus our attention, and I'm happy for us to go back and forth however the chairman wants us to, interrupting each other. That's fine with me.

92. 0:35:44

    And my light was on. I don't know if your light was on.

93. 0:35:46

    I don't have a light.

94. 0:35:46

    I got some-

95. 0:35:48

    I don't have a light.

96. 0:35:49

    I got some others. Didn't mean to, didn't mean to cut you off. I'm gonna give them a chance first, all right? We'll come back to y'all in just a little bit. Y'all, y'all keep talking though. All right, uh, Representative Kelley.

97. 0:35:59

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I... Kind of going to, you know, the posture we're in here, we are starting to debate language that is potentially gonna be offered as an amendment.

98. 0:36:10

    Mm-hmm.

99. 0:36:11

    I think procedurally, I would like to make a motion do pass on the underlying bill so that then we can get into the language of offering an amendment.

100. 0:36:18

     A- and that's true. I did not explain to the committee that this is gonna go... We're gonna strip out Senate Bill 463, and whatever we decide hopefully goes into that.

101. 0:36:29

     Well, it's-

102. 0:36:30

     It's-

103. 0:36:30

     Okay

104. 0:36:31

     ... So, Mr. Chairman, under that g- uh, that guidance, I, you know, one, I think it's... If it wasn't so sad to be comical that the Democrats in this committee are more interested with standing up for people who are stealing space in people's private property than they were to protect people from their property taxes. But I would make a motion do pass on Senate Bill 463.

105. 0:36:51

     Second. All right, got a motion and a second. Now, we'll have discussion about-

106. 0:36:55

     Length and span

107. 0:36:56

     ... the amendments. Um-

108. 0:36:57

     This 463, I think, is a blank piece of paper somewhere up.

109. 0:37:02

     463 is this bill here.

110. 0:37:05

     Okay.

111. 0:37:06

     It's Dolezal's bill.

112. 0:37:08

     The corporate ownership bill?

113. 0:37:11

     Whatever his bill was. I think it was that. I think that's what it was.

114. 0:37:15

     Got it.

115. 0:37:17

     All right. Now, let's see. Vice Chair.

116. 0:37:22

     Floor Leader Seabaugh, you're from Cobb County, right?

117. 0:37:24

     Yeah, I am.

118. 0:37:25

     My, my favorite lawyer in Cobb County is former Governor Roy Barnes, and in the Efficiency Lodge case, uh, he represented the, uh, extended stay hotel to the best of his ability. And in that case, the facts were very extreme. Isn't it true that in that case, the, the tenants had been there for years. The payments, uh, everybody called rent. There was no paperwork. Uh, they had moved their own furniture into the rooms. There was no, uh, housekeeping in the rooms.

119. 0:37:58

     Um, and then the Supreme Court, they didn't make a decision on that case. They provided some law and guidance and sent it back to the trial court to sort out a very, very vague mess that is different than the paperwork. Your bill says, "Let's clearly state on the paperwork. Let's have a contract. If somebody's been there 90 days and there's a dispute on whether they've paid or not, they get 10 days to sort that out before any action is taken." Isn't it true that your bill responds to that very extreme case that Governor Barnes had and the more typical situation that's happening, that was happening in Florida that they put an end to and that we're trying to put an end to in this bill, which is to make sure that when somebody checks into a hotel and has paperwork that says, "Here are the terms that you can be here," and that's violated, that that room is cleared out for a paying customer.

120. 0:38:51

     Isn't that true?

121. 0:38:52

     That is true.

122. 0:38:55

     Okay. All right. Representative Evans.

123. 0:39:00

     Mr. Chairman, um, did, did we pass something in 2024? I've, I've heard we gotta have this language about squatters because of something in 2024, but we passed something in 2024, right? So are we... What, what about what we did in 2024 wasn't working for us, or what's different?

124. 0:39:20

     Well, what's different is now, upon sworn affidavit, the law enforcement can remove a person from a property that has no right to be there upon sworn affidavit of the owner of the property, uh, under, you know, sworn affidavit. It would be a felony to false swear, correct?

125. 0:39:41

     Yeah, yeah, but well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Why are we doing it again?

126. 0:39:45

     That's not what we did in 2020-20. In 2024, we gave the intruder, the squatter, the ability to file with the court usually a fake lease. The court had so many days to, I think it was seven days, to determine if the lease was valid or not, and then if it wasn't valid, the eviction process started, uh, so it, it turned into about 10 days. So we took it from two years to about 10 days.

127. 0:40:15

     This takes it immediately, it gets the intruder out of your home, and then allows for the adjudication process if the intruder feels like they were wrongfully removed.

128. 0:40:29

     Okay. Um, this may be a better question for the chairman. Um, could, could we please have a copy of Senate Bill 463?

129. 0:40:37

     Sure. If you got time.

130. 0:40:42

     That's the, the mo- the, the move due pass was to pass Senate Bill 463, and I think it's the intention of this committee to amend it, but-

131. 0:40:50

     Mm-hmm

132. 0:40:50

     ... at this time, we've moved to pass a bill that no one at this table has in front of them.

133. 0:40:54

     Okay.

134. 0:40:57

     And I wanted to ask the author, um-

135. 0:40:59

     I know you do have your computers over there, and you can look it up.

136. 0:41:03

     I guess that's true, but-

137. 0:41:04

     It might be a slant that came over, but, uh, we'll get, we'll get copies of it for everybody.

138. 0:41:08

     Um, Representative Seabaugh, is it your intention to, to create a framework in Georgia where as long as there is a day-to-day or week-to-week contract that in... There's always gonna be a presumption of an innkeeper relationship as opposed to a landlord-tenant situation, even if that occurs at an apartment complex, for example, or a motel that's been converted to an apartment complex?

139. 0:41:38

     'Cause that would seem to be what the language that the whip was reading earlier would do.

140. 0:41:45

     I just wondered if that's your intention.

141. 0:41:46

     My intent is if you enter a contract with an innkeeper-guest relationship, that at no time does time alone convert that into a landlord-tenant agreement. If you want a landlord-tenant agreement, then you sign a landlord-tenant agreement at some point certain. But the innkeepers operate under contracts from day certain to day certain, and I think the law, and I think what this does is makes that clear. If you're under an innkeeper-guest relationship, you're not afforded the judicial process of a tenant-landlord relationship.

142. 0:42:26

     Do you have any objection to having some sort of right to cure within this, um, for someone who stayed more than 90 consecutive days? We have this, um, new 10-day notice period. Do you have any objection to a right to cure within those 10 days to be able to allow the person to stay at that point?

143. 0:42:46

     I believe that's the intent of the 10 days, um, for whatever reason. Um, e- either non-payment, maybe human trafficking, it may be drug-related. Um, but any violation of the contract of which they're staying is a reason for them being asked to leave. So whatever cure can happen within that 10 days is, it may be payment, I d- I don't know.

144. 0:43:18

     Um, I have a representative from the Hotelers Association here that might be able to answer that question, but, um-

145. 0:43:25

     I would assume we are gonna take testimony even though this meeting was posted publicly 30 minutes before we started. We obviously have a lot of people here that have probably come at great inconvenience given the lack of public notice. So I, I would assume we're gonna take testimony, and we'll look forward to that. Um, but I'd rather just ask questions to you right now if that's okay. Um, I think my last question for you, Representative Seabaugh, is, ha- have you... Well, it's a, it's a two-part question. I'm just gonna set a little background. Have you ever seen the movie The Florida Project?

146. 0:43:56

     I have not.

147. 0:43:57

     So for, for you, for the benefit of you and for the committee, it's a movie. It award- it won some awards. It was a, it was a great movie. It's a very sad movie. It talks about, um, an extended stay hotel in Florida that is, you know, in the shadows of the happiest place on earth. It's right next to Disney World.

148. 0:44:13

     Question or testimony?

149. 0:44:13

     I am... No, I'm, I'm asking a question. I, I said very clearly that I was gonna set some background to explain what I'm, what my question is.

150. 0:44:19

     Yeah, we're just, we're not in the mode of po- of, uh, testifying from the committee.

151. 0:44:23

     I'm-

152. 0:44:23

     It's a question

153. 0:44:24

     ... I'm asking a question of the representative, but I'm setting background. So The Florida Project, it's this extended stay hotel, and there's a woman that lives there with her children, and in order to keep that woman from becoming a tenant, what that motel does for her and many other guests is about every month, for one night, they move them to the motel across the street, and then they move back into the same room they left at that motel 24 hours later, and that's how they get around it. I have a fear with the language that we put here that we are gonna set up a scenario where- Not only could that scenario happen, but also the innkeeper could just simply move someone to a different room for a night and put them back.

154. 0:45:06

     And I wanna know if that's your intention, or if you would have any objection to me proposing language that would prevent such a loophole?

155. 0:45:18

     I'd like to see whatever language you... I mean, I'm happy to look at any language you come up with, uh-

156. 0:45:22

     Let me ask you this.

157. 0:45:23

     Let me-

158. 0:45:23

     Do you think that's a good thing?

159. 0:45:25

     Let me, let me finish answering your question. I think hoteliers right now have the opportunity not to rent for more than 90 days. I think without this legislation, they certainly could s- stop renting after 30 days, and make families that are, have been living in extended stays for whatever reason, move. And I don't think that's what this committee or this legislation is wanting to happen. But a- as of right now, they're, they're day certain to day certain on a contract, and they can, the, the hotelier can certainly, um, have them move if, if they so choose to.

160. 0:46:05

     I think this better protects them, uh, for long, long-term stay.

161. 0:46:12

     Well, then my final question for you on that topic is, do you have any objection to us at least trying to prevent at least the innkeeper moving someone from room to room to avoid the protections that we're trying to set up for someone that's staying 90 days?

162. 0:46:28

     I- I'm happy to look at any amendments the committee's willing to make.

163. 0:46:32

     I'll take that non-answer. Thank you.

164. 0:46:36

     Vice Chair.

165. 0:46:38

     Floor Leader Seabaugh, um, isn't it true that the Asian American Hotel Association and other hotel groups, uh, the Georgia American Hotel and Lodging Association, have asked for this bill because in hotels, just like with the squatters before the 2024 law for homes, uh, there are people gaming the system and using buzzwords. They, they say, "I'm a resident," at a hotel, and, and the police are leaving and not enforcing our innkeeper laws.

166. 0:47:08

     And this bill provides clarity to make sure that Georgia's laws about hotels are enforced rather than ignored. Isn't that true?

167. 0:47:17

     That is true. And, you know, these are not business travelers that this law is addressing. These are criminals that are taking advantage of the housing situation. It's not about... Again, this is not a referendum on the unhoused or families that have fallen on hard times. This is a referendum on the criminals that are taking advantage of the loopholes in our current laws that allow them to move from property to property and think they can stay for free.

168. 0:47:49

     It's on individuals that are scamming the system. It's on individuals that are using these rooms to traffic young men and women, traffic drugs. And the noise about women and children being put out on the street is just noise. Uh, I think this protects those, that population that this, uh, some on this committee seem to be worried about. Um, this bill protects the guests in the hotels from illegal activity. Um, it protects the safety and security of the employees having to deal with these criminals that are staying in these hotels.

169. 0:48:27

     Um, and that's, that's the purpose of this bill. I think this is transformative legislation that I think is going to help our number two economic driver in the state of Georgia, in our hotel and tourism entertainment industry. And, uh, I just ask for your favorable consideration.

170. 0:48:49

     Okay, I'm going to Silcox, and then I'm coming to Leverett, Mary Margaret, and then, uh, okay, and our leader over here. Okay. All right.

171. 0:49:01

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did hear back from the Metro Chamber, and to answer, uh, Representative Oliver's question, they have received $0 from the hotels, and they haven't requested any money for hotels. Um, they said they have received funding for the Georgia World Congress Center for Public Safety, since they have a very large footprint to secure this summer, and they've had a lot of personnel overtime working on that.

172. 0:49:28

     Is there a dollar number that they-

173. 0:49:30

     I did not ask them, but I can certainly request that.

174. 0:49:34

     Thank you.

175. 0:49:34

     Okay. All right. Chairman Leverett.

176. 0:49:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Seabaugh, um, I- I recall the squatting, anti-squatting legislation that you, as I recall, carried a few years ago, and it, it, it, it appears that Sections 1 through 4 and 8 of this bill are attempting to address that issue, um, either in a complimentary way or in an additional way or in a different way, I'm not sure which, but those all seem to be related to squatting, 1 through 4 and 8.

177. 0:50:08

     1 through 4 seem to talk about criminal penalties and criminal cross-references to squatting code sections. Um, 4, Section 4, we seem to be deleting a lot of existing law about squatting, which I'm assuming comes from your legislation. And then, um, 7, well, 8 also seems to be dealing with squatting. Then 5 is sort of the innkeeper, um, uh,

178. 0:50:40

     innkeeper-guest relationship versus landlord-tenant issue. And then 6 is the expungement of, uh, records for, um, of evictions after, under certain circumstances. And then 7, uh, I think just seems to have to, I'm, I'm, I'm assuming sort of deals with the role sheriff's play when they're serving writ of possession and, and executing some of these kind of orders. Is that, am I-

179. 0:51:07

     You're correct

180. 0:51:07

     ... right so far?

181. 0:51:08

     You're correct.

182. 0:51:08

     Okay. So, uh, am I, am I correct, we're taking out, or i- if, if we were to pass this, we would be removing some of what you- y- your legislative initiative and replacing it with this amended, uh, provision with regard to squatting, first of all?

183. 0:51:27

     That's correct, and those, those were purposefully taken out-

184. 0:51:32

     Okay

185. 0:51:32

     ... and amended.

186. 0:51:33

     And then the section that seems to be drawing more attention, I think, is section five, which addresses a, I would say, related issue, but somewhat different issue of sort of, you, you know, what, what are the relative rights of innkeepers and guests, and do those convert to a different kind of legal relationship at some point, depending upon length of stay?

187. 0:51:59

     That's correct. It's mainly to clarify the innkeeper-guest relationship.

188. 0:52:03

     And it, it seems to me that we're trying to, just reading section five, that there's a focus on making sure that innkeepers have contracts that disclose the terms under which the person can stay in the inn, for lack of a better word.

189. 0:52:19

     They do, and that's under current law. They must... They have to have a contract. Um-

190. 0:52:24

     But I think we're elaborating-

191. 0:52:26

     We are

192. 0:52:26

     ... in this bill to make sure that the expectations of the parties are at least addressed in writing somehow. Now, may- they may not read it, but at least it's supposed to be addressed somehow, so those rights are more clearly defined.

193. 0:52:39

     That's right. And we have, you know, we have folks that, that come and stay in the hotel and, you know, The Ritz-Carlton has great amenities, and they end up staying, uh, when their room rates are over, they want to hang around the property and enjoy the amenities, and they can't do that.

194. 0:52:56

     Okay. And, and so as I, as I read this, I feel like we are trying to define those rights, um, contractually and to provide that the innkeeper, regardless of how long the folks stay there, as long as they have provided a contract up front that makes clear what the relative rights of the parties are, the innkeeper can use more summary remedies, in effect, to prevent the person from continuing to stay in the room without paying for it.

195. 0:53:28

     That's correct. Once, once the term of the contract's over, they no longer have authorization to be in the room or even on the property, and they can be a- uh, the intent is not to call law enforcement every time a, someone stays late in the room. The intent is to not have these people loitering on their property and to get their personal property out of their room in a timely manner so that the next guest has access to the room. Now, you check in at 3:00, you check out at 10:00 on date certain.

196. 0:54:01

     Um, and when that doesn't happen, a traveler from Texas to Georgia doesn't have access to a room when they were supposed to have access to a room.

197. 0:54:09

     Okay.

198. 0:54:10

     Uh, so it backs up the entire system. But a- again, this, that is, we're trying to... In section five, we're trying to clarify the innkeeper-guest relationship and the process for removal of guests that are non-compliant with the contract terms. Um, that's what section five does. Um-

199. 0:54:31

     Okay.

200. 0:54:31

     I hope that answers your question.

201. 0:54:33

     I think, I think it does. But I have one or two more follow-ups, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

202. 0:54:36

     Yes, sir.

203. 0:54:37

     So it, it would seem to me that more clearly defining the rights of the parties contractually and hopefully making sure everyone's aware of that, the, the, sort of the terms of that arrangement, would avoid the rather grotesque scenario that Representative Evans discussed in which an innkeeper feels compelled to kick somebody out for one day and then let them come back in to start the time running again because there, there is some lack of clarity as to what the relationship between those parties are, or, or whether the length of time someone is staying there can somehow ch- convert that relationship from one legal relationship to another.

204. 0:55:21

     Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear the committee's recommendations and make this, uh, this amendment to law as strong as it can possibly be. I think we've come a long way, uh, with this legislation since 2024. Doesn't mean this is the end road, but it, it, it brings us a, a large step forward from even where we came in 2024. And, you know, we're kind of late into the process this year, so-

205. 0:55:53

     Uh, yes

206. 0:55:53

     ... but I'm happy to, for the committee to-

207. 0:55:57

     Well-

208. 0:55:57

     ... entertain whatever amendments they'd like to make.

209. 0:56:00

     I, I, I suppose what I... What it would seem to me that what we're doing here in section five would pro- the, the, the reason people are being asked to leave and come back in is people have uncertainty about how the length of time can cause a, a legal relationship to change from one thing, an in- guest-innkeeper to landlord and tenant. And this section five seems to make it clear that it doesn't change due to passage of time. Now, I, I, I think there c- there certainly can be a debate about whether that's good policy or whether that's fair policy, but it seems to me we're trying to bring clarity here by doing this, and I, I do feel like it, it brings some clarity to that relationship.

210. 0:56:40

     And then to follow up on Representative Evan's question, is the, the, the provision for the 10 days, which I, I, my understanding is that's on lines 110 and 111, um, "Until at least 10 days, excluding legal holidays, after the innkeeper has served the guest with a written notice." My under- if, if... Is that the 10-day provision that you were referring to earlier when you said you believe that was added to allow for a cure?

211. 0:57:08

     Yes.

212. 0:57:09

     Okay. I don't think the bill expressly says that, and I was wondering if- That might be approvi- it, it... And I'm, I'm not sure if that's what Representative Evans was asking, if you would be willing to add by amendment or if she was referring to a different issue.

213. 0:57:23

     That was one of them. Yeah.

214. 0:57:24

     Okay, that was one of them. So I'm wondering if that might be, um, a, a provision that could, y- you would perceive as being friendly if we could find a way to craft that in there.

215. 0:57:38

     I do.

216. 0:57:39

     Okay.

217. 0:57:39

     I think, I think it would be friendly. My concern is whether or not this makes it to the finish line this year-

218. 0:57:46

     Yes

219. 0:57:46

     ... with, with amendments at this point in the game. Um, like I say, I, I think if we can get 98% of the way there, we can continue to work on this next year, um, with everybody's input. But this brings us a long way of where we need to be to curb this problem in squatting in housing and squatting in hotels, uh, throughout Georgia.

220. 0:58:12

     Yes.

221. 0:58:13

     Thank you.

222. 0:58:14

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Oliver.

223. 0:58:22

     I think, uh, what Chairman Leverett did, it outlined the parameters of the bill, is very helpful. And again, I wanna focus on the landlord-tenant. I did not come prepared to talk about squatters and have no comments about the squatter provisions. On line 109, you are asserting a time limit of more than 90 days. Do you interpret that to mean that up to 90 days, a occupant of an extended stay hotel has the rights of a tenant?

224. 0:58:58

     No.

225. 0:58:59

     Okay. Do you, are you open to an amendment, and I'm only focusing on section five, that we as a, a body would suggest for our House and the Senate consider a specific timeline by which a person would have rights of a tenant as ant- anticipated by, uh, Justice Penson?

226. 0:59:22

     No, Representative, I, I don't agree with that. I think we need to make the law clear. When you enter into a innkeeper-guest relationship, you're in an innkeeper contract relationship. When you enter into a landlord-tenant relationship, you're in a landlord-tenant-

227. 0:59:38

     I think that-

228. 0:59:39

     ... relationship

229. 0:59:39

     ... I, I, I think that's an honest answer. I appreciate an honest answer, and I think that is exactly the dynamic and the conflict that may be around this table. Uh, I think that the Georgia Supreme Court wants us to clarify something, and you want to mix it into the squatter law, and that's, that's where I am hesitant. May I ask one more question? Who is this gentleman sitting with you, if I may ask that? Is that improper for me to ask?

230. 1:00:04

     It's window dressing.

231. 1:00:05

     I'm, I'm sorry, Representative. I'm Chris Hardman, President and CEO of the Georgia Hotel and Lodging Association. Uh, thank you, uh, Chairman Gunter, and thank you, uh, Representative Seabaugh, for allowing us to be here, and I wanna thank the housing groups, um, back there that have worked with us for over the past year to come up with, uh, some, some really good language. And, um, Representative Evans, uh, just to address your, your concern on the, uh, the cure period, um, I believe the Senator Halpern amendment, uh, does address that. I think it's on line 140 of this bill. And I don't have the, the one in front of me. Um, but it, uh, uh, it, it basically states that nothing in this code section shall, shall prohibit the innkeeper and the guest from coming up with an agreed-upon remedy.

232. 1:00:44

     I believe that was the language that she put in, and that was something that Sonie- uh, Senator Halpern saw your concern as well, and wanted to make sure that was added into the amendment that she offered on the Senate floor, and that passed in House Bill 61.

233. 1:00:55

     So-

234. 1:00:55

     I'm sure that it does that, and I think that's what Representative Leverett saw, too, but we'll work on that.

235. 1:01:00

     So you don't consider the 90-day period as a period that grants tenant rights to a hotel, I can say?

236. 1:01:06

     Uh, no, no I don't, Madam Representative. I think that, uh, for the, for the past 100 years, I, I would, I would say up, up until really the pandemic, um, there was a, there was a discrepancy between guests. And, or until the, the Neese and Efficiency Lodge case, there was a true discr- discrepancy between guest and tenant, um, as it should be. Because there's no criminal background check, there's no credit check. This is, uh, an essential service, uh, that our industry is able to provide to those es- those genuine families in need, um, oftentimes. And, uh, we wanna make sure that there is that discrepancy moving forward because we feel that, uh, a guest and a tenant should be treated se- differently, um, i- in most cases.

237. 1:01:44

     But at the same time, we understand that there are, there, there, there might be families that, um, are needing to stay in a hotel for more than 90 days, and that's why that grace period, the Senator Halpern amendment, was included in this legislation. So-

238. 1:01:55

     Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you want to allow me to start questioning this gentleman in terms of other witnesses.

239. 1:02:01

     Oh, I'm sorry.

240. 1:02:02

     Um, I'm gonna do whatever you suggest, but I've got questions for him if the chairman wants to allow that at this time.

241. 1:02:08

     Go right ahead.

242. 1:02:09

     There is a growth of industry of extended stay hotels within your, uh, business model. Is that true?

243. 1:02:20

     I wouldn't necessarily, uh, be able to speak to whether or not that's true. Um, uh, the, the hotel industry, it's, I don't believe extended stay is even defined truly in code. Um, the majority of these cases-

244. 1:02:31

     Uh, extended stay hotels are specifically just marketing for extended stay hotel guests. Is that accurate?

245. 1:02:36

     So oftentimes they might be marketing, um, for maybe an extended stay property, but all the major brands that operate under certain flags, uh, this, this issue, um, pops up, and I think we heard it from, and, uh, from a witness in the, in the Senate. Um, this what, uh, Leader Seabaugh is, is doing is addressing, um, the concern that we have when it is individuals, it is systematic abusers of the system. And through the anecdotal e- evidence from, uh, Lisa Anderson Gwinnett that she said in committee, these are men.

246. 1:03:07

     Um, these are actual criminals that, that are coming into properties, and they're not... Um, I think there was a WSB, uh, article on this last night, and, um, the, w- the three hotels where squatting was occurring were not extended stay properties.

247. 1:03:19

     I'm not using squatting word. I'm using-

248. 1:03:21

     I'm sorry. Where, uh-

249. 1:03:22

     ... extended stay hotel. And in my district- Is where these hotels are existing. Not Ritz Carlton, not Peachtree Center, not World Congress Center. Specifically lower income neighborhoods that are marketing towards families and making and being purchased i- i- part of a national business move. Uh, in DeKalb County there are 4,000 to 6,000 folks in these hotels. In Gwinnett County it's more like 6,000, and 900 children picked up at school.

250. 1:03:56

     So I think this is a s- a part of your industry. I'm trying to figure out to what extent you will admit that this is a part of your industry at this point.

251. 1:04:03

     No, it, it is absol- absolutely. Any, um, length of stay at a hotel, um, is definitely a part of our industry, and, uh, we are, we're proud to support those families in need, uh, pr- by providing them with, uh, temporary housing, tran- transient lodging. And, uh, um, I would say the majority of those cases, based off anecdotal ev- evidence that, that you might speak of, those, uh, 6,000 families that are, um, staying overnight in hotels, they're paying. Um, and they're working with some great, phenomenal, uh-

252. 1:04:31

     Very happy

253. 1:04:31

     ... nonprofits to, uh-

254. 1:04:32

     Very happy for you-

255. 1:04:33

     ... ensure that they're there

256. 1:04:33

     ... to admit that.

257. 1:04:34

     Yeah.

258. 1:04:34

     My church spends money on these-

259. 1:04:36

     Absolutely

260. 1:04:37

     ... hotels.

261. 1:04:37

     Thank you.

262. 1:04:37

     Very happy for you to admit. And so I'm g- I'm gonna be trying to be corrective whenever you use the word squatter and criminal. I'm not buying that.

263. 1:04:44

     Right. I'm talking about the individual actual criminals that are, that are staying in hotels illegally.

264. 1:04:50

     Thank you, sir.

265. 1:04:51

     Thank you, Madam Representative.

266. 1:04:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

267. 1:04:54

     Vice Chair Reeves.

268. 1:04:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Hardeman, you mentioned Leesa Anders from Gwinnett. Is she the head of the Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau?

269. 1:05:03

     She is.

270. 1:05:04

     And does the Georgia Association of Convention and Visitors Bureau join in your efforts asking for this legislation?

271. 1:05:11

     They do.

272. 1:05:12

     And earlier there was a reference to a 2017 documentary in Florida about hotels or extended stays down there. Has Florida tightened up their laws similar to what you're asking for in this bill, uh, last year?

273. 1:05:24

     They have, Mr. Representative.

274. 1:05:25

     And, uh, finally, you mentioned, uh, some news coverage this week, uh, was, uh, one of the Asian American hotel owners, Vipul Patel.

275. 1:05:34

     Mm-hmm.

276. 1:05:35

     Did he say that during the delay in us getting this enacted, these hotel squatters are becoming emboldened? They're having parties, uh, they're complaining about the food and the housekeeping. At the same time, they're taking a free ride due to this loophole in Georgia law that y'all are trying to close through this good legislation.

277. 1:05:50

     That is very much true, uh, Mr. Representative. And it, they are telling their friends and their neighbors that you can stay at hotels for free, and they are.

278. 1:06:00

     Okay. That's all the questioning we have right now. So in order to prepare these amendments, 'cause I don't think we've had any time to do that, we're gonna take a short break and let folks work on it, and then we're gonna come back. Yes, sir.

279. 1:06:16

     Mr. Chairman, I'm backing Judiciary non-civil up to 11:00 AM to provide for time for-

280. 1:06:22

     Right

281. 1:06:22

     ... Judiciary, so.

282. 1:06:23

     Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. And, uh, I wanna... Let me see, where are we at right now? Almost 10:00. So, um, I wanna give everybody a chance to put forth their amendments, and then we'll see where we're at, at that time. Okay? All right. Representative.

283. 1:06:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure we're still planning to take testimony from all these folks that are here.

284. 1:06:49

     I have a hard break at 11:00. Uh, I'll do what I can, but I can't do very much.

285. 1:06:55

     Well, I, just for the, for the good of the order, I guess, I mean, it was already... I, I'm not sure it was... Well, the 30-minute public notice is not something that I think is good for the reputation of this committee or the body. Um, but these folks somehow made it here. Um, and this is a very important issue. It affects business, it affects families, it affects kids, and this committee is nothing if not deliberate and considerate of experts.

286. 1:07:25

     And we've got, you know, former chairman of this committee, we've got experts in housing, we've got industry representatives. And the idea that we would go through this amendment process without hearing from them and push this bill forward when we're specifically here to vet language, which I appreciate, I just don't see how we do that without, without hearing from folks, especially when they've managed to be here without any public notice.

287. 1:07:47

     Well, we're late in the season. This isn't my idea of a best way to do it, but, um, I, I gotta do what I gotta do. So-

288. 1:07:58

     I guess I would just admit that-

289. 1:07:59

     If you wanna talk to these folks, um, during the break and put forth amendments that they recommend, I mean, we can do that.

290. 1:08:08

     I just think if we've heard from the hotel industry, the least we could do is at least hear from some of the advocates for the families.

291. 1:08:13

     I don't mind doing that. I just, I'm just telling you I'm running out of time.

292. 1:08:17

     I ju- I just think, in fairness, we should hear from them right now.

293. 1:08:20

     Okay. Yeah. You don't wanna have any time to work on your amendment?

294. 1:08:25

     No, I do, but I, I don't know how we can make sure that we've addressed all the concerns if we don't hear from-

295. 1:08:32

     Well, I don't have a-

296. 1:08:32

     ... at le- at least one or two from that side

297. 1:08:33

     ... I don't have a list of folks. We didn't put that out there. Um, we've already got it under a motion to go forward with it. Um, but we are at a posture where we could probably take s- a couple of folks, but I can't do everybody in the room, even if I gave them three minutes.

298. 1:08:56

     Maybe we could divi- I, I, I would like to hear from all of them, but it, but i- i- hearing an invitation to try to figure out some compromise, perhaps the folks-

299. 1:09:05

     The problem I have is-

300. 1:09:05

     ... their clusters and they can pick a representative

301. 1:09:07

     ... well, the problem I have is being able to select-

302. 1:09:09

     Mm

303. 1:09:09

     ... who in that crowd out there-

304. 1:09:11

     Mm

305. 1:09:12

     ... is, is gonna help us move forward on this. And I-

306. 1:09:16

     But at least someone to counter the hotel side

307. 1:09:17

     ... I'm just saying I can't take everybody.

308. 1:09:19

     Understood. But maybe the folks that are, I think they're all here in, in, in squads or teams, and maybe they can decide a representative to put forward. But a- at the very least, I would like to hear someone to counter the, the hotel We, we got to hear from the hotel side. I would like to hear from the family and advocate side. And let them pick who comes up.

309. 1:09:41

     At the very least.

310. 1:09:42

     Well, tell me who to pick then.

311. 1:09:46

     Well, I, I would say maybe they can decide who to pick and send the person up.

312. 1:09:57

     So the three of us can-

313. 1:10:01

     Okay.

314. 1:10:06

     Okay. Thank you, Chairman.

315. 1:18:40

     All right. Call the meeting back to order. Um.

316. 1:18:46

     Excuse me. I think the, the best way to handle this is to, uh... We're gonna recess until 1:00. That'll give Tyler Paul and his committee time to take care of their business. And give everybody a chance to look at a sub, and we're gonna put a sub together, and then, um, come back in. Maybe I'll have time to take testimony at that time. It, it should, it should expand our time to get things done, so that's why I'm doing that. So we're, we're gonna break till 1:00. We'll see you back.

317. 1:19:16

     Do we have, if they want to submit written testimony as well for us to consider-

318. 1:19:20

     Yes

319. 1:19:20

     ... Mr. Chairman?

320. 1:19:21

     Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. If you want to submit written testimony, you can do that. You have until 1:00. Thank you. All right. We're