Texas Squatter Removal Law 2025: Owners Can Use a Sworn Complaint Instead of an Eviction Suit

This process isn't meant to be the first contact a property owner has with an unauthorized occupant; the law expects the owner to have already attempted to resolve this informally before escalating to the sworn-complaint process.

5. Why the tenant exclusion is the single most important safeguard in this law

A current or former tenant under an oral or written lease can't be removed through this process.

[Cite: Tex. Prop. Code 24B.002]

That exclusion is what keeps this fast process from becoming a way to bypass standard eviction protections; a landlord with an actual tenant, even one who stopped paying rent or whose lease has expired, can't use this sworn-complaint process instead of the eviction case that tenant is still entitled to.

6. Why family members are specifically carved out as well

An immediate family member of the owner can't be removed through this process either.

[Cite: Tex. Prop. Code 24B.002]

That exclusion recognizes that a family dispute over occupancy, even a contentious one, isn't the kind of squatter situation this law targets; a family-related occupancy dispute has to be resolved through whatever other legal process actually fits that relationship.

7. What the sheriff or constable has to confirm before acting

Before acting on the complaint, the sheriff or constable has to verify that the complainant is the record owner of the property or the owner's agent, and that the complainant is otherwise entitled to the relief sought.

[Cite: Tex. Prop. Code 24B.003]

That verification step is a real check on the process; a sworn complaint alone doesn't automatically trigger removal, the officer independently confirms ownership and entitlement before taking action against the occupant.

8. Why "otherwise entitled to the relief sought" leaves room for officer judgment

Beyond confirming ownership, the officer has to determine the complainant is otherwise entitled to the relief sought in the complaint.

[Cite: Tex. Prop. Code 24B.003]

That standard gives the officer some discretion to assess whether the complaint, taken as a whole, actually supports removal; a technically complete complaint that still raises questions about entitlement to relief isn't guaranteed automatic action.

9. Why property owners should document the "already directed to leave" step carefully

Since the complaint has to attest that the owner already told the occupant to leave, a property owner should keep some record of that step, a text message, an email, a witnessed verbal warning, before filing the sworn complaint.

[Cite: Tex. Prop. Code 24B.002]

A property owner relying solely on memory for this element risks a weaker complaint if the process is ever challenged; contemporaneous documentation of the initial demand to leave strengthens the complaint's credibility.

10. Why this process complements, rather than replaces, standard eviction procedure

This sworn-complaint process exists alongside Texas's standard eviction framework under Property Code Chapter 24, including the Rule 510 and SB 38 changes covering actual landlord-tenant evictions.

[Cite: Tex. Prop. Code ch. 24B; ch. 24]

A property manager should understand these as 2 distinct tools for 2 distinct situations; a genuine non-tenant squatter goes through Chapter 24B's sworn-complaint process, while any actual tenant dispute, regardless of how serious, still goes through the standard eviction process under Chapter 24.

11. What property managers should do now

The practical starting point is training staff to distinguish a genuine non-tenant squatter situation from any occupant with even an informal lease history, since that distinction determines which legal process actually applies.

For any situation that seems to qualify for this sworn-complaint process, documenting the initial demand to leave and gathering clear proof of ownership before filing keeps the complaint strong and helps the sheriff or constable's verification step go smoothly.