Pamela Willis’s case illustrates the gap between Texas’ new expedited squatter-removal law and the practical requirements an owner must meet before law enforcement can act. Willis, 80, says people she does not know have occupied her southwest Houston home for about two years. She is bedridden, says she cannot afford the cost of pursuing the matter and lacks someone who can take the required paperwork to authorities, according to KHOU.
The reported circumstances also include three Houston police calls for service at the property in 2026, two of them related to trespassing, as well as an ongoing dispute involving a property-management company over alleged damage attributed to the occupants. The management company’s attorneys declined to comment to KHOU. Those facts describe the dispute, but they do not by themselves establish whether the occupants meet the statutory definition of an unlawful occupant or whether the case qualifies for immediate removal.
What Chapter 24B was designed to do
Senate Bill 1333, signed in 2025 and effective Sept. 1 of that year, created Chapter 24B of the Texas Property Code. Its stated purpose was to give property owners an initial, speedy law-enforcement option instead of making a potentially lengthy civil proceeding the only route to recover a home, according to the Texas Senate Research Center and the Office of the Governor.
The expedited path is narrower than a general power to remove anyone an owner considers unwelcome. The legislative analysis says it excludes cases involving pending litigation between the owner and occupant, current or former tenants, immediate family members and people who entered with permission. The owner must also direct the person to leave and submit a sworn complaint for a sheriff or constable to verify before an immediate notice to vacate can be served.
That makes the facts surrounding Willis’s home consequential. KHOU reported that her son previously lived there, while Willis says the current occupants are not on the lease. The available reporting does not establish whether the occupants entered through the son, whether any oral permission was given, or whether the management lawsuit is litigation between Willis and the occupants within the meaning of Chapter 24B. Those unresolved facts could determine whether the expedited process is available.
A faster option still depends on access and classification
The law’s design places an early burden on the owner: the complaint must be prepared, sworn and presented for law-enforcement review. The verified record does not establish a Harris County Chapter 24B service fee, a uniform countywide remote-submission procedure or whether an authorized representative could file for an owner who cannot appear in person. In Willis’s situation, the access problem may therefore be as important as the statute’s promise of speed.
The law also creates risk for an owner who wrongly labels a resident a squatter. Texas Property Code Section 24B.005 provides for damages and other consequences tied to an improper removal, including triple fair-market-rent damages, court costs and attorney fees, according to the Texas Constitution and Statutes. That risk helps explain why law enforcement must verify the complaint rather than treating an owner’s allegation as conclusive.
The ordinary eviction route remains the documented fallback
If the Chapter 24B requirements are not met, the conventional judicial process remains the relevant alternative. Harris County Justice Courts publish an updated eviction petition and direct self-represented litigants to Texas Law Help and the Texas Justice Court Training Center’s materials, while cautioning that procedural information may change, according to the Harris County Justice Courts.
That alternative is legally distinct from the new law-enforcement mechanism. A regular eviction requires a court case and does not resolve the threshold question as quickly as Chapter 24B is intended to do. But the available verified materials do not provide a reliable Harris County count of Chapter 24B complaints, approvals, denials or completed removals, nor do they establish how often owners in circumstances like Willis’s have obtained relief.
What the case does—and does not—show
Willis’s experience is a test of the law’s practical reach, not proof that Chapter 24B has failed or that it is unavailable in her case. The reported two-year occupancy, the former family connection to the property, the management litigation and Willis’s inability to appear personally each raise questions that the current record does not answer.
The broader verified picture is limited: lawmakers intended Chapter 24B to provide a rapid first option, but the statute still depends on factual classification, law-enforcement verification and an owner or agent able to initiate the process. Until Harris County agencies document how they handle these complaints—including whether they accept filings through representatives—the law’s effectiveness for disabled or otherwise absent homeowners remains unresolved.
