By Ivy Secrest
Wyoming Tribune Eagle
Via- Wyoming News Exchange

CHEYENNE — When Casper Realtor Ronna Boril was confronted with several men in one of her rental properties that she believed to be vacant, she was unable to get local law enforcement to help her remove the unauthorized inhabitants.

Boril had to rely on a friend to help oust the men and clean out the rental property, which had been left trashed. With dirty mattresses and drug paraphernalia littering the house, she was left with a disaster that cost her nearly $15,000 to clean.

The experience prompted Boril to work with state Sen. Jim Anderson, R-Casper, to write the “Residential property-removal of unlawful occupant” draft bill, which was considered by the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee during its meeting Thursday.

The bill was considered alongside a “Use of fraudulent documents to wrongfully possess property” draft bill, both of which are intended to strengthen the rights of property owners. Though both bills were discussed, the majority of the conversation focused on the issue of squatters.

Anderson’s bill coincided with conversations that the committee had already been having. Though committee members ultimately decided to forward the bill to their November meeting to give them time to make adjustments, accounting for stakeholder concerns, the issue is one that legislators have recently been trying to address.

Testimony on ‘Squatters’ bill’

Boril and Anderson, accompanied by Laurie Urbigkit with Wyoming Realtors, were the first to address the committee. Boril has been a real estate broker since 1975, she told the committee. In December 2022, she encountered her first squatters while visiting a vacant property after the former tenants had left without notice or paying the last month’s rent. When she entered the property, she was confronted by several men.

“He asked, ‘Who are you and what are you doing here?’” Boril told the committee. “And I said, ‘I’m going to ask you the same thing. Who are you and what are you doing on my property?’ This is kind of key to this whole squatter thing, the claims that they make.”

Boril threatened to kick out the squatters with the help of Casper law enforcement, but was told that it was a civil issue, and there was nothing they could do.

Anderson told the committee that currently in Wyoming, property owners have to go through a substantial amount of procedures in order to remove squatters from a property. His goal was to write a bill that would address the issue of removing squatters, which he modeled after a similar bill passed in Florida.

“Instead of being tenants, they’re trespassers, and that’s what this bill does,” Anderson said. “Makes them trespassers (that are) breaking the law, not tenants that you have to deal with.”

Anderson presented the bill, hoping that the committee would take it on as a committee- sponsored bill, giving it a better chance to pass during next year’s legislative session.

“Since my unsettling experience, I’ve given a lot of thought to this matter,” Boril told the committee. “Were I an attorney for an unauthorized person or squatter, I believe I would come at this by attempting to prove some sort of tenancy, whether implied or sufferance, and thereby garner tenants rights for my client.”

Boril told the committee that she fears that there may be legal loopholes in the bill as it stands. She said she believes the statute should somehow eliminate any possible false claim of tenancy from the bill.

Boril also told the committee she believes that the squatters should be responsible for the damage they cause, including legal fees that may be incurred.

“I believe that we need to review and strike a balance between adverse possession and trespassing,” Boril said. “Both carry definitions and lateral information. Craft statutes carefully so that adverse possession language, if you’re going to use that, does not encourage nor reward trespassing or being an unauthorized person.”

Urbigkit added that it is clear to her that this is a statewide issue. 

After emailing the 2,500 members of Wyoming Realtors, Urbigkit learned that several Realtors in almost every county in Wyoming could report similar experiences.

Legal concerns

The committee questioned whether there was even a need for the bill if the issue could be addressed through existing law.

Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police (WASCOP) Executive Director Allen Thompson addressed some of the committee’s concerns regarding current law enforcement.

According to Thompson, law enforcement has to consider their legal rights when interacting with potential trespassers.

He said there’s a difference between a trespasser illegally entering someone’s residence, which is a clear violation that law enforcement can act on, and tenants remaining on the property after they’ve been given their three-day notice, which typically has a court oversight process and requires law enforcement to go through the courts to enforce.

Thompson told the committee that law enforcement officers can obtain legal immunity if they can prove that they have a reasonable belief that a person is on a property without legal cause. However, that is not a guarantee.

“Just because it’s in law that we’re immune doesn’t mean we’re actually immune,” Thompson said. “If we’re circumventing the existing eviction process from someone that (was) previously a tenant, is there liability for law enforcement and then the property owner? It’s just something that we have a lot of questions about.”

Thompson said there needs to be a clear difference in the bill between a trespasser who has no legal right to be on a property and a tenant who has defaulted on an agreement.

“We believe that those are two totally separate things,” Thompson said.

Sheridan County Sheriff Levi Dominguez and Sublette County Attorney Clayton Melinkovich addressed concerns about language in the bill that heavily focused on sheriffs, as opposed to law enforcement in general.

The bill has several lines that infer that the sheriff is solely responsible for the removal of an unauthorized person. One example reads, “An owner or the owner’s authorized agent may request from the sheriff in the county where the property is located the immediate removal of any person unlawfully occupying or possessing the owner’s residential dwelling if all of the following conditions are met.”

Dominguez and Melinkovich suggested that the focus should be on general law enforcement, rather than just the sheriff.

Melinkovich told the committee that he was unsure there was a need for the bill at all. 

He added that these issues can be resolved through Wyoming’s criminal trespass statute, which is what he and his firm advises clients who call asking about squatters and trespassers.

“Our criminal trespass statute requires notice, and that notice can be given there in person, or it can be posted,” Melinkovich told the committee. “In the event that that notice is there, or the record owner is there, or the person can show a sheriff ’s deputy some verification or some type of information that they are the owner, this can be addressed straight through your general trespass statute.”

Melinkovich acknowledged that what Boril experienced had to have been a harrowing experience. However, he told the committee that these types of occupancies are already illegal in Wyoming.

At this point in the discussion, some committee members began to ask why some counties felt confident in addressing trespassing and squatters, while others weren’t. Thompson pointed out that officers were likely acting on the advice of their lawyers, and Natrona County District Attorney Daniel Itzen addressed why lawyers don’t just encourage law enforcement to go ahead and remove potential squatters.

“I think part of being a good counselor is being cautious and taking narrow steps,” Itzen said. “You don’t want to give advice to your law enforcement partners that will get them sued. Do they know everything at midnight that’s going on? Probably not. Do you want to step out on that ledge and say ‘Go do this?’ Probably not.”

Itzen told the committee that officers can be told conflicting things by tenants and property owners. They often have questions about what qualifies as a civil issue and what’s criminal, which dictates whether they can act.

According to Itzen, the bill clears up a lot of these questions, aiming to define what is a civil issue and what is a criminal issue. Itzen said the bill was “workable,” and he did see a reason to have a bill addressing these issues.

Because of the volume of conflicting testimony that the committee heard, members opted to forward both bills to the November meeting. In the meantime, a group of committee members will work on the bills to clarify terms to better serve all stakeholders.