BILL ANALYSIS Civil Practices Committee By: Hochberg 03-20-95 4-25-95 BACKGROUND State law provides a civil remedy against the owners of property that are the site of certain habitual criminal activity. Where continuous occurrences of drug dealing, prostitution, gambling and certain other crimes exist, a suit may be brought asking a state district court to declare the place to be a common or public nuisance. When such a finding is made by a court, the property is ordered vacated and closed. The judge may allow the property to remain in use and require the owner to post a bond. In the case of further criminal activity, the bond is forfeited and the property is closed. This statute can be used against crime-ridden apartment properties where, in many cases, only a few residents are involved in criminal activity. The lack of a remedy short of vacating and closing the entire property, however, allows a judge to take action only at the expense of ordering innocent families out of their homes. PURPOSE H.B. 2042 would provide the additional judicial remedy of receivership for a nuisance apartment property. Instead of ordering an apartment property vacated, a judge could elect to appoint a receiver to manage the property for up to one year. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or institution. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 125.041, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, to delete repetition of common and public nuisance definitions found earlier in the code. "Multi-unit residential property" is defined as improved dwelling property with at least three dwelling units. The term does not include a property where each dwelling unit is occupied by the owner of the property or single family home. SECTION 2. Subchapter C, Chapter 125, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 125.046 to (a) allow the additional remedy of receivership for multi-unit residential properties only. (b) The receiver serves for up to one year. (c) Duties and pay are decided by the court. (d) The receiver is to remain in place during any appeal. SECTION 3. This Act applies to a nuisance that exists on or after the effective date of this Act, without regard to whether the nuisance activity began previously. SECTION 4. Emergency clause - Effective Immediately. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B. 2042 was considered in a public hearing on March 22, 1995. The following individuals testified in support of the bill: Andrew Teas, representing the Houston Apartment Association, Inc.; Scott Forbes, representing the Mayor and City Council of Houston; and David Mintz, representing the Texas Apartment Association. No one testified in opposition to or neutrally on the bill. The bill was left pending. The bill was considered during a formal meeting on April 24, 1995. The bill was reported favorably without amendment, with the recommendation that it do pass, be printed and be sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars, by a record vote of eight ayes, zero nays, zero pnv and one absent.