Arizona
New law aims to curb squatting in vacant homes | Arizona Capitol Times
Key Points:
-
A new law should stop squatters faster and allow property owners to get them out in about five days
-
Exact statistics don’t exist for the number of squatter cases per year in Arizona, but law enforcement and real estate agents say it is a problem
-
The new law does not affect rights and remedies under the state’s landlord and tenant act
Goldilocks won’t be squatting for long in any Arizona homes after a new law takes effect.
Sen. Wendy Rogers made the fairy tale comparison herself at a press conference on June 1 after her Senate Bill 1426 was signed into law by Gov. Katie Hobbs. The new regulations intend to make it easier for property owners to evict squatters faster.
“It’s like Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” she said. “This is when Goldilocks goes into a home, enters the bears’ home without permission when they’re out. She eats their porridge, sits in and breaks their chairs, sleeps in their beds, making her the classic intruder squatter.”
It’s what happened to D’Andrea Turner and her then-husband Keith. D’Andrea had been traveling back and forth to Michigan to take care of her elderly mother and also recovering from surgery after an aneurysm. Keith was a long-haul trucker on the road and when he came back, he discovered squatters in their home.
They tried to remove the squatters, but they kept coming back and eventually, the Turners found out their identities were stolen from documents in their home and their home had been fraudulently sold. Affidavits and forms had been notarized and submitted through Maricopa County and the sale wasn’t stopped until the squatters tried to cash the check in the Turner’s names multiple times but were unsuccessful, according to previous media reports.
Turner said the hardest thing was the identity theft and the property being defrauded, plus losing irreplaceable items in their home, such as photos of her children, a teddy bear and computers. They raised their children and lived in their home for over 12 years, she said.
“I had many tearful nights, many terrible nights because of this,” she said. “As working class people that’s putting our money into mortgages and things that we think is going to sustain us for when we’re done. We buy properties so that we can leave it for generations.”
Turner said she’s grateful to Rogers for getting the bill passed. In the Turners’ case, two people were eventually charged with identity theft, forgery and fraudulent schemes. Despite that progress, the Turners are still sorting out the mess with their insurance company.
“I feel very fortunate that someone heard me. It’s like you’re screaming at the top of a mountain and someone can hear you,” she said. “I feel very confident that the senator heard me and she understands that we, as Arizonans, will not accept this.”
A squatter is different from a trespasser. Whereas trespassers usually leave after they’re told, squatters can use tactics to make it look like they live at the property or create a false lease to try to prove they have a rental agreement.
The law requires the court to issue a writ of restitution immediately after the court signs any judgement against an unauthorized person, according to the bill language. It outlines conditions that constitute an eviction lawsuit, such as an unauthorized person unlawfully occupying the property and the property owner has directed the person to leave. Another condition is the person did not have a prior verbal or written agreement to cohabitate with the property owner at a residential property.
The new law would not apply or modify the rights and remedies available to landlords and tenants as prescribed by the Arizona Residential Landlord Tenant Act. The law will not affect current or former tenants, immediate family members or people who had a verbal or written agreement to live on the property with the owner.
The law will take effect 90 days after it was signed. This was Rogers’ third attempt to get the bill passed. The bill originally came to Rogers from a constituent who is a real estate attorney and told her it’s a prevalent problem.
“Arizona is sending a clear message. Unlawful occupation of someone else’s property will not be tolerated,” Rogers said. “Our border is secure, but we still have nefarious actors inside our country who would perpetuate this on property owners.”
The game changer this year was an early start in collaboration and most notably, the constables’ support, along with realtors, she said, and added she was pleasantly surprised by the amount of bipartisan support the bill received.
“That’s the way we should get stuff done,” she said.
Tim Beaubian, senior director of government affairs at Arizona REALTORS Association, said the bipartisan support of this bill this year shows what an impact this is going to be for the state of Arizona and that private property rights are a bedrock.
The bill passed with wide bipartisan support in both chambers. Sen. Catherine Miranda cast the lone no vote. She said she understood the need to protect homeowners, but she cited homelessness and a lack of support from the state and the city of Phoenix. “The state isn’t doing enough to help homelessness,” she said. “I’m not willing to attack any efforts that homeless people are trying to make to survive.”
In October 2025, Hobbs announced $13.5 million in grant funding in the Arizona Promise budget to support eviction prevention, homelessness response and referral efforts across Arizona, according to a news release. At that time, it put the Hobbs Administration’s total investment in services to over $150 million.
Constable Scott Blake, who works in the Hassayampa district in northwest Maricopa County, said the new law should help people remove squatters faster.
Currently, the law says people have to go through an eviction process, starting with a five-day notice, Blake said. A court summons and complaint is required, in addition to showing the judge the “lease” and showing it’s illegitimate. After another few days of waiting, the judge can order a writ and then a constable can come and do the eviction. That whole process takes over two weeks.
“The new law shortcuts all of that, you’re going to be able to get into court and say, ok, this person’s going to have to leave and you’re going to get a writ and somebody’s going to come out there and take care of that,” he said. “I think in less than five days you’d be able to remove somebody who is a squatter and unauthorized occupant.”
It will help a small handful of people right now with the possibility of more in the future as things tighten up, he added.
Blake said another trend he has started to see more often is people squatting on vacant, rural land, which is usually owned by the state or a private property owner. Systemic issues like the increased cost of living will likely keep contributing to people looking for places to live, he added.
“I’m not sure that we’ve seen the end of financial difficult times,” he said.
The new law would require a five-day notice to vacate before going to court. If the criteria listed in the law is met, a judge may order the immediate eviction of that tenant, and it gives the property owner a legal hammer too, the spokesperson said.
There’s technically two different types of squatters: ones with an agreement to live at the property for a limited time and those who do not have an agreement with the property owner, a spokesperson for the Maricopa County Justice Courts said. Both types of cases come to justices of the peace.
The second type is what the new law speaks to and is rare. If there is no written, verbal or implied tenancy agreement, the case can come to court, but a judge may dismiss it and say the court has no jurisdiction because there’s no agreement. Then it would be a trespassing issue for the police to write a citation, which is a different court process, they said.
The data on how many squatter cases happen per year in Arizona does not exist because landlords have to deliver a notice to vacate before they go to the courts. The courts don’t track what type of criminal activity or other breach might have triggered an immediate eviction and essentially, it doesn’t matter once the case reaches court, the spokesperson said.
There is a category of evictions called “immediate,” which usually involves a breach of the lease that is not fixable, such as if criminal activity took place. The landlord has to give notice of the breach and may file the court case the same day. If the tenant is found guilty in court a few days later, the judge can order the immediate eviction, which means they have to be out the day following the court appearance.
As for statistics on that type of case, landlords brought 84,805 cases to court and 406 of those were immediate evictions in 2025, but it’s likely few to none of those involved squatters, the spokesperson said.
Stunning places every Arizonan should visit at least once
From the Grand Canyon to Sedona’s red rocks to dramatic views of Havasupai Falls, here are some must-see places every Arizonan should check out.
Arizona is always making headlines for its breathtaking scenery, top travel destinations and highly ranked cities. Now, another Arizona gem is earning national recognition, with this famous city ranking No. 14 on Y Travel’s list of the 23 small towns in the USA to visit.
Y Travel, also known as Y Travel Blog, is an independent travel publication. The site has built a reputation for publishing firsthand destination guides, road-trip itineraries and family travel advice based on places the couple behind it has personally visited.
The ranking celebrates small towns that offer memorable travel experiences. According to Y Travel, the towns were selected based on their unique character, scenic beauty, walkable downtowns, local culture, history, outdoor recreation, food and the authentic experiences they provide to visitors rather than simply their popularity.
Here’s which city ranked top in Arizona.
Sedona named a small town to visit by Y Travel
Coming in at No. 14, Sedona stood out for its colorful blend of desert landscape, luxury resorts and spas, red rock formations, Bell Rock and Cathedral Rock
The website mentioned how the city has natural vortices and 300+ miles of hiking and biking trails nearby, with lots of outdoor activities to explore.
Got a story you want to share? Reach out at Tiffany.Acosta@gannett.com. Follow @tiffsario on Instagram.
Looking for the best things to do in Arizona? Sign up for our newsletter.
Arizona
Judge weighs whether Arizona anti-DEI measure can be on November ballot | Arizona Capitol Times
Key Points:
-
Judge considers ballot qualification challenge to anti-DEI ballot measure
-
Plaintiffs claim measure illegally combines disjointed constitutional provisions
-
Supporters claim stronger anti-discrimination, foes fear free speech violations
A Maricopa County judge is considering whether a measure that would broadly ban diversity, equity, and inclusion in government is legally eligible to appear on the November ballot.
House Concurrent Resolution 2044, sponsored by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Godyear, and referred to voters by the Republican majority this past session, follows the federal government’s efforts to eliminate state-sanctioned DEI programs.
The measure would amend the state Constitution and cement the existing ban on preferential treatment and discrimination based on race or ethnicity in public employment, education and contracting.
But it would take a step further in banning institutions from requiring or asking for support of, providing training on, or mandating any courses that teach DEI or the belief that “colorblind” law, policy or institution contributes to racial oppression, injustice or privilege.
It would also bar all K-12 schools and universities from using public monies to influence the composition of the faculty or student body, and generally bar any public bodies from enacting policy, providing special benefit or mandating training referencing race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.
In a lawsuit filed June 22, the progressive political action committee Will of the People and an elector sued the state, claiming HCR2044 violates the separate amendment rule, which bars ballot measures from “logrolling” unrelated provisions in the same act.
Josh Barro, attorney for Will of the People, claims HCR2044 presents a noncontroversial provision already enacted in Arizona – the ban on practicing and spending public money on discriminatory or preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity – but “smuggles in” anti-diversity, equity and inclusion provisions.
“You have a popular, established right paired with a distinct, controversial policy,” Barro said.
Barro argued the remaining provisions targeting employee training on race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation contradict the initial intent of the measure.
“If you can’t mention race, or you can’t train your employees to be mindful of diversity, or pursue equity in the workplace, you are literally promoting discrimination,” Barro said.
He told the court the provisions stand directly at odds with each other, rendering the measure insufficiently connected as required by law.
“On one hand, HCR 2044 aims to prohibit discrimination,” Barro said. “On the other hand, HCR 2044 uses the smuggled content to restrict programs that aim to accomplish the same goal.”
Both the attorney general and secretary of state declined to defend the law. But Kory Langhofer, attorney for the Legislature, claims the provisions in HCR2044 do not replace or continue the original language in the state Constitution as Barro claims.
He contends that the measure closes a loophole and “builds out specific examples of types of invidious discrimination that are prohibited in state institutions in Arizona.”
Langhofer contended all components of the measure are aimed at and connected in ending discrimination and governmental bias.
“It’s all going in the same direction,” Langhofer said.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Julie Mata took the matter under advisement.
If the measure does ultimately end up on the ballot, groups are already lined up to offer support and prod opposition.
The Goldwater Institute, a primary backer of HCR2044, celebrated the measure’s intent to shut down DEI-related offices and training and prohibit the use of diversity statements in employment and education.
Coursework at public universities would fall under fire under the new policy, too.
In April, the Goldwater Institute released a report claiming that Arizona’s public universities were requiring DEI in a long list of classes but failing to meet academic standards set by the Arizona Board of Regents.
Classes flagged by the organization included: “Anthropology of American Democracy,” “Surveillance and Society,” “Introduction to Military Studies,” and “Current Issues in National Politics.”
Though HCR2044 may survive litigation challenging its qualification for the ballot, legal challenges to the measure’s substance could come down the line.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona already claims HCR2044 restricts academic freedom in colleges and universities, violates the First Amendment rights of students, teachers and administrators, and targets viewpoints based on race, sex and discrimination.
“Ideas are not illegal, and there is no ‘government-approved’ speech exception to the First Amendment,” Darrell Hill, policy director for the ACLU of Arizona, said in a statement. “The state cannot adopt a policy or rule that punishes faculty, administrators, or students for expressing their beliefs or prohibits wide scopes of ideas from being debated at universities.”
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 minutes ago‘Moana’ is a triumph for Pacific Islander representation on the big screen
-
Detroit, MI26 minutes agoFive shot during funeral at Detroit church
-
San Francisco, CA38 minutes agoSan Francisco Giants Announce Intriguing Roster Move Ahead of Mariners Series
-
Dallas, TX44 minutes agoDallas seafood wholesaler fined $250K for false salmon labeling
-
Miami, FL50 minutes agoAbsolutely Not: Florida woman’s “suggestive” license plate goes viral
-
Boston, MA56 minutes agoAriana Grande fan gets better tickets to TD Garden concert in Boston after resolving StubHub issue
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoMitchell Fraboni will be the Bronco long snapper in 2026
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle real estate owner sentenced to prison for $4.7 million tax evasion scheme – MyNorthwest.com
