[House Report 119-261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 119-261
=======================================================================
SERVICEMEMBER RESIDENCE PROTECTION ACT
----------------
September 9, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Bost, from the Committee on Veterans' Afairs,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2334]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Veterans's Affairs, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2334) to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act to preempt any squatter's rights established by State law
regarding real property owned by a member of the uniformed
services, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Subcommittee Consideration....................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Correspondence.........................................
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 5
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 5
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits............................. 5
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 5
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 6
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 7
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 7
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 7
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 7
Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs..................... 7
Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking................................ 7
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 8
Minority Views................................................... 10
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Residence Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT: TOLLING OF PERIOD OF ADVERSE
POSSESSION.
(a) In General.--Section 206 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(50 U.S.C. 3936) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Tolling of Period of Adverse Possession.--The period of a
servicemember's military service may not be included in computing a
period of adverse possession of such servicemember's real property.''.
(b) Website.--Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall update the website
of the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding such Act to include
information and resources regarding--
(1) how a member of the uniformed services may secure real
property while absent for a period of military service;
(2) leasing real property; and
(3) landlord-tenant rights and obligations.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2334, the ``Servicemember Residence Protection Act,''
was introduced by Representative Brian Mast of Florida on March
25, 2025. The bill, as amended, would exempt a servicemember's
absence due to military service when computing a period of
adverse possession. Additionally, the bill would require the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to update the VA website
with information related to securing real property during
military service and leasing and landlord information that may
be useful for servicemember and veterans.
Background and Need for Legislation
Section 1: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Residence
Protection Act.''
Section 2: Servicemember Civil Relief Act: Tolling of Period of Adverse
Possession
In 2003, Congress passed the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act (SCRA) to address the growing deployment of Reserve and
National Guard members. This legislation served as an updated
and consolidated version of the protections and rights
previously afforded to deployed servicemembers under the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA).\1\
Congress then and now acknowledges the need to safeguard the
legal interests of servicemembers whose military service
affects their ability to fulfill certain obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA): Section-by-Section
Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCRA supports national defense by allowing
servicemembers to focus on their military duties without the
burden of adverse legal actions. It temporarily suspends
specific judicial and administrative processes that could
jeopardize the deployed servicemember's rights and financial
stability.\2\ While the SCRA does not forgive debts, or grant
blanket immunity from lawsuits, it protects servicemembers from
default judgments and claims that could arise during service.
Courts are expected to interpret the SCRA generously for
servicemembers, though they can deny relief in some cases. Each
branch of the military is also required to inform
servicemembers about their rights under the SCRA prior to a
deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCRA offers key protections for reservists activated
during national crises, career military personnel, and their
families. The law includes safeguards against eviction, life
and professional insurance cancellations, taxation in multiple
locations, custody loss during deployments, property
foreclosure for unpaid taxes, and loss of rights to public
land.
Additionally, the SCRA prohibits lienholders or lessors
from seizing servicemembers' property without a court order and
allows them to terminate leases without penalty. It places a
toll on statutes of limitations for servicemembers during their
service and permits them to seek court relief for pre-service
obligations. They may also initiate legal action to enforce
their rights under the SCRA, with the Attorney General being
able to pursue violations that raise significant public issues.
The Committee advanced this section because it would
provide additional protection under the SCRA for servicemembers
who are stationed away from home against adverse possession of
real property by squatters. Representative Brian Mast waived on
to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing
to provide oral remarks on his bill, H.R. 2334, the
``Servicemember Residence Protection Act''. In Representative
Mast's remarks, he stated, ``And while these squatters'' laws
they do vary from state to state, they do generally allow
trespassers to claim ownership of a property if it is simply
open, unoccupied, if their stay is continuous on the property.
We have very specific cases that we have looked at where
servicemembers have spent upwards of $50,000, which is a
tremendous amount of money for any of us on a military salary,
as anybody can recognize, to try and get these people out in
legal fees.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Squatters Have No Place In Veterans Homes--Blog--Congressman
Brian Mast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several examples of Guard and Reservists being
called into active duty, who have their home taken over by
squatters when they return. A news story of an Army Reservist
who was activated only to come home to a squatter who drove a
Mercedes living in her home once she left on orders and now the
individual residing in her home won't leave.\4\ An additional
instance of this occurred where eleven people have been
arrested for allegedly squatting on property in South Lakeland
owned by a member of the U.S. Air Force while the veteran was
deployed to North Dakota, according to the Polk Sheriff Police
Department. While living on the service member's land,
investigators say the squatters sold property belonging to the
homeowner, trashed the property and used illegal drugs.\5\
Currently, servicemembers, National Guard, and Reservists are
called into duty, and they are sometimes required to leave
their homes unoccupied. The laws governing adverse possession
vary from state to state, which creates ambiguity related to
the protections available under the SCRA for servicemembers who
find a squatter residing in their home when they return from
duty. The Committee believes this section is needed as it would
provide clarity and uniformity for servicemembers under SCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Army reservist's Texas home taken over by squatter who drives a
Mercedes SUV while on active duty.
\5\11 arrested, accused of ransacking veteran's home in Polk County
firstcoastnews.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
On June 11, 2025, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
conducted a legislative hearing on a number of bills, including
H.R. 2334.
The following witnesses testified:
Dr. Liz Clark, Acting Director, Defense Support
Services, U.S. Department of Defense, Mr. Nick
Pamperin, Executive Director, Veterans Readiness and
Employment, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, who
was accompanied by Mr. Thomas Alphonso, Assistant
Director of Policy and Implementation, Education
Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr.
Andrew Petrie, Senior Policy Analyst, Veterans
Education and Employment Division, The American Legion,
Mr. Blaze Smith, Director, Veterans Education and
Transition Center, The University of Arizona, Mr.
Matthew Schwartzman, Director, Legislation and Military
Policy, Reserve Organization of America, Ms. Ashlynne
Haycock-Lohmann, Director, Government and Legislative
Affairs, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors
(TAPS).
Statements for the record were submitted by:
Dr. Joseph W. Wescott, National Legislative Liaison,
National Association of State Approving Agencies
(NASAA), Mr. Will Hubbard, Vice President for Veterans
and Military Policy, Veterans Education Success (VES),
Ms. Julie Howell, Associate Legislative Director for
Governmental Relations, Paralyzed Veterans of America
(PVA), Mr. Jake Fales, Senior Policy Fellow, and Hannah
Miller, Policy and Communications Fellow, Reserve
Organization of America (ROA), Ms. Tammy Barlet, Vice
President of Government Affairs, Student Veterans of
America (SVA), Ms. Kristina Keenan, Director, National
Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States (VFW).
Subcommittee Consideration
On July 3, 2025, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
was discharged from further consideration of this legislation.
Committee Consideration
On July 23, 2025, the full Committee met in open markup
session, a quorum being present, and ordered H.R. 2334, as
amended, to be reported favorably to the House of
Representatives by voice vote. During consideration of the
bill, the following amendments were considered:
An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Chairman Bost of Illinois. This amendment in the nature
of a substitute would add a short title to the bill and
include some clarifying language regarding adverse
possession. This amendment in the nature of a
substitute, which was amended by the Takano substitute
amendment, was agreed to by voice vote.
A substitute amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute was offered by Ranking Member Takano of
California. This substitute amendment would amend the
SCRA to include language exempting a servicemember's
military service when computing a period of adverse
possession. Additionally, the substitute amendment
would require VA to disseminate information to
servicemembers within 45 days of the bill being signed
into law. This substitute amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute was agreed to by voice vote.
A motion by Ranking Member Takano to report H.R. 2334, as
amended, favorably to the House of Representatives, was agreed
to by voice vote.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, there were no recorded votes
taken on amendments or in connection with ordering H.R. 2334 as
amended, reported to the House. A motion by Ranking Member
Takano of California to report H.R. 2334, as amended, favorably
to the House of Representatives was agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals and objectives are to update the law to protect the real
property of servicemembers from potential squatters while they
are away on active duty.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and
Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits
H.R. 2334, as amended, does not contain any Congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate on H.R.
2334, as amended, prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
for H.R. 2334, as amended, provided by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 2334 would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(SCRA) to exclude the period of time that a member of the armed
forces serves in the military from a state's or other
jurisdiction's calculation of a period of adverse possession.
(That is, the determination of the period of time after which
the service member may lose ownership of their real property to
another person who possesses the property.) Because those
property rights do not directly implicate the federal
government, CBO estimates that the bill's changes to the SCRA
would not affect the federal budget.
The bill also would require the Department of Veterans
Affairs to update its website to include information pertaining
to service members' property and tenancy rights. Based on
similar efforts, CBO estimates that the requirement would
increase spending subject to appropriation by less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2035 period.
H.R. 2334 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by
preempting state laws to exclude military service from the
calculation of periods of adverse possession of real property.
CBO estimates that the preemption would not result in
additional expenditures or losses in revenue, and therefore,
the cost of the mandate would not exceed the thresholds
established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($103
million, adjusted annually for inflation).
The bill does not contain private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Paul B.A.
Holland (federal costs) and Brandon Lever (mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by Christina Hawley Anthony, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates regarding H.R. 2334, as amended, prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act would be created by H.R.
2334, as amended.
Statement of Constitutional Authority
Pursuant to Article I, section 8 of the United States
Constitution, H.R. 2334, as amended, is authorized by Congress'
power to ``provide for the common Defense and general Welfare
of the United States.''
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that H.R. 2334, as amended, does not
relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to
public services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision
of H.R. 2334, as amended, establishes or reauthorizes a program
of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another
Federal program, a program that was included in any report from
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking
Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, 115th Cong. (2017),
the Committee estimates that H.R. 2334, as amended, contains no
directed rulemaking that would require the Secretary to
prescribe regulations.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1: Short title
This section would establish the short title of the bill as
the ``Servicemember Residence Protection Act.''
Section 2: Servicemember Civil Relief Act: Tolling of period of adverse
possession
This section would amend section 3696 in title 50, United
States Code by adding a new subsection (d) to add additional
protection to the adverse possession clause under the SCRA by
clarifying that a servicemember's military service may not be
included in computing a period of adverse possession.
Additionally, this section would require VA, no later than 45
days after the enactment of the bill, to update their website
with relevant information related to securing real property
during military service and information on landlord-tenant
rights and leasing real property.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL RELIEF
* * * * * * *
SEC. 206. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
(a) Tolling of Statutes of Limitation During Military
Service.--The period of a servicemember's military service may
not be included in computing any period limited by law,
regulation, or order for the bringing of any action or
proceeding in a court, or in any board, bureau, commission,
department, or other agency of a State (or political
subdivision of a State) or the United States by or against the
servicemember or the servicemember's heirs, executors,
administrators, or assigns.
(b) Redemption of Real Property.--A period of military
service may not be included in computing any period provided by
law for the redemption of real property sold or forfeited to
enforce an obligation, tax, or assessment.
(c) Inapplicability to Internal Revenue Laws.--This section
does not apply to any period of limitation prescribed by or
under the internal revenue laws of the United States.
(d) Tolling of Period of Adverse Possession.--The period of a
servicemember's military service may not be included in
computing a period of adverse possession of such
servicemember's real property.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
Ranking Member Takano offered a substitute amendment to
Chaiman Bost's amendment in the nature of a substitute (A.N.S)
to H.R. 2334 at the full Committee markup, in order to clarify
that the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act (SCRA) tolls the
period of actual possession necessary to establish a claim to a
servicemember's real property under the doctrine adverse
possession. It further requires VA to update its SCRA webpage
to include resources to educate servicemembers on (1) securing
their property during periods of absence; (2) leasing property;
and (3) landlord-tenant rights and obligations.
Democratic members appreciate and support the intent of
H.R. 2334, introduced by Rep. Mast's original bill: ensuring
that servicemembers do not return home from serving their
country to find squatters living in their homes and enabling
servicemembers to easily remove them. However, neither the
original bill nor Chairman Bost's A.N.S. effectively
accomplished that goal. Further, the ability of Congress to
legislate a solution to that particular issue is legally
difficult, as will be discussed below. The Takano substitute
amendment was drafted so as to avoid creating confusion where
courts have already ruled in SCRA cases involving adverse
possession by codifying existing legal interpretations of SCRA
tolling provisions.
BACKGROUND
Both H.R. 2334, as introduced, and the Bost A.N.S. lack the
legal specificity necessary to give them practical effect. The
original bill attempts to amend SCRA (54 Stat. 1178; 50 U.S.C.
3901 et seq.) by inserting, after section 301, the following
new section:
``Any State law establishing squatter's rights shall
not apply to premises--
(1) owned by a servicemember; and
(2) occupied by a squatter during a period of
military service of such servicemember''
The bill is concerningly vague because ``squatter'' and
``squatter's rights'' are terms that do not have any recognized
legal meaning. ``Squatter's rights'' is a colloquial term that
can refer to two distinct categories: (1) adverse possession or
(2) eviction protections for holdover tenants and certain
trespassers. Thus, a federal law preempting ``State law
establishing squatter's rights'' would create ambiguity because
it does not name any specific legal term or doctrine.
Category 1: Adverse Possession
Adverse possession is a property law doctrine which allows
a possessor to claim title to the true owner's real property
after having lived on the property, made changes to the
property, and behaved as the true owner would, for many years.
The elements that must be satisfied to bring an adverse
possession claim vary by jurisdiction, but generally require
(1) actual possession that is (2) open and notorious; (2)
adverse or hostile; (3) continuous; and (4) exclusive; (5) for
the statutory period.\1\ If these elements are met, the
possessor may attempt to claim title to the property and
establish ownership through legal proceedings. Until the
possessor satisfies all the elements of adverse possession,
they remain a trespasser and may not claim title.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Adverse
Possession (accessed July 29, 2025) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/
adverse_possession).
\2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the exact elements of adverse possession vary by
state/territory, all require that the possessor must occupy the
property for a specified time period.\3\ The periods' lengths
also vary''some states require as little as 3 years if other
requirements are met, or as long as 30 years, but most states
require that the possessor occupy the property for between 10
and 20 years. Most states toll the statutory period if the true
owner is not able to monitor their property due to
circumstances beyond their control (i.e. infancy, mental
illness, and imprisonment).\4\ Tolling essentially ``stops the
clock'' on adverse possession.\5\ Any occupation of the
property while the period is tolled may not be used in
computing the time period of possession for purposes of an
adverse possession claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Justia, Adverse Possession Laws: 50 State Survey (accessed July
30, 2025) (https://www.justia.com/real-estate/home-ownership/owning-a-
home/adverse-possession-laws-50-state-survey/).
\4\Justia, Adverse Possession Under Property Law (accessed July 30,
2025) (https://www.justia.com/real-estate/home-ownership/owning-a-home/
adverse-possession/:textMany;
%20jurisdictions%20allow%20an%20adverse,Home%20Ownership%20Legal%20Cente
r
%20Contents).
\5\Justia, Equitable Tolling (accessed July 30, 2025) (https://
dictionary.justia.com/equitable-
tolling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the other elements are challenging for a
possessor to meet. For example, the ``open and notorious''
element generally requires the possessor to make their presence
known.\6\ This can include building a fence or shed, planting a
garden, changing the landscaping, etc. The ``adverse or
hostile'' element requires that the possessor is on the
property without permission, and the ``exclusive'' element
means the possessor must exclude others as if they were the
true owner.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Id.
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2: Eviction Protections for Holdover Tenants and Certain
Trespassers
A holdover tenant is a tenant who has overstayed their
lease.\8\ A trespasser is a person who enters another's
property without permission.\9\ In either case, the property
owner must take steps through legal channels to remove the
holdover tenant or trespasser. The rules and procedures are
governed by a complex interplay between state and municipal
laws and vary by jurisdiction.\10\ These procedures provide
protections to ensure that the party claiming to own the
property is the true owner, and to ensure the possessor is
truly on the property without permission. The procedures thus
ensure that the rights of both parties are properly respected.
While both holdover tenants and trespassers do enjoy legal
procedures that must be followed before they may be evicted,
neither may acquire title to the property unless they can
satisfy all the elements of adverse possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Holdover Tenant
(accessed July 29, 2025) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/
holdover_tenant).
\9\Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Trespass
(accessed July 29, 2025) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass).
\10\Congressional Research Service, Federal Role in Preventing
Evictions (R47204) (Nov. 10, 2022); Cornell Legal Information
Institute, trespass, (accessed July 30, 2025) (https://
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICATION TO THE BILL AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS
Republican Members of the Committee compiled a list of news
articles which they argued illustrated the problems their
legislation attempts to solve. The articles included stories of
servicemembers who had returned from deployments to find people
living in their home.\11\ The occupants were either strangers
(trespassers) or people with permission to be there who had
overstayed their welcome (holdover tenants). None of the
stories involved an adverse possession case in which a
possessor attempted to claim legal title of the property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\For example: Army reservist's home taken over by squatter who
drives a Mercedes after she was called up for active duty, New York
Post (Sept. 15, 2023) (https://nypost.com/2023/09/15/army-reservists-
texas-home-taken-over-by-squatter-who-drives-a-mercedes-suv-while-on-
active-duty/); Alleged squatters arrested for ransacking soldier's
Cleveland home, Chron (Jan. 31, 2012) (https://www.chron.com/
neighborhood/cleveland/news/article/Alleged-squatters-arrested-for-
ransacking-9312330.php); Deployed soldier unable to return to his
Decatur house because of squatters, Fox 5 (Feb. 26, 2022) (https://
www.fox5atlanta.com/news/deployed-soldier-unable-to-return-to-his-
decatur-house-because-of-squatters); Squatter moves into soldier's home
while deployed, Alive (April 23, 2014) (https://www.11alive.com/
article/news/weird/squatter-moves-into-soldiers-home-while-deployed/85-
253104858).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Bost's A.N.S.
Chairman Bost's A.N.S. attempts to improve the original
bill's vague language by specifically naming adverse
possession, and instead states:
``No person may acquire title to premises owned by a
servicemember by adversely possessing such premises
during a period of military service of such
servicemember.''
Because acquiring title to property through adverse
possession is a long and involved process, in practice,
Chairman Bost's A.N.S. would likely only grant relief to
servicemembers in extremely rare circumstances. A servicemember
would only gain the benefits of this legislation if their
property was occupied by a possessor who was able to satisfy
all the elements of adverse possession, including possession
for the lengthy statutory period, which is likely longer than
most servicemembers are stationed away from home. Moreover, the
A.N.S. presents an ambiguity because it does not explain how it
prevents adverse possession from occurring or how it purports
to preempt state or common law elements of adverse possession.
It does not state clearly whether the servicemember's period of
military may not be included in calculating the statutory
period, whether no person can claim title if they have
satisfied all the elements of adverse possession during the
servicemember's period of service, or whether the possessor
simply may not bring a claim to title during the
servicemember's period of service. Furthermore, it would not
solve the problems that motivated the original bill: holdover
tenants and trespassers.
At the full Committee Markup on July 23, 2025, Chairman
Bost made a series of claims regarding his A.N.S. and the
relief it would provide to servicemembers. These claims are not
supported by a reasonable reading of his amendment or by a
cursory review of existing court rulings. First, the Chairman
stated: ``Under current law, the Servicemember's Civil Relief
Act does not protect a servicemember who returns home from
military orders and finds individuals residing in their home
illegally from [sic] assistance due to the state squatter
protection laws.''\12\ This is only partly true. While SCRA
does not allow servicemembers to bypass eviction procedures for
holdover tenants or certain trespassers, courts in multiple
jurisdictions have interpreted SCRA's tolling provision to
provide some relief for servicemembers in adverse possession
claims against their property by tolling the statutory period
during the servicemember's period of service.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Statement of Chairman
Mike Bost, Full Committee Markup of H.R. 2334 (July 23, 2025).
\13\SCRA's current tolling provision, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 3936, was
preceded by a number of substantially similar provisions, some of which
are cited in the case law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in an adverse possession claim, the North
Carolina Court of Appeals held that the statutory period was
``automatically and unconditionally tolled until plaintiff's
retirement from military service.''\14\ Similarly, the
Massachusetts District Court explained that ``[f]or over 70
years the present 205 and its predecessors have protected
American servicemen from the running of statutes of limitations
and periods of adverse possession while they were engaged in
the business of defending their country.''\15\ The Alabama
Supreme Court also held that SCRA tolls the statutory period
for adverse possession claims during military service.\16\ It
explained that ``[i]t was undisputed that the appellee was in
the military service from 1937 until July, 1951,'' so the
period of his service ``could not be considered in computing
the ten year period for adverse possession.''\17\ The Texas
Third Court of Appeals reached a similar result, concluding
that a period of military service must be ``excluded'' in
calculating whether the possessor had occupied the property for
the full statutory period.\18\ Thus, SCRA as currently drafted
has been interpreted in multiple jurisdictions to toll the
statutory period, and thus excludes the servicemember's period
of service in computing the time the possessor has occupied
their property in an adverse possession claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Taylor v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp. 357 S.E.2d 439,441
(N.C. App. 1987). The case cites the Soldiers and Sailors Act (50
U.S.C.A App. Sec. 525) and specifically quotes ``The period of military
service shall not be included in computing any period . . . limited by
any law . . . for the bringing of [an] action . . . in any court . . .
against any person in military service . . . whether such cause of
action or the right or privilege to institute such action or proceeding
shall have accrued prior to or during the period of such service.''
\15\Mouradian v. John Hancock Cos., 751 F. Supp. 272, 275 (D.C.
Mass. 1990) (Sec. 205 also uses substantially similar language. The
opinion quotes ``The period of military service shall not be included
in computing any period now or hereafter to be limited by any law,
regulation, or order for the bringing of any action or proceeding in
any court, board, bureau, commission, department, or other agency of
government by or against any person in military service . . ., whether
such cause of action or the right or privilege to institute such action
or proceeding shall have accrued prior to or during the period of such
service . . . .'') (emphasis in opinion).
\16\Campbell v. Laningham, 145 So. 2d 824, 827 (Ala. 1962).
\17\Id.
\18\Barstow v. State, 742 S.W.2d 489, 504 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Chairman Bost stated:
``to remove these individuals servicemembers must fight
their state government, and typically pay costly fees
to get trespassers out of their home, out of homes they
own. This bill would close this loophole by ensuring
that the state squatter laws do not allow squatters to
occupy servicemembers homes while they are away on
active duty''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\House Veterans Affairs Committee, Statement of Chairman Mike
Bost, Full Committee Markup of H.R. 2334 (July 23, 2024).
This claim is incorrect. Both servicemembers and civilians
must follow certain legal procedures to evict trespassers or
holdover tenants, but Chairman Bost's A.N.S. does not change
that. It would simply prevent a possessor from claiming title
through adverse possession in the rare case that the possessor
occupied the servicemember's property for the full statutory
period (up to 30 years) and satisfied all other elements. It
does not disturb state law regarding eviction procedures for
holdover tenants or trespassers.
Finally, Chairman Bost claimed: ``[a]dditionally, it would
ensure our nation's servicemembers have the right to quickly,
easily affect [sic] trespassers instead of going through an
expensive, time-consuming process.''\20\ This claim is also
incorrect because Chairman Bost's A.N.S. does not change the
legal process property owners must follow to evict holdover
tenants or trespassers. It only involves claims to title
through adverse possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, neither Rep. Mast's original bill nor Chairman
Bost's A.N.S. have clear and substantive legal effect, and
neither do they address the underlying problems they purport to
solve. Furthermore, SCRA provides a private right of action and
requires servicemembers to assert their rights in court; it is
not self-enforcing.
RANKING MEMBER TAKANO'S SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
Ranking Member Takano's substitute amendment seeks to
provide legal clarity to improve Chairman Bost's A.N.S. Unlike
Chairman Bost's A.N.S. which does not specify how it would have
legal effect, Ranking Member Takano's substitute amendment
amends SCRA's tolling provision to specifically state that SCRA
tolls the statutory period for adverse possession, and thus the
servicemember's period of service does not count toward any
claim to title.
Furthermore, Ranking Member Takano's substitute amendment
attempts to actually address the underlying motivation for the
bill by providing resources to servicemembers to educate them
on securing their property during periods of absence, and
information on leasing property, and landlord-tenant rights and
obligations. The information on securing property during
periods of absence is intended to help servicemembers prevent
trespassers from accessing their property, and the information
on leasing property and landlord-tenant rights is intended to
aid servicemembers in creating strong lease agreements to help
prevent holdover tenancies.
Committee Democrats support Committee Republicans' efforts
to ensure that servicemembers do not encounter unwanted
occupants of their property during periods of service, and
Ranking Member Takano's substitute amendment provides legal
clarity and education resources to better achieve those ends.
Mark Takano,
Ranking Member.
[all]