Several new Texas laws took effect on New Year’s Day, but one change to landlord-tenant law stands out for its potential to affect millions of renters and property owners across the state. Senate Bill 38, which was initially promoted as a crackdown on squatters, makes significant changes to how evictions work in Texas. Some of those changes make the eviction process faster and easier for landlords, while at least one provision adds a meaningful new protection for tenants. Taken together, the law reflects a broader shift toward streamlining court procedures while attempting, at least in limited ways, to address fairness concerns for renters.
At its core, Senate Bill 38 modifies three major areas of eviction law: how eviction notices can be delivered, when courts can rule in favor of landlords without a trial, and when tenants are allowed a short window to fix a late rent payment. Each of these changes has practical consequences that go far beyond legal theory and will shape everyday housing disputes across Texas.
Modernizing eviction notices
Before this law took effect, Texas eviction rules were surprisingly rigid when it came to how a notice to vacate had to be delivered. In most situations, landlords were required to either hand-deliver the notice or send it by mail. If no one over the age of 16 was present, the notice had to be physically attached to the inside of the main entry door. Courts often treated even minor deviations from these rules as fatal errors, meaning a landlord could lose an otherwise valid eviction case simply because the notice was placed slightly incorrectly.
Landlord groups argued that these requirements turned the eviction process into a technical minefield. A notice slid under a door or taped slightly off to the side could be enough to derail a case, even if the tenant clearly knew about the eviction. From their perspective, the law was less about fairness and more about procedural traps.
Senate Bill 38 addresses this by loosening the rules on notice delivery. Under the new law, a notice to vacate may be placed in a conspicuous location inside the unit. In addition, eviction notices can now be sent by email, as long as both the landlord and tenant previously agreed to electronic communication.
From a common-sense standpoint, this change reflects how people actually live today. Many tenants communicate with their landlords primarily by email or online portals, and insisting on paper-only notices can feel outdated. Allowing email delivery reduces disputes over whether a notice was properly served and acknowledges modern communication habits.
At the same time, the new standard raises important questions. The word conspicuous is not clearly defined, and that ambiguity may lead to new conflicts. What one person considers obvious and visible might not be obvious to someone else. A notice taped to a refrigerator or placed on a kitchen counter could technically qualify, but a tenant might easily miss it. Until judges begin interpreting the term consistently, tenants may face greater uncertainty about whether they actually received legally sufficient notice.
Summary dispositions and squatter cases
One of the most consequential changes in Senate Bill 38 is the introduction of summary disposition in certain eviction cases. This allows a judge to rule in favor of a landlord without holding a trial, provided there are no genuinely disputed facts that would change the outcome.
This process applies specifically to forcible entry and detainer cases, which generally involve people who entered a property without permission and never had a legal right to live there. In these situations, the defendant has a short window, up to four days, to present evidence showing that their occupancy is lawful. If they fail to do so, the court can rule for the landlord based solely on written filings.
For property owners, this change is significant. Squatter cases can drag on for months under traditional procedures, leaving units unusable and costing landlords time and money. Summary disposition is designed to move these cases through the system more quickly, freeing up housing and reducing court backlogs.
From a broader policy perspective, this provision reflects a desire to focus court resources on genuine disputes rather than clear-cut cases. When there is no real disagreement about who has the right to possession, a full trial may serve little purpose.
However, the lack of a trial also raises concerns. Eviction proceedings already move quickly, and summary disposition accelerates that timeline even further. Defendants who lack legal knowledge or access to counsel may struggle to respond within the short deadline, even if they have a legitimate claim. While the provision is narrowly tailored to squatter scenarios, its real-world impact will depend on how carefully courts ensure that cases truly meet that definition.
A new protection for late rent payments
The most tenant-friendly provision in Senate Bill 38 is the creation of a limited right to cure a late rent payment. Under the old system, landlords could terminate a lease immediately when rent was late, even by a single day. This gave landlords enormous leverage and, in some cases, created opportunities for retaliation.
Under the new law, a tenant who has never been late before is entitled to a 72-hour window to pay the overdue rent after missing a payment. During that time, the late payment alone cannot serve as the basis for an eviction.
This change introduces a measure of proportionality into the eviction process. Most people understand that life happens. Paychecks arrive late, bank errors occur, and emergencies arise. Allowing a short grace period for a first-time mistake aligns the law more closely with everyday reality.
That said, the protection comes with significant ambiguity. The statute does not clearly define what it means to have never been late before. It is unclear whether this applies only to the current lease term, the past year, or the tenant’s entire rental history with that landlord. Judges will ultimately have to interpret the law, which means outcomes may vary widely from court to court.
This uncertainty could undermine the protection’s effectiveness. Tenants may not know whether they qualify, and landlords may challenge the applicability of the rule. Until appellate courts provide guidance or the legislature revisits the language, confusion is likely.
A law of trade-offs
Senate Bill 38 reflects a familiar pattern in housing policy: efficiency gains for property owners paired with narrower, more fragile protections for tenants. The law simplifies notice requirements and speeds up certain eviction cases, reducing procedural hurdles for landlords. At the same time, it introduces a modest safeguard for renters who make a first-time mistake with rent.
Whether the law ultimately improves fairness in the eviction system will depend on how it is applied. If courts interpret conspicuous notice too loosely, tenants may lose important protections. If summary disposition is used carefully and limited to true squatter cases, it could reduce abuse without harming lawful renters. And if judges adopt a reasonable, tenant-centered interpretation of the late payment cure provision, it could prevent unnecessary evictions.
In the end, Senate Bill 38 is neither a sweeping victory for landlords nor a major win for tenants. It is a pragmatic, imperfect attempt to modernize a system that often frustrates everyone involved. As with many legal reforms, its real impact will be determined not just by the words on the page, but by how those words are enforced in Texas courtrooms in the months and years ahead.
.png)
