Md. bill would require 14 days’ eviction notice and 10‑day property reclamation window

Delegate Jen Terrassa introduced House Bill 767 on Feb. 18, asking the House Environment and Transportation Committee to require landlords to notify tenants at least 14 days before a scheduled eviction and to allow a 10‑day reclamation period after an eviction so tenants can recover personal property.

Terrassa said the bill would bring Maryland in line with more than 30 states and the District of Columbia, and would reduce the risk that tenants lose medicines, family photos and other irreplaceable items when their belongings are put out on the curb. "The process is incredibly dehumanizing and often unpredictable," Delegate Jen Terrassa said, describing how tenants can be uninformed about the sheriff's scheduled removal and then find their possessions destroyed or stolen.

The nut graf: Supporters — including tenant advocates, legal aid attorneys and social‑service organizations — framed HB 767 as a narrow procedural fix designed to stop constitutional violations flagged by the Fourth Circuit and reduce public‑health and nuisance risks from eviction debris. They urged the committee to report the bill favorably, saying the change is administrable for landlords and protective for tenants.

Committee testimony and why it matters Supporters said testimony and case law show recurring harms. Attorney Albert Turner of the Public Justice Center and others pointed to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the Todman litigation, which found that a Baltimore law declaring tenants’ items abandoned upon eviction violated due process and resulted in a monetary judgment. Catherine Davis of the Pro Bono Resource Center told the committee that callers routinely report not knowing their eviction dates and later finding important documents or medicines missing.

Advocates described common mechanics under current law: landlords may move for a warrant of restitution within days after a judgment; the sheriff then schedules an eviction, often without notifying the tenant of the date. Terrassa and witnesses said a 14‑day notice requirement would not materially delay most evictions because, they argued, many sheriff scheduling timelines already exceed that interval in practice.

Landlord and property management perspective Representatives of landlord and property groups did not occupy the main supportive panels at this hearing, but in prior and subsequent hearings some landlord groups have raised concerns about storage costs, turnover delays and the administrative burden of safeguarding property. HB 767 would make landlords responsible for safeguarding property during the 10‑day reclamation period and for facilitating reasonable access for tenants to recover items. The bill would not allow tenants to re‑enter a unit after the lockout on the eviction day; landlords would regain possession on the eviction date.

Key provisions and clarifications - Tenants must receive at least 14 days’ advance notice of a scheduled eviction date. - Tenants have 10 days after an eviction to reclaim possessions; landlords must safeguard those items and facilitate reasonable access. - The bill does not change that landlords obtain possession on the eviction date, nor does it require landlords to permit in‑unit reentry on that date.

Support and local context Witnesses and organizations supporting the bill included the Public Justice Center, Maryland Legal Aid, CASA, the Pro Bono Resource Center, A Wider Circle and several county officials and nonprofit providers. Supporters emphasized that Baltimore City and some jurisdictions already have notice or reclamation practices and that the bill addresses statewide exposure after the Fourth Circuit ruling.

What the bill does not do HB 767 does not create a right to re‑occupy a unit after an eviction, nor does it eliminate landlord remedies for abandoned or spoiled property after the reclamation period. It does not specify a fee structure for storage beyond the landlord’s responsibilities outlined in the bill text; committee discussion flagged questions about precisely how landlords will manage storage costs and logistics.

Where it goes from here Supporters urged a favorable report to the House. Committee members asked for comparisons to county practices and for implementation details, including sheriff‑office coordination, storage and notice mechanics. If reported favorably, the proposal would move to the full House for debate and possible amendment.

Ending Proponents described HB 767 as a narrow statutory change aimed at preventing predictable, avoidable harms — missing prescriptions, destroyed keepsakes and litigation exposure — by giving tenants reasonable advance notice of a scheduled eviction date and a short, specified window to reclaim property afterward.