Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landlord Tenant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates eviction-procedure bill; members question 10‑day holding requirement for tenant belongings
Summary
Lawmakers debated amendments to a landlord-tenant bill that requires landlords to hold or store tenants’ personal property for a 10‑day period after a warrant of restitution is executed; the bill was special-ordered for further consideration after extended practical questions from members.
House consideration of "House 7 67" included extended floor discussion about procedures landlords must follow after a tenant is evicted, how long personal property must be held and whether landlords may recover related costs.
A floor leader described the bill as a response to a federal court ruling and said the legislation attempts to bring Maryland’s practices into constitutional compliance. "Judge Wilkinson of the fourth circuit said ... Todman versus City of Baltimore ... held ... the city's process for evictions and reclamation period unconstitutional," the floor leader said on the floor. He described the bill as an attempt to "put our set of laws on the right side of the constitution."
Members probed practical consequences. One delegate asked whether a landlord could change locks and how the landlord should treat personal property left in the unit; the floor leader listed options landlords might use in other states: leave belongings in the unit and change the locks, move items to a storage unit and coordinate pickup with the tenant, or seek reimbursement for lost rent during the hold period in the district court action. On the floor the floor leader said: "If he uses the storage unit, there would be no option in this bill for him to recover the expenses of the storage unit. However ... leaving the belongings in the unit might be attractive because he would have the option under the bill to recover that lost rent of that 10 day period from the tenant in the same district court action."
Several members raised concerns about domestic-abuse victims and practical consequences when another person (often a controlling partner) uses a vehicle or controls household funds; one member announced a planned vote against the bill because of that concern.
After question-and-answer, the bill’s sponsor agreed to special-order the legislation to the appropriate time the following day to allow amendments to be filed; the House granted the special order.
Why it matters: The bill would change post-eviction procedures statewide, affecting landlords, tenants and sheriffs. The floor discussion highlighted unresolved practical and fairness questions—particularly who pays for storage and how eviction procedures affect victims of domestic abuse.
Outcome: Committee amendments were adopted earlier in the day; the bill was special-ordered to the appropriate time tomorrow for further amendment and consideration.
