Maryland bill would require landlords to give eviction-date notice and 10 days to reclaim belongings

Delegate Jen Terrassa introduced House Bill 767 on Feb. 18 before the House Environment and Transportation Committee, proposing that landlords must notify tenants of a scheduled eviction date at least 14 days in advance and allow a 10‑day reclamation period after an eviction for tenants to recover possessions.

The bill, the Tenant Possessions Recovery Act, aims to make the eviction process more predictable and reduce the number of tenants who lose medicines, documents, family photos and other personal items when sheriffs execute lockouts, backers told the committee.

“This process is incredibly dehumanizing and often unpredictable,” Delegate Jen Terrassa said while presenting the proposal. “Not only are they losing the place they call home, they often lose access to valuable personal belongings including medicine, pictures, family mementos, and important papers.”

Why it matters: Under current Maryland practice, once a landlord obtains a judgment and a warrant of restitution, the sheriff may schedule and execute an eviction without any statewide requirement that the tenant be told the exact eviction date. That can leave tenants who believe they still have a statutory right of redemption scrambling to pay rent or to move possessions, supporters said.

Terrassa said HB 767 would require landlords to provide tenants with at least 14 days’ notice of the scheduled eviction date — information the landlord already typically has — and to safeguard tenants’ possessions and provide reasonable access for 10 days after an eviction. “On the actual day of eviction, the landlord would still be given possession of the premises,” she noted in her testimony, “so the tenant can’t get back in without the landlord.”

Supporters included tenant‑advocacy and legal services groups and local elected officials. Albert Turner of the Public Justice Center and Renters United Maryland told the committee the bill addresses an existing statewide problem and cited recent examples of tenants returning to find belongings on the curb. “This is something that happens throughout the state of Maryland,” Turner said.

Legal background: Witnesses pointed to a Fourth Circuit decision — the Todman litigation — in which the federal appeals court found that a Baltimore City ordinance declaring possessions abandoned on eviction, without a reclamation period, violated due process. The ruling included a monetary judgment against Baltimore City that advocates cited as a warning to other local jurisdictions that current local ordinances may expose counties and cities to legal liability.

Supporters argued the bill brings Maryland closer to other states and Washington, D.C., which provide notice and reclamation periods. Terrassa said more than 30 states and the District of Columbia have reclamation periods; advocates cited examples including 30 days in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and seven days in D.C. They said the measure would help tenants keep lifesaving medicines and papers, reduce public‑health hazards caused by belongings dumped on sidewalks, and lower local liability risks.

Why opponents raised concerns: Landlord and rental‑housing representatives questioned operational and financial impacts. Some property managers and landlord groups said existing local processes and the many steps already involved in executing an eviction provide notice in practice and that adding state requirements could increase administrative or vacancy costs for owners. Witnesses for landlords asked how proposed reclamation rules would interact with insurance, storage costs and municipal codes governing disposal of abandoned property.

Key provisions and clarifications from testimony: - Advance notice: tenants would receive at least 14 days’ notice of the scheduled eviction date. - Reclamation window: tenants could reclaim possessions for 10 days after an eviction; landlords would be required to safeguard property during that period and facilitate reasonable access. - Day‑of eviction: landlords still gain possession of the premises on the eviction date; tenants cannot re‑enter without landlord permission. - Statewide baseline: sponsors said the bill would create a uniform statewide minimum; jurisdictions that already have protections would remain able to enforce them.

Supporters present written testimony and on‑the‑record accounts of tenants who say they lost critical items after lockouts, including prescription medication that had serious health consequences for at least one testifying client. Legal service providers and social‑service organizations told the committee they frequently help tenants track down eviction dates and try to recover property after the fact — work that is time consuming and often unsuccessful.

Next steps: Sponsor Terrassa asked the committee for a favorable report. Committee discussion continued with follow‑up questions about interactions with local procedures and with county sheriff offices. The committee did not record a final vote on HB 767 during the hearing; next steps and any amendments would be determined in follow‑up committee work.

Ending: Supporters characterize HB 767 as a modest, constitutionally responsive change that would prevent predictable harms to tenants and communities and reduce legal exposure for local governments. Opponents asked for technical fixes and further discussion of operational details; the bill’s outcome in committee will depend on forthcoming negotiations and any technical amendments.