Public Health - Social Isolation and Loneliness Pilot Grant Program - Establishment
HB0202 would create new criminal offenses aimed at fraudulent activity involving residential real property. The bill prohibits a person, with intent to defraud, from falsely claiming to sell, convey, or lease property they do not own or are not authorized to transfer; from obtaining or transferring property through deception, intimidation, threat, or undue influence; and from counterfeiting deeds or leases. It also makes it a crime to knowingly assist in these acts or to possess counterfeit deeds or leases with fraudulent intent.
The bill further adds a separate offense for knowingly possessing or claiming a right to possess residential real property that a person does not lawfully possess or own, when done with intent to defraud. For this possession-related offense, the bill creates escalating misdemeanor penalties for repeat violations and authorizes a property owner to submit a sworn affidavit to the county sheriff. If the sheriff receives the affidavit and the occupant cannot produce evidence of lawful possession, the sheriff must remove the person and return possession to the owner, subject to exceptions for court-ordered possession or other remedies under the Real Property Article. The bill expressly preserves the owner’s ability to file a wrongful detainer action.
In addition to adding new sections to the Criminal Law Article, the bill amends existing forgery law by removing “deed” from the list of counterfeit instruments covered under § 8-601 and by updating venue provisions for prosecution. It also sets felony and misdemeanor penalties for the new real-property fraud offenses and specifies that prosecutions may be brought in counties tied to the crime, the victim’s residence, or the victim’s business location. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill appears to be motivated by concerns about deed fraud, title theft, fraudulent leasing, and unlawful occupancy of residential property. The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented public sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, its policy direction is protective of homeowners and property owners, with a strong enforcement focus through criminal penalties and sheriff-assisted removal procedures.
The main point of potential contention is the sheriff-removal mechanism, which allows an owner to trigger removal through a sworn affidavit before a court proceeding, although the bill includes a safeguard requiring the occupant to be given an opportunity to show lawful possession. Another possible area of concern is the overlap between the new criminal provisions and existing civil remedies such as wrongful detainer actions, as well as the breadth of conduct covered by terms like deception, intimidation, threat, and undue influence.
HB0202 would expand Maryland criminal law by creating new offenses targeting fraudulent conveyances, leases, deeds, and unlawful possession of residential real property, while also amending existing forgery provisions in Criminal Law § 8-601. It would add new sections 8-906 and 8-907 to the Criminal Law Article, establish felony and misdemeanor penalties, authorize county venue in specified circumstances, and create a sheriff-assisted removal process based on an owner’s sworn affidavit. The bill also preserves existing civil remedies, including wrongful detainer actions under the Real Property Article.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s text suggests a generally pro-property-owner, anti-fraud policy orientation, likely to be viewed favorably by supporters concerned about deed theft, title fraud, and squatting. At the same time, the sheriff-removal authority and the criminalization of possession claims may draw caution from those concerned about due process and potential misuse.
The most notable contention is the balance between rapid property-owner relief and occupant due process. Supporters are likely to favor the affidavit-and-sheriff removal process as a fast remedy against fraudulent occupancy, while opponents may question whether it provides enough judicial review before removal. Another likely point of debate is the scope of criminal liability for conduct involving deeds, leases, and claims of possession, especially where disputes may also be handled through civil landlord-tenant or real-property procedures. The bill’s overlap with existing wrongful detainer and other Real Property Article remedies may also raise questions about redundancy and enforcement coordination.