State Procurement - Streamlining Contract Modifications
HB 271 would amend Maryland’s wrongful detainer law to create an expedited process when the property at issue is advertised or listed for sale or lease, including on a local multiple listing service. In those cases, the District Court would be required to summon the occupant in person immediately, set the hearing within a very short time frame, and issue a ruling quickly after the hearing. If the complainant prevails, the bill also requires the court to issue a warrant within 24 hours, and the sheriff must execute it immediately.
The bill also tightens notice procedures in these expedited cases by requiring personal service where possible and, if the occupant cannot be found, conspicuous posting on the property. It shortens the appeal timeline as well, requiring appeals to be filed and heard much faster than under the general wrongful detainer process. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, and would amend Section 14-132 of the Real Property Article.
HB 271 would change Maryland’s real property eviction-related procedures by adding a special expedited track to wrongful detainer actions involving properties marketed for sale or lease. It would affect landlords, property owners, occupants in possession without legal right, sheriffs/constables, and the District and circuit courts by compressing service, hearing, appeal, and warrant-issuance deadlines. The bill would amend Maryland Code, Real Property Article § 14-132, without creating a new cause of action, but by altering the timing and process for existing wrongful detainer proceedings.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. The bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House, which suggests it did not advance through the legislative process. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to favor faster recovery of possession for complainants in sale-or-lease situations, but the public record provided here does not show formal sentiment from legislators or stakeholders.
The main point of contention likely would be the bill’s accelerated timelines and reduced procedural window for occupants to respond, appeal, and remain in possession during appeal. Property owners and sellers/lessors would likely support the faster process as a way to protect marketability and avoid delays, while tenants, occupants, and housing advocates could object that the bill limits due process and increases the risk of rapid displacement. The requirement for in-person service and immediate warrants also raises concerns about notice adequacy and the balance between property rights and occupant protections.