Sales and Use Tax and Property Tax - Exemptions for Data Centers - Repeal
HB0560 creates a new criminal offense for fraudulent possession of residential real property. Under the bill, a person may not, with intent to defraud another, possess or claim a right to possess residential property that the person does not lawfully possess or own. A violation is a misdemeanor, with escalating penalties for repeat offenses within two years: up to 90 days and/or a $500 fine for a first offense, up to 6 months and/or a $1,000 fine for a second offense, and up to 1 year and/or a $2,500 fine for subsequent offenses.
The bill also gives property owners a new enforcement tool. An owner of residential real property allegedly being fraudulently occupied may submit a sworn affidavit to the county sheriff, and the sheriff must remove the person and restore possession to the owner, unless the person produces evidence of lawful possession. The bill does not apply where the occupant has possession under a court order or where another remedy is available under Title 8 of the Real Property Article, and it expressly preserves the owner’s ability to bring a wrongful detainer action under existing law.
HB0560 would add a new section to the Criminal Law Article, creating a misdemeanor offense tied to fraudulent claims of possession of residential real property and establishing a summary removal process involving county sheriffs. It would affect property owners, occupants, law enforcement, and the courts by supplementing existing landlord-tenant and real property remedies rather than replacing them. The bill expressly leaves in place wrongful detainer actions and other remedies under the Real Property Article, while creating a faster path for owners to regain possession in alleged fraud cases.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a property-rights and anti-fraud bill, with an emphasis on helping owners quickly recover homes from unlawful occupants. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the available materials. The structure of the bill suggests a generally pro-enforcement posture, but the absence of discussion transcripts limits assessment of broader sentiment.
The main points of potential contention are the new sheriff-led removal process and the scope of the offense. Critics could question whether a sworn affidavit should be enough to trigger removal without a fuller court process, and whether the bill could be misused in disputes over possession or occupancy. Supporters are likely to emphasize the need to deter fraud and provide a faster remedy for owners facing unlawful occupation. The bill attempts to address some concerns by excluding cases where a court order already grants possession and by preserving existing civil remedies.