HB0767, the Tenant Possessions Recovery Act, revises Maryland’s landlord-tenant eviction procedures for failure to pay rent, breach of lease, and tenant holdover cases. The bill requires landlords to give tenants advance written notice before a warrant of restitution is executed, and it specifies how that notice must be delivered, including first-class mail, posting on the premises, and, when available, email or text message. The notice must also inform tenants about the eviction date, any remaining redemption amount, the process for reclaiming belongings, and the consequences for personal property left behind.
The bill also creates a detailed post-eviction process for tenant property. After execution of a warrant of restitution, tenants generally have 10 days to recover personal property from the premises or another reasonably secure location chosen by the landlord. Property not reclaimed within that period is deemed abandoned, and landlords may dispose of it through landfill, donation, sale, or other lawful means, subject to limits on public dumping and special rules for food, hazardous materials, trash, and animals. If property is sold, any proceeds above amounts owed for back rent, move-out costs, or damage fees must be returned to the tenant.
In addition, the bill amends the procedures for summary ejectment and breach-of-lease cases to require that warrants of restitution be executed in compliance with the new notice-and-property rules in new Section 8-407. It also preserves and clarifies the tenant’s existing right of redemption in nonpayment cases, while allowing the State and local governments to adopt stronger protections, including longer notice periods or penalties for violations. The act applies prospectively only and takes effect October 1, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of tenants and focused on reducing conflict and harm during evictions. The preamble emphasizes human dignity, the risk of violence during eviction, and the community harms caused by leaving belongings exposed. At the same time, the bill attempts to address landlord concerns by limiting storage burdens, allowing a short reclamation period, and permitting disposal of abandoned property after that period.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between tenant protections and landlord enforcement burdens. Tenant advocates would likely favor the added notice, recovery period, and remedies for violations, while landlords may object to the new procedural requirements, documentation obligations, and potential delays before repossession. The bill also leaves room for local variation, which may be important to jurisdictions seeking stronger or weaker eviction-related protections.
HB0767 amends Maryland’s Real Property Article, especially §§ 8-401, 8-402, 8-402.1, and adds new § 8-407. It changes the legal process for executing warrants of restitution in residential eviction cases by imposing mandatory pre-execution notice requirements, setting a 10-day tenant property reclamation period, defining when property is abandoned, and regulating how landlords may dispose of abandoned belongings. It also authorizes tenant remedies for violations, including damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and other court-ordered relief, while expressly preserving state and local authority to enact more protective landlord-tenant laws.
The bill appears to have been framed in a strongly tenant-protective and public-safety-oriented way, with the stated goal of preventing unnecessary hardship and reducing the risk of confrontations during evictions. The legislative findings emphasize dignity, humane treatment, and neighborhood blight reduction, suggesting broad policy support for improving eviction procedures. At the same time, the structure of the bill shows an effort to balance those protections with practical limits for landlords, which may have made it more acceptable to stakeholders concerned about implementation.
Likely areas of contention include whether the new notice requirements are too burdensome for landlords and sheriffs, whether a 10-day reclamation period is sufficient for tenants to recover property, and whether the bill creates enough flexibility for local jurisdictions. Landlords may object to the added documentation, posting, and electronic notice requirements, as well as the restriction on immediate disposal of property. Tenant advocates, by contrast, may argue that the bill still allows too much discretion in disposal and does not go far enough in protecting belongings or extending time to reclaim them.