Criminal Procedure - Motion to Reduce Duration of Sentence - Repeal of Sentencing Date Limitation
HB0876 would expand the funding sources for Maryland’s Access to Counsel in Evictions Special Fund. Under current law, the fund supports the state’s Access to Counsel in Evictions Program, which is administered by Maryland Legal Services Corporation (MLSC) and is intended to help provide legal representation to covered individuals in eviction-related proceedings. The bill keeps that core structure in place but adds a new source of money: certain proceeds recovered by the Attorney General’s Antitrust Division.
Specifically, the bill directs money received by the Antitrust Division from final settlements, agreements, or judgments tied to Maryland Antitrust Act violations into the special fund when the conduct contributed to or caused an artificial inflation of rental housing costs. The transfer excludes restitution and costs the Attorney General is otherwise entitled to recover. The bill also makes a conforming change to the civil penalty provision in the Commercial Law Article so that penalties for violations of § 11-204 are paid into the Access to Counsel in Evictions Special Fund rather than the General Fund. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025.
HB0876 would amend the Commercial Law and Real Property Articles to redirect certain civil penalties and antitrust enforcement recoveries into the Access to Counsel in Evictions Special Fund. This would increase the pool of dedicated revenue available to support legal representation for tenants in eviction and related proceedings, while narrowing the amount of money that would otherwise flow to the General Fund or remain with enforcement recoveries. The bill primarily affects the Office of the Attorney General, MLSC, tenants facing eviction, and parties subject to antitrust or consumer protection enforcement involving rental housing markets.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a tenant-protection and housing-affordability measure intended to strengthen an existing legal-aid program by tying it to enforcement actions involving rental housing costs. The sponsor ultimately withdrew the bill in the House, which suggests the measure did not advance to a final vote and may not have had enough support or may have been set aside for other reasons.
The main policy issue is whether proceeds from antitrust enforcement related to rental housing should be earmarked for eviction defense rather than deposited in the General Fund or used for other purposes. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to connect enforcement against rent-inflating conduct with direct assistance to tenants harmed by high housing costs. Potential concerns could come from those who prefer settlement and judgment proceeds to remain available for broader state use, or who question whether the special fund should be expanded through enforcement recoveries tied to antitrust cases. Because the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor and there is no recorded debate, specific points of contention are not documented in the available materials.