HB0972 alters Maryland’s continuing education requirements for renewal of real estate broker, associate broker, and salesperson licenses. The bill keeps the overall 15-clock-hour biennial continuing education requirement, but revises the required subject-matter mix, including updated course topics on law changes, fair housing, ethics, brokerage relationships and disclosures, broker supervision, contract writing, escrow handling, property management, landlord-tenant law, and real estate financing.
The bill also changes several administrative and delivery rules for continuing education. It requires that nonresidential brokers complete 2 clock hours on the federal Americans with Disabilities Act instead of the prior fair housing/ADA option, reduces the broker supervision course from 3 hours to 1.5 hours, removes the specific reference to the practice of flipping from the ethics curriculum, and updates language around escrow funds and seller disclosures. It authorizes continuing education by virtual or remote means, requires identity verification for in-person and remote courses, allows course completion information to be submitted electronically, and gives the Real Estate Commission authority to set the course application fee rather than fixing it at $25.
In state law, the bill amends Section 17-315 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article governing real estate license renewal. It affects the Real Estate Commission, course providers, and licensed real estate brokers, associate brokers, and salespersons, while preserving the Commission’s authority to approve course content and grant waivers for good cause. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment appears favorable and administrative rather than controversial. The changes modernize the continuing education framework, especially by expanding remote instruction and updating course requirements to reflect current practice and compliance issues. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials indicating organized opposition, and the bill appears to have moved through the legislative process without notable public dispute.
The main points of potential contention are limited to professional regulation details: the shift in required course topics, the reduction in broker supervision hours, the removal of the specific flipping topic, and the Commission’s new discretion to set application fees. These changes would most directly concern real estate licensees, course providers, and the Maryland Real Estate Commission, but the bill text does not show any explicit disagreement among stakeholders.
HB0972 amends Maryland’s real estate licensing law by revising the continuing education requirements for renewal of broker, associate broker, and salesperson licenses under Business Occupations and Professions § 17-315. It changes required course topics and clock-hour allocations, authorizes remote instruction and electronic reporting, updates identity-verification rules, and gives the Real Estate Commission authority to set continuing education course application fees. The bill directly affects real estate licensees, approved course providers, and the Commission’s regulatory and enforcement responsibilities.
The bill’s tone and available legislative context suggest general support and a technical, nonpartisan policy update rather than a contentious measure. It appears aimed at modernizing continuing education standards and delivery methods for real estate professionals, with no committee transcript or vote record provided showing significant opposition. The changes are framed as administrative refinements to licensing requirements, and the bill was enacted into law.
The most notable areas of possible contention are the specific changes to required continuing education content and hours, particularly the reduction of broker supervision instruction from 3 hours to 1.5 hours, the removal of the explicit flipping topic from ethics training, and the replacement of a fixed $25 course application fee with a fee set by the Commission. Real estate professionals and course providers may care about the compliance burden and cost implications, while the Commission gains greater flexibility over course approval and fee-setting. No explicit opposition is documented in the provided materials.