Criminal Law – Fraud – Possession of Residential Real Property
Summary
HB560 creates a new criminal offense for fraudulently possessing or claiming a right to possess residential real property that a person does not lawfully possess or own, when done with intent to defraud another. The bill classifies the conduct as a misdemeanor and sets escalating penalties for repeat violations: 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 within two years, and up to 1 year and/or a $2,500 fine for subsequent offenses within two years.
The bill also gives a property owner a new enforcement path by allowing the owner to submit a sworn affidavit to the county sheriff stating that another person is fraudulently in possession of the property. After receiving the affidavit, the sheriff is directed to remove the person and return possession to the owner, unless the person produces evidence of lawful possession. The bill expressly preserves existing remedies, including wrongful detainer actions and suits under the Real Property Article, and it does not apply where the occupant has a court order granting possession or where another remedy under Title 8 of the Real Property Article is available.
Impact
HB560 would add a new section to the Criminal Law Article, creating a misdemeanor offense tied to fraudulent occupation or claimed possession of residential real property. It would also affect sheriff enforcement procedures by authorizing removal based on an owner’s sworn affidavit in certain cases, while preserving existing civil eviction and property-possession remedies under the Real Property Article. The bill is aimed at residential property owners and law enforcement, and it could affect disputes involving alleged squatting, title fraud, or unauthorized occupancy.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of stronger protections for property owners and faster removal of unauthorized occupants. The bill’s structure suggests a policy response to perceived gaps in existing remedies, especially where fraudulent claims of possession are involved. No opposing viewpoints are documented in the supplied context, so there is no recorded committee or floor debate to indicate broader controversy.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s use of a sheriff-removal process triggered by an owner’s sworn affidavit, which could raise concerns about due process, mistaken identity, or disputes over lawful possession. The bill attempts to address that by exempting occupants who can produce evidence of lawful possession and by excluding cases where a court order or existing Real Property Article remedy applies. Another possible area of debate is whether criminal penalties are the appropriate tool for what may sometimes be a civil property dispute, but no specific objections are included in the provided transcripts or votes.