Access to Counsel in Evictions - Special Fund - Alteration
Summary
HB876 would expand the funding sources for Maryland’s Access to Counsel in Evictions Special Fund. The bill keeps the existing structure of the Access to Counsel in Evictions Program, which is administered by the Maryland Legal Services Corporation (MLSC) and is intended to provide covered individuals with access to legal representation in eviction-related matters. The main change is to add certain money recovered by the Attorney General’s Antitrust Division to the special fund when those recoveries come from settlements, agreements, or judgments tied to Maryland Antitrust Act violations that contributed to or resulted in artificially inflated rental housing costs.
Under current law, the special fund already receives money from certain consumer protection enforcement actions involving rental residential property, state appropriations, interest earnings, and other accepted sources. HB876 would amend the Commercial Law and Real Property Articles to redirect civil penalties for antitrust violations involving rental housing costs into the fund, while excluding restitution and costs the Attorney General is otherwise entitled to recover. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025, and would not change the basic purpose of the fund, but would broaden the pool of money available to support eviction defense services.
The bill’s practical impact is to create an additional dedicated revenue stream for eviction legal aid, potentially increasing resources available to tenants facing eviction and related proceedings. It also links antitrust enforcement in the rental housing market to housing stability policy by allowing certain antitrust recoveries to support access-to-counsel services. The affected statutes are primarily § 11-209 of the Commercial Law Article and § 8-909 of the Real Property Article.
There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal pattern of support or opposition can be identified from the transcript record. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears aimed at strengthening an existing tenant-rights program through targeted funding rather than creating a new regulatory mandate. Any contention would likely center on whether antitrust settlement proceeds should be dedicated to eviction defense versus deposited elsewhere, and on the broader policy question of using enforcement recoveries to finance housing-related legal services.
Impact
HB876 amends Maryland law to add a new category of revenue to the Access to Counsel in Evictions Special Fund: certain recoveries by the Attorney General’s Antitrust Division tied to antitrust violations that artificially inflate rental housing costs. It changes § 11-209 of the Commercial Law Article and § 8-909 of the Real Property Article, but does not alter the underlying Access to Counsel in Evictions Program or its administration by MLSC. The bill would increase the fund’s potential resources for providing legal representation to eligible tenants in eviction and related proceedings, while preserving restitution and recoverable litigation costs for the State outside the fund.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition. The bill’s text suggests a generally pro-tenant, pro-access-to-justice purpose, and its funding mechanism appears designed to be politically and fiscally targeted rather than controversial in scope. Overall sentiment inferred from the bill is favorable toward expanding eviction defense funding using housing-related enforcement proceeds.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether antitrust recoveries related to rental housing should be earmarked for the Access to Counsel in Evictions Special Fund rather than flowing to the General Fund or another use. Another possible point of contention is the use of enforcement settlements and judgments to finance legal services, especially where those funds are tied to broader antitrust remedies. No specific legislators, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified in the provided record as supporting or opposing the bill.