SB989 authorizes a county sheriff to create an Unauthorized Occupant Registry for residential real property in the county. A residential property owner may enroll a dwelling in the registry for six-month periods, pay any applicable sheriff’s fees, and receive posted notice on the property explaining the removal process for unauthorized occupants. Once a property is enrolled, the owner or authorized agent may ask the sheriff to remove an unauthorized occupant if a series of conditions are met, including that the owner has the right to occupy the dwelling, the occupant unlawfully entered and remains there, the property was not open to the public, the occupant is not a tenant, owner, family member, or party to pending litigation, and the owner has directed the person to leave.
The bill also creates a formal request process and requires the sheriff to verify the requester’s status before acting. If verified, the sheriff must serve notice to vacate within one week and place the registered owner in possession of the property. The posted notice on the property creates a rebuttable presumption that an occupant entered unlawfully unless specifically authorized by the owner or agent. SB989 further allows a person removed in bad faith to sue the registered owner and seek court costs, attorney’s fees, return of possession where appropriate, and actual damages for personal property loss or damage. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new section to Maryland’s Real Property Article establishing a sheriff-administered process for dealing with alleged unauthorized occupants of residential dwellings. It would give county sheriffs a new optional local registry tool, create a new expedited removal mechanism outside ordinary eviction proceedings for qualifying cases, and impose procedural safeguards and liability exposure for wrongful or bad-faith removals. It would affect residential property owners, sheriffs, and individuals occupying homes without authorization, while also intersecting with landlord-tenant, property title, and civil litigation issues.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the general sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to address concerns about squatting and title fraud by giving property owners a faster remedy. At the same time, the detailed eligibility requirements and the bad-faith civil action suggest an effort to balance owner relief with protections against mistaken or abusive removals.
The main points of contention likely involve due process, the scope of sheriff authority, and the risk of wrongful removal. Supporters would likely emphasize faster relief for property owners facing unlawful occupation, while critics may question whether the rebuttable presumption and expedited timeline could lead to disputes over tenancy, ownership, family occupancy, or pending litigation. The bill’s carve-outs for tenants, co-owners, family members, and active lawsuits indicate those are the key areas where disputes are most likely to arise.
SB989 would add new Section 14-132.1 to the Maryland Real Property Article, authorizing county sheriffs to establish an Unauthorized Occupant Registry and creating a statutory process for expedited removal of unauthorized occupants from enrolled residential property. It would also create a private right of action for individuals removed in bad faith and authorize recovery of costs, attorney’s fees, possession, and damages for personal property loss, thereby affecting property owners, sheriffs, and occupants of residential dwellings.
No committee testimony or vote data were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from discussion or voting history. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears generally pro-property-owner and anti-squatting, but it also includes procedural safeguards and a bad-faith remedy that suggest an attempt to address fairness and due process concerns.
The likely areas of contention are whether sheriffs should have authority to remove occupants through an expedited registry process, whether the bill provides enough due process protections, and how to distinguish unlawful occupants from tenants, co-owners, family members, or parties to pending litigation. Opponents would likely focus on the risk of wrongful removal and abuse, while supporters would likely emphasize the need for a faster remedy against squatting, trespass, and title fraud.