Landlord and Tenant - Residential Leases - Fee Disclosures
HB 80 would require certain landlords to give prospective tenants a written, itemized disclosure of all fees that may be charged in connection with a residential lease. The disclosure must identify the basis for each fee, the amount, whether it is mandatory or optional, and when it is due. The bill defines mandatory and optional fees, with optional fees including items such as parking, storage, and pet fees, and it applies only to leases signed or renewed on or after October 1, 2026 and only to landlords offering four or more dwelling units.
The bill also prohibits a landlord from imposing any mandatory fee that was not properly disclosed, and it makes lease provisions violating the section void and unenforceable. Tenants would have a private right of action for violations occurring on or after February 1, 2027, including the possibility of treble damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The bill excludes utility charges, certain minor lease-violation charges, and security deposit withholding from its disclosure requirements, and it allows local governments to adopt more stringent or broader protections.
HB 80 would add a new section to Maryland’s Real Property Article governing residential lease fee disclosures. It would create a statewide disclosure regime for larger landlords, limit the ability to charge undisclosed mandatory fees, and provide tenants with enforceable remedies in court. It also preserves room for local jurisdictions to enact stronger tenant-protection laws, which could result in a patchwork of more protective local ordinances layered on top of the state standard.
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill. It was reported from committee favorably with amendments and adopted by the House, indicating support for the bill’s consumer-protection goals. No committee transcript or recorded vote details are provided, so the broader debate cannot be measured precisely, but the procedural history points to a bill that advanced with relatively little visible opposition at the House stage.
The main points of potential contention are likely the scope of the disclosure mandate, the private right of action, and the treble-damages remedy. Landlords may view the bill as increasing compliance burdens and litigation exposure, especially for larger rental operators subject to the law. Tenant advocates, by contrast, are likely to support the measure as a transparency and anti-surprise-fee protection. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with local laws, since it expressly allows more stringent local regulation and could create differing standards across jurisdictions.