Real Property - Landlord and Tenant - Family Child Care Homes
HB 543 would change Maryland landlord-tenant law to make it easier for tenants to operate licensed family child care homes in rented single-family dwellings. The bill bars a landlord from refusing to lease, renegotiate, or continue a lease, or from imposing unreasonable conditions, solely to prevent a tenant from using the property as a family child care home. It also requires tenants to give 60 days’ written notice before starting operations, provide proof of registration and insurance, and notify the landlord if the child care home stops operating.
The bill also allows landlords to charge a higher security deposit when a tenant operates or plans to operate a family child care home, and it permits landlords to require liability insurance up to $1 million. At the same time, it gives landlords immunity from civil liability for a tenant’s acts or omissions related to the child care operation, while preserving local zoning authority and excluding certain owner-occupied homes and some HOA/condominium restrictions from the bill’s reach.
HB 543 would amend the Real Property Article by creating a new section governing leases for single-family dwellings used as family child care homes and by expanding the circumstances under which a landlord may collect up to two months’ rent as a security deposit. It would also reinforce the Education Article definition of a family child care home and tie the new rental rules to the existing state registration framework for family child care providers. The bill would affect landlords, tenants, family child care providers, insurers, and property owners with direct or indirect interests in the rental property, while leaving local zoning powers intact.
The available context suggests the bill is generally supportive of family child care providers and access to child care in residential settings, with the measure framed as removing barriers to operating licensed home-based care. The bill’s progress note shows it was laid over and adopted in the House, but no recorded committee transcript or vote details are provided here, so there is no evidence of strong public opposition or debate in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a policy effort to facilitate child care availability while adding landlord protections and insurance requirements.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between tenant access to operate a family child care home and landlord/property-owner concerns about risk, liability, and control over rental property. Landlords may object to the expanded security deposit authority, the prohibition on refusing or unreasonably limiting such uses, and the limits on their ability to restrict operations. Child care advocates and tenants would likely support the access protections, while property owners may focus on insurance, notice, and liability provisions as necessary safeguards. The bill also explicitly carves out HOA, condominium, and cooperative restrictions, which may reflect sensitivity to separate private governance rules.