Criminal Law - Fraud - Possession of Residential Real Property
House Bill 847 creates a new criminal offense for fraudulently possessing or claiming a right to possess residential real property that a person does not lawfully own or possess, when done with intent to defraud another. A violation is a misdemeanor, with escalating penalties for repeat offenses within two years: up to 90 days and/or a $500 fine for a first offense, up to six months and/or a $1,000 fine for a second offense, and up to one year and/or a $2,500 fine for subsequent offenses.
The bill also gives a residential property owner a new enforcement path. An owner may submit a sworn affidavit to the county sheriff stating that another person is fraudulently in possession of the property, and law enforcement must remove that person and return possession to the owner unless the occupant produces evidence of lawful possession. The bill expressly does not apply where the occupant has possession under a court order or where another remedy already exists under Title 8 of the Real Property Article, and it does not limit an owner’s ability to bring a wrongful detainer action under § 14-132 of the Real Property Article. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB0847 would add a new section to the Criminal Law Article, creating a misdemeanor offense tied to fraudulent possession or false claims of possession of residential real property. It would also affect enforcement procedures by authorizing sheriffs and law enforcement officers to remove alleged fraudulent occupants after receiving an owner’s sworn affidavit, while preserving existing civil remedies and excluding cases already governed by court orders or other Real Property Article remedies. The bill primarily affects property owners, occupants, law enforcement, and the courts handling possession and detainer disputes.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a property-rights and anti-fraud measure rather than a broadly controversial policy change. Its structure suggests support for stronger remedies for owners facing unlawful occupation of residential property. At the same time, the bill’s direct law-enforcement removal mechanism and reliance on an affidavit process could raise concerns about due process and mistaken removal, though no specific opposition is documented in the provided context.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between protecting owners from fraudulent occupation and safeguarding occupants from summary removal without a full judicial process. The bill allows law enforcement to remove a person based on an owner’s sworn affidavit, but only if the occupant cannot produce evidence of lawful possession; critics may view that as potentially vulnerable to error or abuse. Another possible issue is overlap with existing landlord-tenant, wrongful detainer, and other Real Property Article remedies, since the bill expressly preserves those remedies while creating a parallel criminal and enforcement path.