HB1149 amends Maryland’s State Finance and Procurement law governing the Comptroller’s authority to settle claims owed to the State. Under current law, the Comptroller may settle certain arrears claims after they have been in arrears for at least two years. This bill adds an exception allowing the Comptroller to settle a State claim against a business entity that has permanently ceased operations regardless of how long the claim has been in arrears.
The bill keeps the existing safeguards in place: before settling a claim, the Comptroller must thoroughly examine it and be satisfied that the State could not collect through legal process. The Comptroller may still abate all or part of the principal or interest if doing so best serves the State’s interests, and must maintain records when a claim is settled for less than full payment. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
Impact
HB1149 narrows and clarifies the State’s debt-collection settlement authority by creating a specific exception for claims against defunct business entities. It amends Section 6-219 of the State Finance and Procurement Article, expanding the Comptroller’s discretion to resolve long-uncollectible claims without waiting for the usual two-year arrears period when the debtor business has permanently ceased operations. The bill affects the Comptroller’s office, state revenue collection practices, and any persons or business entities owing money to the State.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 125-0 and the Senate 46-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The lack of committee transcript material also suggests there was little recorded debate or opposition. Overall, the legislative sentiment was favorable toward giving the Comptroller a practical tool to clear uncollectible claims.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The main policy issue is whether the Comptroller should be allowed to settle claims against permanently closed business entities without the usual two-year waiting period, which could raise concerns about preserving State revenue versus administrative efficiency. However, the unanimous votes suggest any such concerns were not significant enough to generate opposition. The bill still preserves existing oversight by requiring a thorough review and a determination that legal collection is not feasible.