Real Property - Landlord and Tenant - Family Child Care Homes
Summary
HB543 would change Maryland landlord-tenant law to make it easier for tenants to operate licensed family child care homes in rental housing, especially single-family dwellings. The bill defines a family child care home by reference to the Education Article and then creates new protections and requirements for both landlords and tenants when a tenant wants to use leased premises for child care.
Under the bill, a landlord of a single-family dwelling generally could not refuse to rent, negotiate, or lease the property, or impose unreasonable conditions, because a tenant or prospective tenant intends to run a family child care home. The bill also allows a landlord to charge up to a two-month security deposit when the tenant operates or plans to operate such a home, requires advance written notice, and requires the tenant to provide proof of registration and insurance. It further permits the landlord to require liability insurance up to $1 million, requires the tenant to notify the landlord when child care operations stop, and requires the tenant to stop operating if required insurance lapses. The bill expressly preserves local zoning authority and does not apply retroactively to existing leases.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 8-203 of the Real Property Article and add a new Section 8-222, creating a specific statutory framework for family child care homes in rental housing. It would expand tenant rights in the housing market while also giving landlords added protections through higher security deposits, insurance requirements, notice obligations, and immunity from liability for a tenant’s acts or omissions related to child care operations. The bill would affect landlords, tenants, child care providers, and property owners with direct or indirect ownership interests, while leaving local zoning rules intact.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill faced significant resistance at least on the procedural motion to make it a special order, which was rejected by a wide margin (33 yeas, 84 nays). No committee transcript is available, so the broader policy debate is not documented here, but the bill’s structure indicates an attempt to balance support for family child care access with landlord protections. Overall, the recorded vote points to a divided or skeptical reception rather than broad consensus.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the extent to which landlords can control use of their property versus the state’s interest in expanding access to family child care. Landlords may object to limits on refusing leases or imposing conditions, while supporters may emphasize the need to remove housing barriers for child care providers. Insurance, liability, and security deposit provisions are also likely contentious, particularly the ability to require up to a $1 million liability policy and a doubled security deposit. Another potential issue is the bill’s narrow application to single-family dwellings and its carve-outs for owner-occupied homes and certain HOA or condominium restrictions.