Civil Actions - Real Estate Appraisals - Record Retention and Statute of Limitations
Summary
SB 477 changes Maryland law governing real estate appraisals and related civil litigation. First, it extends the record-retention period for licensed real estate appraisers from 5 years to 12 years for contracts, appraisal reports, and supporting data, and it restarts that 12-year retention period if the appraisal becomes involved in litigation during the retention window. The bill also requires appraisers to make retained records available to the Commission on request.
The bill creates a new statute of limitations for civil actions seeking damages against a person for acts or omissions related to the performance, review, supervision, or management of an appraisal. Those actions must generally be filed within the earlier of 2 years after the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged act or omission, or 4 years after the appraisal was performed or should have been performed. The bill applies whether or not the appraisal was connected to a federally related transaction, but it excludes administrative actions by the appraisal commission and cases where fraud concealed the claim.
SB 477 also amends Maryland’s fair housing statute to give a much longer filing period for civil actions alleging discriminatory housing practices tied to the appraisal of residential real property. Instead of the usual 2-year deadline, those claims must be filed within 12 years after the later of the discriminatory practice or the breach of a conciliation agreement. The bill is prospective only and does not affect causes of action that accrued before its effective date of October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill was reported favorably with amendments in committee and passed the Senate 44-1 on third reading, indicating broad support with only minimal opposition. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the reasons for support or opposition are not detailed in the transcript materials.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between extending accountability for appraisal-related misconduct and limiting long-tail exposure for appraisers and related professionals. Supporters would view the longer retention and limitation periods as improving access to records and remedies, especially for discriminatory appraisal claims, while critics may be concerned about increased compliance burdens and prolonged litigation risk for appraisers, appraisal management companies, and others involved in the appraisal process.
Impact
The bill amends the Business Occupations and Professions Article to require licensed real estate appraisers to retain appraisal-related records for 12 years instead of 5, with a new 12-year period triggered if the appraisal becomes part of litigation. It adds a new limitations provision in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article for appraisal-related civil actions, and it lengthens the filing deadline in the State Government Article for discriminatory housing practice claims tied to residential property appraisals. These changes affect appraisers, appraisal management companies, litigants, and fair housing claimants by extending recordkeeping duties and altering when claims may be brought.
Sentiment
The bill’s sentiment is generally positive and noncontroversial in the available record. It received a favorable committee report with amendments and passed the Senate overwhelmingly, 44-1, suggesting broad legislative support. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate substantial opposition beyond the single dissenting vote.
Contention
The likely contention centers on whether the bill appropriately extends accountability periods or instead imposes excessive burdens on the appraisal industry. Supporters likely favor the longer record-retention requirement and the extended 12-year deadline for discriminatory housing claims as tools to preserve evidence and improve enforcement, especially in residential appraisal discrimination cases. Opponents, or the lone dissenting voter, may have been concerned about expanded liability exposure, increased administrative costs, and the prospect of older claims being litigated long after the underlying appraisal work was completed.