Maryland House Bill HB174

Maryland 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/22
• Refer: 1/12/22
• Report Pass: 3/18/22
• Engrossed: 3/21/22
• Refer: 3/21/22
• Report Pass: 4/11/22
• Enrolled: 4/11/22
• Chaptered: 5/29/22

Caption

Landlord and Tenant - Repossession for Failure to Pay Rent - Registration of Affected Property

Impact

If enacted, HB 174 amends existing real property laws in Maryland, particularly those applicable in Baltimore City, to impose stricter conditions on landlords wishing to repossess properties. The requirement for landlords to present documentary proof of compliance may alter the landscape of landlord-tenant disputes by offering tenants additional protection from eviction when landlords do not meet their legal obligations concerning property safety and licensing. This could lead to increased accountability for landlords and better living conditions for tenants.

Summary

House Bill 174 pertains to the landlord-tenant relationship specifically regarding the repossession of rental properties for non-payment of rent. The bill mandates that landlords must provide proof of compliance with local licensing and lead-based paint abatement laws before initiating eviction proceedings for failure to pay rent. This requirement seeks to ensure that properties are meeting safety and regulatory standards, protecting tenants from eviction under potentially hazardous living conditions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 174 appears mixed, with proponents advocating for better tenant protections and the reduction of unsafe living environments. Supporters, including tenant advocacy groups, argue that the bill is a necessary step toward ensuring that landlords maintain their properties and comply with health regulations. Conversely, some landlords and property owner groups express concerns that the bill might complicate eviction processes and place additional burdens on them as they seek to manage their properties effectively.

Contention

Notable points of contention exist primarily between tenant advocacy groups, who support stricter enforcement of safety standards, and landlord associations, who argue that the additional requirements may hinder their ability to manage properties efficiently. The clarification around what constitutes sufficient documentation for compliance with local regulations could also lead to disputes in court, highlighting an ongoing tension in balancing the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants within the housing market.