Protecting Tenants’ Rights: The Tenant Possessions Recovery Act
Eviction is a traumatic experience that can destabilize individuals and families, often with long-lasting consequences. Beyond the immediate loss of housing, eviction can strip people of their personal possessions, including vital records, life-saving medications, cherished keepsakes, and essential household items.
The items tenants frequently lose during eviction represent more than just “things;” as Maryland Legal Aid noted, when tenants lose their personal property, “they feel as though they have lost themselves as they search for some way to pick up the pieces financially and emotionally.” Ensuring that tenants can retain their possessions during and after eviction proceedings is a critical aspect of justice.
The Tenant Possessions Recovery Act (HB 767/SB 442), introduced in the 2025 Maryland legislative session, represented a significant step toward providing these protections. This legislation aimed to establish stronger safeguards for tenants facing eviction, addressing critical issues of notice and the recovery of personal property.
Key Provisions of HB 767, as Introduced
HB 767 introduced several key provisions to Maryland’s eviction process:
- Notice Requirements: The bill mandated that landlords provide tenants with a 14-day notice before executing a warrant of restitution. This notice must be sent via first-class mail and posted on the tenant’s door.
- Property Recovery Period: Following an eviction, tenants were granted a 10-day period to reclaim their personal property from the premises or another secure location designated by the landlord. During this time, landlords cannot charge tenants for storing their belongings.
- Proper Disposition of Property: After the 10-day period, landlords were permitted to sell, donate, or discard any remaining property. However, if the property was sold, landlords must return any proceeds exceeding back rent and move-out costs to the tenant.
- Enforcement and Remedies: Tenants were provided with civil remedies if a landlord violated the provisions of HB 767. These remedies may have included actual damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.
Addressing a Critical Gap in Maryland Law
Prior to the introduction of the bill, Maryland law lacked explicit requirements for landlords to provide notice to tenants of the specific date of eviction or to allow tenants a period to reclaim their possessions. This absence led to chaotic and unjust situations, as illustrated by a story Maryland Legal Aid shared regarding a client who was unable to retrieve his essential belongings, including his prescription medication, after being evicted.
The Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland (PBRC) emphasized the grave consequences of this lack of legal protection, stating that “without reliable notice of the eviction date or a reclamation period after the eviction occurs to mitigate the financial and personal loss that evictions cause, Maryland tenants suffer immeasurably.”
Protecting Vulnerable Populations
Eviction disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, particularly families with children. Data reveals that a staggering 40% of individuals threatened with eviction are children, and there are stark racial disparities. “About a quarter of Black babies and toddlers in rental households in the United States face the threat of eviction,” according to research highlighted by Community Legal Services. The loss of possessions can be particularly devastating for these families.
Compliance with the Todman Case
HB767 was an effort to incorporate the findings of the Todman case.
In the case of Todman v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the court awarded $612,450.88 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs, Zuckerman Spaeder and Mack. This included $413,030.25 for Zuckerman Spaeder and $199,420.63 for Mack. Additionally, $37,198.48 in costs was awarded.
The plaintiffs, Marshall and Tiffany Todman, had sued the city of Baltimore, alleging that the city’s eviction process violated their constitutional rights by depriving them of their property without due process. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the Todmans, finding that the city’s Abandonment Ordinance was unconstitutional. The case was originally filed in federal district court, and the judgment was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The award of attorneys’ fees and costs was granted after the plaintiffs moved for them following the Fourth Circuit’s decision. The court considered the amount sought by the plaintiffs and ultimately awarded a reduced amount, taking into account the prevailing factors.
Alignment with National Standards
As introduced, HB 767 would have aligned Maryland with the majority of other states that already have laws requiring advance notice of an eviction date and/or a reclamation period for tenants to gather their belongings. This alignment would not only provide greater protection for tenants but would also address potential legal vulnerabilities.
HB767 as Amended
By the time HB767 wound its way through the legislative session, the end result was far from the intention of the bill when introduced. The Maryland General Assembly passed HB767, but stripped all the portions of the bill that addressed reclamation of property. The bill now only allows for six days of notice prior to an eviction, with local jurisdictions having the ability to shorten that amount to four days or extend that amount to 14 days. The bill does not address the underlying constitutional challenge posed by Todman and instead leaves those issues to be addressed at a local level.
The Maryland General Assembly Should Have Enacted the Tenant Possessions Recovery Act
The Tenant Possessions Recovery Act was a crucial legislative effort to enhance access to justice for Maryland tenants. By establishing clear procedures for notice and property recovery, this bill aimed to mitigate the trauma and destabilizing effects of eviction, particularly for the most vulnerable members of the community. As the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development aptly stated, HB 767 would have kept the eviction process focused on its legal purpose: putting the landlord’s property back into the hands of the landlord, and letting the tenant walk away with their personal belongings and dignity.