[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6324885,"mediaKeyId","2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7","parentId",2335363,"title","Bill would require 24 months of billing before foreclosing on old second liens, lawmakers told","audioSeconds",1396,"startMs",8616000,"endMs",10012000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7&start=8616&end=10012","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7/thumbnail_8616000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6324885/Maryland/Bill-would-require-24-months-of-billing-before-foreclosing-on-old-second-liens-lawmakers-told","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324885-08c1b9b725643afbc9235a1140ed2fed/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173102&Signature=ndFDq~c2slEyHMi7TOpi46L9W9mZAJJsZ21J2pzgbVaDzk4RRdlAMlWlnAXJwKObjlzdG5OOMZFUsY5QLofojamNtm8GgwlMy5WIbdR1w5xWRnkY67VJV0r6e4zaF8bkuX7xfHWCAg6tIRthD2FEMEsSsi4SnISbJsL-oERNuEPN38ZmP~jFPrQz7o2XjZsPC6YvUbBM1BK7Uq2F7Lhj4lxGWvxy-2oTcbY5-ZLOAcLFW0m3yQKm8onDeF8AfjNGUV-kYqgIYVmnExXIIW4RPuH1rCvmxYHKePfKJekmBzWNRc-b39oJWCXHbUNZ0sXs9K~WpbTDEZLzpOGMY6zoIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - ENT","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Delegate Dana Jones described House Bill 769 to the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Feb. 18 as a response to what she called \"zombie mortgages\": older subordinate liens that were charged off, sold to debt buyers and — after home values rose — resurrected in foreclosure actions that surprised homeowners.

The lede: HB 769 would require holders of materially‑delinquent mortgages to issue periodic billing statements for a prescribed interval before initiating foreclosure and would give homeowners statutory defenses tied to latches and fair notice. Proponents said the change would protect long‑standing borrowers who believed an old subordinate lien had been discharged or written off and were then blindsided by foreclosure notices for large arrearages.

Why supporters say the bill is needed
Office of Financial Regulation officials told the committee that Maryland lacks a statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosures and that federal protections do not always apply to second liens or to debt buyers that acquire charged‑off debt. Tony Salazar, commissioner of OFR (standing in for a deputy), said the absence of regular statements and of time limits left homeowners vulnerable decades after an original loan was made. Assistant Commissioner Meredith Merchant described cases in which homeowners were unaware of long‑dormant subordinate liens until they received a notice of intent to foreclose; she said the average outstanding amount on such \"zombie\" loans in the state's data was about $193,000.

Legal and practical mechanics in the bill
Jones said the measure would not erase debts but would require more transparent billing before enforcement steps and would allow homeowners to raise latches, statute‑of‑limitations and other defenses. Supporters cited the example of Virginia’s HB 184 and other states that established pre‑foreclosure billing or notice requirements for old subordinate liens. OFR and tenant advocates recommended a 24‑month statement period to provide homeowners time to evaluate options and to allow counsel and regulators to investigate the debt’s chain of title.

Advocacy and service providers’ accounts
Legal aid providers, community development groups and service organizations described clients who were current on primary mortgages but faced foreclosure on a subordinate lien they had believed resolved. Witnesses said the phenomenon disproportionately affects communities of color and middle‑income homeowners who had acquired ‘‘second’’ instruments prior to the 2008 crisis and later assumed the debt was extinguished or addressed in bankruptcy or loan modifications.

Industry concerns and counterarguments
Banking and mortgage‑industry representatives opposed aspects of the bill. They argued purchasers of charged‑off debt still hold enforceable liens, that resurrected claims can be legitimate, and that retroactive limitations could create uncertainty for secured creditors. Lenders urged caution about imposing new procedural requirements that could increase litigation and titling complexity.

Next steps and technical issues for the committee
Committee members asked about details the bill frames but does not fully quantify in statutory text: the mechanics of notice, how to identify the holder of a line that was sold multiple times, whether courts would be asked to abate portions of interest if billing was not provided, and operational impacts for county recorders and court dockets. Supporters said the bill’s goal was narrow: to require meaningful written billing and a short defensive window before foreclosure on materially‑delinquent mortgages.

Ending
Proponents argued the bill would reduce surprise foreclosures, give homeowners a fair chance to cure or dispute aged debts and limit avoidable displacement; opponents urged careful drafting to avoid unintended lien uncertainty. The committee will consider technical amendments to define time frames and remedies before a vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ENT Committee Session, 2/18/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Delegate Dana Jones described House Bill 769 to the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Feb. 18 as a response to what she called \"zombie mortgages\": older subordinate liens that were charged off, sold to debt buyers and — after home values rose — resurrected in foreclosure actions that surprised homeowners.","taxTitle","Environment and Transportation Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15060,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324895,"Md. bill would require 14 days’ eviction notice and 10‑day property reclamation window",3370,359000,3729000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7&start=359&end=3729","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7/thumbnail_359000.jpg","/articles/6324895/Maryland/Md-bill-would-require-14-days-eviction-notice-and-10day-property-reclamation-window","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324895-d74bd3a38deebe51efa93257fa9167cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173102&Signature=hB3vFk6EKUqp0CiNCbMylIU383AK1VwD1BVRwK53qSAMzo7e1C9rJzCnBvWPOUCTcWcd6o1Yz1LjXMgA1awyvYXECVNJ7g7xdJNYWoh0g9U-F5zJxPzm0zJpgw6My1esmlFwqeY9KUdBjs~CjcxGukoovtFhVp~0EDr27cRnrm60DxmoeVjfh0udzymdwsFq46tfdEFZNxMfNsRrnRMJE7n~JvxWvr4M6ahxFVENpnCn99k4rN3J080Jq~mogDNcR4ozHDgllAswxS0bIKs~epZ6xogbJITfc5vQet1uHmQsXQ~DjmezR~WdDwP59K5UM62ZUbd-nnVSqUaUO5Y9fA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Jen Terrassa introduced House Bill 767 on Feb. 18, asking the House Environment and Transportation Committee to require landlords to notify tenants at least 14 days before a scheduled eviction and to allow a 10‑day reclamation period after an eviction so tenants can recover personal property.

Terrassa said the bill would bring Maryland in line with more than 30 states and the District of Columbia, and would reduce the risk that tenants lose medicines, family photos and other irreplaceable items when their belongings are put out on the curb. \"The process is incredibly dehumanizing and often unpredictable,\" Delegate Jen Terrassa said, describing how tenants can be uninformed about the sheriff's scheduled removal and then find their possessions destroyed or stolen.

The nut graf: Supporters — including tenant advocates, legal aid attorneys and social‑service organizations — framed HB 767 as a narrow procedural fix designed to stop constitutional violations flagged by the Fourth Circuit and reduce public‑health and nuisance risks from eviction debris. They urged the committee to report the bill favorably, saying the change is administrable for landlords and protective for tenants.

Committee testimony and why it matters
Supporters said testimony and case law show recurring harms. Attorney Albert Turner of the Public Justice Center and others pointed to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in the Todman litigation, which found that a Baltimore law declaring tenants’ items abandoned upon eviction violated due process and resulted in a monetary judgment. Catherine Davis of the Pro Bono Resource Center told the committee that callers routinely report not knowing their eviction dates and later finding important documents or medicines missing.

Advocates described common mechanics under current law: landlords may move for a warrant of restitution within days after a judgment; the sheriff then schedules an eviction, often without notifying the tenant of the date. Terrassa and witnesses said a 14‑day notice requirement would not materially delay most evictions because, they argued, many sheriff scheduling timelines already exceed that interval in practice.

Landlord and property management perspective
Representatives of landlord and property groups did not occupy the main supportive panels at this hearing, but in prior and subsequent hearings some landlord groups have raised concerns about storage costs, turnover delays and the administrative burden of safeguarding property. HB 767 would make landlords responsible for safeguarding property during the 10‑day reclamation period and for facilitating reasonable access for tenants to recover items. The bill would not allow tenants to re‑enter a unit after the lockout on the eviction day; landlords would regain possession on the eviction date.

Key provisions and clarifications
- Tenants must receive at least 14 days’ advance notice of a scheduled eviction date.
- Tenants have 10 days after an eviction to reclaim possessions; landlords must safeguard those items and facilitate reasonable access.
- The bill does not change that landlords obtain possession on the eviction date, nor does it require landlords to permit in‑unit reentry on that date.

Support and local context
Witnesses and organizations supporting the bill included the Public Justice Center, Maryland Legal Aid, CASA, the Pro Bono Resource Center, A Wider Circle and several county officials and nonprofit providers. Supporters emphasized that Baltimore City and some jurisdictions already have notice or reclamation practices and that the bill addresses statewide exposure after the Fourth Circuit ruling.

What the bill does not do
HB 767 does not create a right to re‑occupy a unit after an eviction, nor does it eliminate landlord remedies for abandoned or spoiled property after the reclamation period. It does not specify a fee structure for storage beyond the landlord’s responsibilities outlined in the bill text; committee discussion flagged questions about precisely how landlords will manage storage costs and logistics.

Where it goes from here
Supporters urged a favorable report to the House. Committee members asked for comparisons to county practices and for implementation details, including sheriff‑office coordination, storage and notice mechanics. If reported favorably, the proposal would move to the full House for debate and possible amendment.

Ending
Proponents described HB 767 as a narrow statutory change aimed at preventing predictable, avoidable harms — missing prescriptions, destroyed keepsakes and litigation exposure — by giving tenants reasonable advance notice of a scheduled eviction date and a short, specified window to reclaim property afterward.","Delegate Jen Terrassa introduced House Bill 767 on Feb. 18, asking the House Environment and Transportation Committee to require landlords to notify tenants at least 14 days before a scheduled eviction and to allow a 10‑day reclamation period after an eviction so tenants can recover personal property.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324890,"Good‑cause eviction bill returns to committee after year of revisions",0,19843000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7&start=19843&end=19843","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2335363-4a13cfa50e48fbbbf93471624b8bdae7/thumbnail_19843000.jpg","/articles/6324890/Maryland/Goodcause-eviction-bill-returns-to-committee-after-year-of-revisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324890-8f365c6b01f6cbc278b6b992e1898389/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173102&Signature=fSWmP-ZjeaEaers7MdPtfRrqrfUUn4gbdXaiOzO1yspHq8oIzP96jJ9d4gluGKQKA~H~yJdo5uXCgTDEkDeEEkGc9J4ENj9i2bVt0vP1~mxueSavA7ScRFNmUD5u1MCxjSKpAKK304Rp~KfRf6Car~Uq0OSuMjtjrbgetvtL-n1PL8eT697imgUfeF1oqvLhG81qnHyDWinLCPIJZx5OGKqlpqCkC~csY0lPkIEFmqnebqT8CORMDqhErdMEbKdW-SeSOzuWcelw6Nm3ggtO3AIUzxaTuU1ZvFXnZkl7BgVy73eqNeBk2OkcY1YAvqjrme5D7FI5nmFW~IwAkF0biw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Janelle Wilkins told the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Feb. 18 that House Bill 709 would authorize counties and Baltimore City to adopt local ordinances requiring landlords to state a lawful reason for lease nonrenewal or termination.

Supporters said the measure is a targeted tool to prevent involuntary displacement — not a ban on evictions. \"A renter who is paying their rent and following the rules should have a stable and secure place to live,\" Wilkins said, describing the measure as an enabling framework that preserves landlords’ rights to remove tenants for specific, legitimate causes.

Why advocates pressed for the statewide option
Advocates and local officials argued that good‑cause frameworks reduce avoidable evictions and the downstream human and fiscal costs — from homelessness to emergency shelter and social‑service burdens. David Weed of the Legal Defense Fund summarized research and changes incorporated since the committee passed a version last year, including transparency measures and anti‑circumvention language aimed at preventing large corporate owners from claiming small‑landlord exemptions via multiple LLCs. Kenton Card, a researcher at the University of Minnesota and visiting scholar at Boston University, cited empirical studies finding that just‑cause protections reduce evictions and do not demonstrably depress new housing production in the jurisdictions studied.

Tenant testimony and enforcement concerns
Several tenants and former tenants recounted disruptive nonrenewal notices that followed tenant complaints about habitability or safety problems. Rebecca Clausen, a written and in‑person witness, described a case in which a landlord did not remediate repeated code violations and then delivered a nonrenewal notice after local enforcement engaged. Supporters said good‑cause statutes would reduce retaliatory nonrenewals that currently leave families with little time to find alternative housing.

Industry objections and points of committee inquiry
Representatives of landlords and industry groups opposed HB 709 or urged caution. The Maryland Multi‑Housing Association and apartment owners argued the bill’s scope had expanded since last year’s committee consideration and flagged new language they said is vague (for example, how to define “routine disorderly conduct” or “indirect ownership”). They warned of longer landlord–tenant adjudication timelines, higher compliance costs and potential chilling effects on property maintenance and development.

How the bill changed since last year
Supporters pointed to specific edits in the current draft that were added after the committee advanced the measure previously: additional transparency requirements (for example, disclosure of ownership interests when filing a holdover complaint), an explicit DHCD role to produce standardized notice language, and anti‑circumvention language modeled on recent New York reforms. Proponents argued these clarifications respond to industry concerns while preserving tenant protections.

Next steps and political dynamics
DHCD testified in support of the change at the committee hearing and several municipalities — including Rockville — and nonprofits urged passage. Opponents asked lawmakers to measure the local impact and urged waiting for further study, but committee members pressed both sides on enforcement logistics, exemptions for small landlords, and definitions that may need tightening. If the committee reports HB 709 favorably, it would move to the House floor and then to the Senate; local governments would decide whether to adopt local good‑cause ordinances under the bill’s enabling language.

Ending
Supporters described HB 709 as a corrective tool that balances landlords’ property rights and tenants’ housing stability; opponents raised consequences for administration and market behavior. The committee must next weigh technical clarifications and exemptions before deciding whether to advance the measure.","Delegate Janelle Wilkins reintroduced a county‑enabling good‑cause eviction bill (HB 709) to let localities require landlords to state lawful reasons for lease nonrenewal; proponents said the measure would reduce retaliatory and arbitrary displacements, while industry groups warned of litigation and impacts on development and dispute timelines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would require 24 months of billing before foreclosing on old second liens, lawmakers told

Md. bill would require 14 days’ eviction notice and 10‑day property reclamation window

Good‑cause eviction bill returns to committee after year of revisions