Issues relating to housing law were once again of interest to the General Assembly in the 2003 Session. While only a handful of the measures considered actually passed, all of the legislative proposals introduced raised important issues that the General Assembly is likely to consider in future years.

Two of the new laws deal with a relatively obscure aspect of real property law: ground rent. Briefly, "ground rent" is money paid to the owner of land for the use of the property for a long-term lease (e.g., 99 years) with the lessor retaining title to the land. A typical ground rent in Maryland has a cash value of approximately $1,500.

Chapter 464 (House Bill 1030) provides for an alternative method for the redemption of a ground rent lease. Basically, the new law authorizes a homeowner who is unsuccessful at giving notice of a redemption to the landlord to redeem the ground rent lease by depositing funds covering the amount of the redemption and up to three years of any unpaid back rent with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. The department holds the funds and maintains on the department’s website a list of the redeemed properties. The landlord has 20 years within which to claim the redemption money and any back rent. If no claim is made within 20 years, the funds escheat to the State.

The second new law dealing with ground rent, Chapter 80 (Senate Bill 321), allows an owner of a ground rent to be reimbursed for certain expenses in the collection of past-due ground rent and in the preparation of an ejectment action. The law also imposes new notice requirements to benefit the ground rent tenant before the commencement of a formal collection action and limits the amount of expenses, up to $500, that a landlord may seek to be reimbursed in collecting past-due ground rent.

Another measure recently signed into law, Chapter 225 (Senate Bill 258), addresses a problem many unincorporated condominium associations experience when the number of persons present in person or by proxy at a properly called meeting of the council of unit owners fails to constitute a quorum. Under these circumstances, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, an unincorporated condominium association is left with no alternative for calling another meeting but to renew the original, lengthy notice process. Chapter 225 authorizes an additional meeting of the council of unit owners to be held for the same purpose under a streamlined notice process comparable to the provision in the Corporations Article for incorporated associations.

There were several bills introduced in the 2003 Session dealing with various aspects of landlord/tenant law. Although none of the following bills passed, the issues raised are significant and likely to be re-examined by the legislature.The subject of security deposits generated a number of different proposals. Senate Bill 57, House Bill 95, Senate Bill 436/House Bill 217 and Senate Bill 74/House Bill 590 each proposed different modifications to the amount of interest on a security deposit that a landlord is required to pay a tenant at the end of a tenancy. Current law requires a landlord to pay 4 percent simple interest. Given that recently interest rates for passbook accounts and certificates of deposit are below 4 percent, there is motivation in the rental housing industry to reduce that obligation. Another measure proposed a new alternative to the traditional security deposit. House Bill 686 proposed allowing a tenant, in lieu of paying a security deposit, to purchase a surety bond to protect the landlord against nonpayment of rent, damage due to breach of lease, or damage to the leased premises or common areas.

House Bill 976 presented a new issue for the General Assembly to consider in the landlord/tenant area: billing for water service in multi-family dwellings. House Bill 976 would have prohibited landlords from using a novel billing system, referred to as "RUBS" (ratio utility billing system), that estimates water usage and bills the tenants based on the estimate rather than actual water usage. While proponents of RUBS argued that the system encourages water conservation, the supporters of the bill maintained that the process is unfair and arbitrary, especially to lower-income tenants.

On a broader level, Senate Bill 683/House Bill 853 sought to prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of source of income. Currently under State law, discrimination in housing is prohibited because of race, sex, creed, color, religion, national origin, marital status, physical or mental handicap and, since 2001, sexual orientation. Much of the testimony focused on the limited rental housing that is available in the State to persons who receive Section 8 vouchers, as well as alimony or child support payments, disability benefits and student loans.

Lastly, several different measures considered in the 2003 Session dealt with the State’s lead paint abatement laws. While much progress has been made since the enactment of the State’s lead paint poisoning prevention law in 1994, many children are still at risk. Two proposals addressing compliance with the law by landlords received much attention. House Bill 720 sought to require a landlord to state in a complaint for repossession for failure to pay rent that the landlord has satisfied the registration and risk reduction requirements under the lead paint poisoning prevention law. Among other things, House Bill 872 would have required a landlord to include a statement similar to that proposed under House Bill 720 in actions for either distress for arrears in rent or for repossession for failure to pay rent, as well as in a residential lease.

In addition to action by the General Assembly, it will be important for housing law practitioners to monitor the activities of the Governor’s Commission on Housing Policy created in March 2003 by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. Given the significance, complexity and often contentious nature of housing issues, it is likely that the General Assembly will be considering several different proposals in the housing arena in the near future.