MD commercial tenant holding over ruling strengthens residential renter protections, advocates say

Listen to this article

A recent decision by the Maryland Supreme Court in a commercial tenant holding over case strengthens protections for tenants of residential properties, with the high court continuing to reject predatory lease practices, housing rights advocates say.

In an opinion written by Justice Brynja Booth and filed last month, the high court in Copinol Restaurant, Inc. v. 26 North Market LLC  held Maryland’s tenant holding over statute, § 8-402 of the Real Property section of the Maryland Code, applies only where a lease has expired by lapse of time where a tenant occupies property pursuant to a lease for a term.

The ruling means 26 North Market, landlord for Copinol Restaurant in Frederick, cannot contractually modify the statutory meaning of the phrase “expiration of a lease” in § 8-402 and subsequently cannot avail itself of remedies available under the statute. The dispute and suit arose after Copinol failed to pay rent by the due date in its lease with 26 North Market, causing North Market to terminate the lease and provide Copinol with a written notice to vacate. When Copinol failed to vacate, North Market filed a tenant holding over action in Frederick County District Court.

Under § 8-402, a landlord can obtain a judgment for restitution of possession of real property from the District Court of Maryland upon the “expiration of a lease” after providing statutory notice to a tenant who remains in possession.

Though the high court’s decision involves a commercial lease, housing rights advocates say the dispute parallels a problem frequently encountered by low-income renters: landlords unilaterally changing the lease term for their own benefit.

Zafar Shah, advocacy director for Human Right to Housing and an attorney with Maryland Legal Aid, said landlords seeking to unilaterally change the lease term typically send a notice alleging the tenant violated a lease provision and therefore forfeited the entire lease, which becomes the basis for a tenant holding over eviction case.

“This case shows how the availability of a procedure to evict a tenant absent any proof of fault opens the door to abusive tactics,” Shah said in an email. “Overall, the case continues a theme we’ve seen since Lockett v. Blue Ocean Bristol in 2016 and then Westminster Management v. Smith in 2024 in which the [Maryland] Supreme Court is rejecting predatory lease practices despite their widespread usage in both commercial and residential sectors.”

Shah added that advocates have been pressing the Maryland General Assembly for years to end “no fault” eviction proceedings like the kind Copinol faced. Last year, “good cause eviction” legislation passed in the House, but ultimately failed in the Senate.

Del. Jheanelle Wilkins, a Democrat representing District 20 in Montgomery County, served as the primary sponsor of HB 709 during this year’s legislative session. Her bill, first introduced eight years ago, would authorize a county to adopt provisions prohibiting landlords of residential property from failing to renew a lease during the lease period or from terminating a holdover tenancy without good cause.

Wilkins said Copinol is an important case that provides a clear holding where a “landlord tried to circumvent and reinterpret the law to evict [a tenant].”

“This case really clarifies and strengthens protections for tenants by saying that a landlord cannot use the tenant holding over statute outside of its intended purpose,” Wilkins said in a phone call.

Wilkins noted that evictions are destabilizing to Maryland families, and as such the process for eviction requires a clear standard.

“With our understanding of that and the fact that someone’s losing their home, we need a high bar, no matter the type of eviction, that we know for sure that we’re using a high standard in our state before someone loses the most important lifeline that they have, which is their home,” Wilkins said, adding she plans to reintroduce HB 709 in the next General Assembly session.

Counsel for 26 North Market declined to comment, and counsel for Copinol did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Justice Shirley Watts joined in the high court’s judgment only and wrote separately to voice concern that the majority’s historical discussion will be used to urge trial courts to act swiftly in a landlord’s favor in district court proceedings “without taking adequate account of the protections for tenants that the General Assembly has enacted into law.”

“Given that tenants in District Court proceedings are often self-represented, they may not be in a position to bring to the court’s attention the defenses or remedies that are available to them but not covered in the Majority’s recitation of the history of landlord-tenant law,” Watts wrote. “Where the majority opinion engages in such a lengthy recitation of the rights given to landlords in summary ejectment proceedings, in the interest of balance and the appearance of impartiality, the protections afforded tenants should not be given short shrift.”