Anne Arundel enacts eviction law similar to one deemed unconstitutional in Baltimore

Anne Arundel County renters will have more time to prepare for an eviction under an ordinance that took effect July 1, but the law includes a provision that some say is similar to one deemed unconstitutional in Baltimore.

The ordinance requires landlords to provide 14 days’ notice of an eviction — up from six days — and ends the practice of leaving a renter’s belongings outside. Supporters say the bill protects renters from the shame of seeing their things left on the sidewalk, where neighbors might pass judgment and where they’re vulnerable to theft and the weather.

But once the door is locked, anything inside is considered “abandoned,” and the landlord can dispose of — or even sell — anything the renter wasn’t able to remove within 14 days.

By requiring property be locked in the house and excluding a “reclamation period” — some amount of time after the eviction is final in which the tenant can recover their remaining items — Anne Arundel County is enacting a provision similar to a Baltimore City law that was found unconstitutional.

Lawyers for renters say the way the ordinance handles belongings violates the right to due process.

Although the Anne Arundel law does provide notice that property will be considered abandoned, it does not allow renters the opportunity to be heard, said Lee Ogburn, of Maryland Legal Aid, which is challenging a similar Baltimore County law

Lisa Sarro, director of litigation and advocacy at Community Legal Services, which represents renters in eviction cases in Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties, said the same.

“It is a taking. It is a government taking of a personal property interest without due process of law,” Sarro told The Daily Record.

She noted that court dates are set faster in Anne Arundel than any other jurisdiction in the state. Most renters learn a day or two in advance of their hearings, she said, and some find out on their way to work that they have a hearing that same day. Sarro said the quickly scheduled eviction trials plus the lack of a reclamation period are a “double-whammy of lack of due process.”

Anne Arundel County Council Chair Julie Hummer, who sponsored the bill, said her priority was to “add some dignity to the process” by ending the practice of leaving belongings out on the street.

“It’s already traumatic enough,” Hummer said. “Why are we adding onto that trauma?”

A compromise

The ordinance is the result of compromise between landlords and advocates for renters.

An earlier version of the bill included a six-day reclamation period, with no requirement that the tenant pay rent or service fees during that time.

The reclamation period was removed after advocacy from the Maryland Multi-Housing Association, a group representing landlords. Matthew Pipkin, government and community affairs manager for the association, confirmed it asked for the change and called it a “reasonable compromise.”

Renters’ lawyers said the loss of property constitutes a “taking” from the renter, but Pipkin countered that reclamation periods are a “taking” from the landlord.

“For housing providers who are repossessing the property after what has likely been 60+ days of unpaid rent, the housing provider needs to recover the property as soon as possible to begin recouping losses,” Pipkin stated in an email.

“An arbitrary extension of 6 days at no cost for the tenant would have constituted a taking and only have compounded housing providers’ losses and one less housing unit on the rental market for an extended period of time,” Pipkin said. “Housing providers would have no choice but to increase rental rates in Anne Arundel County to cover the loss as a result of units being off the market.”

Hummer said she wanted a reclamation period but that there are safety concerns if a member of the sheriff’s office can’t be present when the renter goes to the home after the eviction.

“I tried really hard to get that in,” Hummer said.

The law does not apply in Annapolis, but the city is considering a similar change, according to Logan Rips, a spokesperson for Mayor Jared Littmann.

The law requires landlords to wait 24 hours after the eviction before disposing of or selling what was left behind, but the renter has no access to the home during that time, and the landlord has no obligation to return their belongings.

Ogburn said, “I see the 24-hour period in the statute as serving no meaningful purpose.”

Similar laws challenged

Two years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld $186,000 in damages awarded to a Baltimore woman who lost many of her belongings in an eviction.

The court ruled that the city violated her right to due process by giving her no notice that her belongings would be considered abandoned and by giving her no opportunity to contest the “deprivation.”

“Had the Abandonment Ordinance provided for any reclamation period at all — even one as short as a few hours — they would have been able to retrieve their belongings,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.

That wasn’t the only legal challenge to such a law. Last month, Maryland Legal Aid sued Baltimore County in an effort to overturn a similar law deeming property abandoned at the moment of the eviction.

Tom Maronick Jr., an Anne Arundel County-based lawyer who owns rental properties, said he supported the bill overall because of the extended notice and the ban on leaving property outside. But he said he would prefer it to have a reclamation period and that the lack of one makes it much like the two other jurisdictions’ laws.

“I think it’s similar, absolutely,” Maronick said.

Hummer said she studied the opinion and argued the law is constitutional because it provides a “significant amount of time to get out your valuables,” as well as notice that belongings will be considered abandoned.

She acknowledged that renters are often unable to show up for eviction hearings and that default judgments are entered in most cases. She said she supports efforts to change state law to give renters more notice of their hearings, adding, “This bill does not purport to fix everything in the eviction process.”

“It is a good bill, and I think it will be beneficial to people,” she said. “I’m looking forward to seeing it in (effect) and reviewing it to see how we can make it even better.”