Maryland's HOA oversight bill passed the House 99-35, then no Senate committee ever voted on it
Maryland's HOA oversight bill passed the House 99-35, then no Senate committee ever voted on it
2026-09-12 · Maryland · Legislation · Did not pass
What happened. The most ambitious attempt in years to put a state regulator over Maryland's community associations did not become law. House Bill 402 passed the House of Delegates 99–35, went to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, was given a hearing on 2 April 2026 — and then nothing. No committee report. No vote. It died when the session adjourned on 13 April 2026.1
That distinction matters, because at least one widely indexed bill tracker records HB 402 as having passed and awaiting signature. It did not. There is no chapter number, and Maryland has no HOA ombudsman, no oversight division and no document database.
What it would have built
HB 402 was not a single office. The Third Reader — the version the House actually passed — would have added an entire new title to the Real Property Article: Title 11C, Local Commissions on Common Ownership Communities, running from § 11C-101 to § 11C-206, plus new sections in the Commercial Law, Housing and Community Development, and State Finance and Procurement Articles.2
Three machines inside it:
- A Common Ownership Community Oversight Division to receive and respond to complaints, with hearing panels that could issue decisions.
- A public database — associations would have had to file their declarations, bylaws and governing documents with the State, which would publish them.
- Statutory standards for county commissions, covering membership, fees, coordination with other county agencies, and mandatory annual registration.
It also carried a provision that would have changed litigation practice directly. Under proposed § 11C-204, if a court were notified that a complaint had been filed with the Division, “THE COURT MAY POSTPONE A PROCEEDING FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS” — and could then hear the matter de novo if no hearing panel had ruled.2
The House moved it out of the Attorney General's office
The single most consequential amendment is visible in the Third Reader's strike-outs, and it is regularly reported backwards.
As introduced, the bill established a Common Ownership Community Ombudsman Unit in the Division of Consumer Protection in the Office of the Attorney General. The House Economic Matters amendment struck both: it became a Oversight Division in the Department of Housing and Community Development.2 The bill's own short title was amended the same way — from “Ombudsman Unit” to “Oversight.”
That is not cosmetic. An ombudsman inside the Attorney General's consumer arm sits next to an enforcement apparatus with subpoena power and a litigating division. An oversight division inside the housing department is an administrative body. The House chose the softer institution, and the Senate declined to vote on either.
The bill also protected the two county bodies that already do this work. Proposed § 11C-205 stated that creating the Division “DOES NOT OVERRIDE, PREEMPT, OR DIMINISH THE AUTHORITY OF ANY EXISTING COMMISSION ON COMMON OWNERSHIP COMMUNITIES ESTABLISHED BY A COUNTY OR LOCAL MUNICIPALITY” — language that reads as a direct answer to Montgomery and Prince George's County, both of which run established commissions.2
How it would have paid for itself
Proposed § 11C-206 created a Common Ownership Community Oversight Fund — a special, non-lapsing fund held separately by the State Treasurer, administered by the Secretary, and consisting of complaint filing fees, annual community registration fees, document filing fees, fines assessed under the subtitle, and interest.2
So the model was self-funding through charges on associations. The Department of Legislative Services still put a general-fund cost on it: $192,300 in FY 2027, a mandated appropriation of $50,004 in the FY 2028 budget for the database, and recurring expenditure rising to about $259,500 by FY 2031. It also flagged a “meaningful” small-business effect and a possible local-government mandate.3
Against a session running into a projected state shortfall of at least $1.6 billion, a bill carrying a mandated appropriation is carrying weight.
The lobbying, on the record
This is one of the rare Maryland community-association bills where the two largest organised interests took opposite documented positions.
CAI's Maryland Legislative Action Committee opposed it. Its end-of-session report lists HB 402 as opposed and died in Senate Judicial Proceedings. Across the session the committee tracked 98 bills, testified on 42, and mobilised 820 advocates, on behalf of roughly 1,062,000 Marylanders in 406,100 homes across more than 7,100 associations.4
Maryland REALTORS supported it. Its own 2026 session summary records HB 402 as “DID NOT PASS. POSITION: Support.”5
The Maryland Association of Counties also engaged, testifying on 2 April under the heading of preserving the functionality of existing local commissions.6 Read alongside § 11C-205, the county concern was plainly about not being displaced.
Four sessions, and the first chamber win
The oversight package is not new. Delegate Holmes and colleagues filed versions as HB 1457 and HB 279 in 2024, and as HB 306, SB 866 and HB 558 in 2025. Every one died. The Third Reader's own header records the lineage: HB 306/25.2
2026 was the first year any version passed a chamber. The Senate cross-file, SB 981 from Senator Muse, never left Senate Rules — it was given a first reading on 15 February and no hearing was ever scheduled.7
What to watch next
The Senate's inaction is the story, and it is not confined to this bill. Judicial Proceedings took no vote on five House-passed community-association bills this session. Whether that repeats depends on people, not policy: the 2027 session convenes 13 January 2027 as the first of a new four-year term, after the 3 November 2026 general election. Every unpassed bill is gone and must be refiled by whoever returns.
There is also a quieter development that makes the oversight question less binary than it looks. While the legislature was declining to create a new regulator, an existing one was handed the job. Chapter 512 of 2025 removed the limitation confining the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division to violations “affecting a consumer,” put every violation of both Acts inside the Division's enforcement powers, and gave it express authority to adopt regulations under them.8 No regulations have been adopted yet. That authority, not a refiled HB 402, is the most likely route to state oversight of Maryland associations.
Related Maryland HOA Topics
- House Bill 402, Maryland General Assembly 2026 Regular Session — bill record; passed House 99-35, Senate Judicial Proceedings hearing 2 April 2026, no further action, died at sine die ↩
- House Bill 402 Third Reader — the text as passed by the House: new Real Property Title 11C §§ 11C-101 to 11C-206, the Oversight Division moved from the Office of the Attorney General to DHCD by amendment, the Oversight Fund at § 11C-206, and the 90-day court postponement at § 11C-204 ↩
- Department of Legislative Services fiscal and policy note, HB 402 (2026) — $192,300 FY 2027, $50,004 mandated FY 2028 database appropriation, rising to roughly $259,500 by FY 2031 ↩
- CAI Advocacy, 2026 Maryland End of Legislative Session Report (position: opposed; 98 bills tracked, 42 testimonies, 820 advocates) ↩
- Maryland REALTORS, Summary of 2026 Real Estate Legislation — HB 402 recorded as "DID NOT PASS. POSITION: Support" ↩
- Maryland Association of Counties, Conduit Street — testimony on preserving the functionality of existing local common ownership communities commissions (2 April 2026 hearing) ↩
- Senate Bill 981 (2026) — the cross-file; first reading in Senate Rules 15 February 2026, no hearing scheduled, died at sine die ↩
- Chapter 512 of the Acts of 2025 (SB 758), enrolled text — Real Property §§ 11-130 and 11B-115 as amended: full Consumer Protection Division enforcement over both Acts and express regulation-adopting authority ↩
Stay on top of Maryland HOA law
Every week: new Maryland legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.