July 11, 2024
A Baltimore law that allows landlords to confiscate tenants’ possessions after an eviction is unconstitutional, according to a recent court ruling, because it deprives tenants of their property without due process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court award of $186,000 in damages for Marshall and Tiffany Todman, who lost nearly all of their possessions in an eviction, and found that Baltimore City is liable for violating their constitutional rights. In its decision, the Court highlighted issues raised in an amicus brief authored by Public Justice Center Murnaghan Fellow Melanie Babb and joined by Civil Justice, Homeless Persons Representation Project, and Maryland Legal Aid. As we celebrate this victory, we will also continue to advocate for strong state legislation to protect tenants’ possessions.
At the center of the Fourth Circuit’s decision is Baltimore City’s Abandonment Ordinance. Under the law, a renter’s possessions are considered abandoned if left in a rental property after an eviction and become the property of the landlord. In cases where a tenant stays past the end of the lease (called tenant holding over), landlords can evict tenants without notice of the actual date of the eviction, resulting in the surprise loss of their belongings. And once the eviction happens, Baltimore provides no opportunity for renters to reclaim their property. Tenants have lost medicine, clothes, personal identification, loved ones’ ashes, pets, and more as a result of this law.
The Fourth Circuit found that the warrant of restitution that contained a warning of the possibility of the Todmans’ property being deemed abandoned after eviction was not sufficient notice and violated their constitutional rights. The warrant of restitution, which the landlord requested and the court issued on its standard form, included confusing and misleading language that made it difficult to understand what might happen to tenants’ property. Drawing on arguments in the PJC’s amicus brief and referring to the city law as a “confiscatory ordinance” in its decision, the Court emphasized that the consequences of eviction permeate all aspects of life and that renters’ possessions are precious and deserve meaningful procedural protections.
In the wake of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, it is clear that state legislators need to act to protect tenants’ possessions. During the 2024 session of the Maryland General Assembly, the Public Justice Center and fellow members of Renters United Maryland advocated for the Tenant Possessions Recovery Act (HB 1114 / SB 992), which would have provided renting families notice of a scheduled eviction date and a limited opportunity to reclaim their belongings after eviction. The act would align Maryland with 46 other states that provide similar protections. We will continue to advocate for this legislation and call on the House Environment and Transportation Committee and Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee to pass the bill in 2025.
Thank you to PJC attorneys Matt Hill and Albert Turner, managing paralegal Carolina Paul, paralegal Kelsey Carlson, and the rest of the Human Right to Housing team for their assistance with the amicus brief and advocacy for the Tenant Possessions Recovery Act. We also thank Zuckerman Spaeder and the Law Offices of Joseph S. Mack, who represented the Todmans in the case.
