A beer and wine store fought back – and the state's highest court had something to say about it
A divided Maryland Supreme Court just told commercial landlords they cannot blindside tenants with surprise charges in eviction proceedings.
In a decision filed on April 29, 2026, the state's highest court stepped into a dispute between a Frederick, Maryland, landlord and its commercial tenant – a beer and wine store – over unpaid additional rent. The ruling landed on a question that matters to every commercial property owner and manager in the state: what happens when a landlord tries to evict a tenant over charges that tenant never knew existed?
The facts were straightforward. The landlord leased commercial space to the tenant under a five-year agreement starting in March 2023. The tenant kept up with its base monthly rent. But the lease also required the tenant to cover utilities, real estate taxes, late fees, and attorneys' fees – all classified as additional rent. When the tenant fell behind on some of those charges, the landlord filed for summary ejectment in August 2024, seeking to reclaim the property.
At trial, the landlord conceded the tenant was current on base rent. The tenant pushed back against several of the additional charges, saying it first encountered the attorneys' fee claim when an affidavit surfaced at trial, and the late fee ledger was entirely new to it. The District Court ultimately determined that $16,240.30 in additional rent was due and unpaid, then entered a judgment for possession with no right of redemption, relying on a waiver clause in the lease. The tenant's request to pay the amounts owed and avoid the judgment was denied.
The Supreme Court saw it differently – at least in part. The Court held that Maryland's statutory pre-suit notice requirement applies only to residential tenancies, a point on which all seven justices agreed. But it also made clear that a landlord can obtain possession only for rent that was actually due and unpaid when the action was filed. If the tenant had no notice of a charge – its nature, amount, and deadline – that charge cannot support an eviction. The Court found that the landlord's own records undercut its case. Late fees were logged inconsistently, with several entries appearing only the day before trial, suggesting the charges were discretionary rather than automatic.
On the lease's waiver of redemption clause, the Court split 4-3. The majority held that such provisions do not violate Maryland public policy in commercial leases and can be enforced. Three justices disagreed sharply, with one calling on the legislature to step in and make the right of redemption off-limits to contractual waiver entirely.
The Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and ordered the case remanded to the District Court to recalculate what was actually owed. The matter remains unresolved for the parties.
For commercial landlords and property managers, the takeaway is practical: a lease clause is only as strong as the notice behind it. Tacking on additional rent charges without clear, timely communication – and then relying on those charges to push a tenant out – is a strategy this ruling puts at serious risk. How you administer a lease, the Court made plain, matters just as much as what the lease says.
