Maryland House Bill 107
Maryland state law on reserve studies
Maryland House Bill 107, also known as HB107, is a Maryland state law passed in 2022 that mandates that condominiums, housing associations, cooperatives, and homeowner associations complete a reserve study by October 1, 2023. The law, passed in response to the Surfside condominium collapse, is most notable for expanding the existing law on reserve studies, which only applied to Montgomery County and Prince George's County, to the entire state, requiring community associations three fiscal years to "attain the annual reserve funding level" recommended by the study and giving the board of directors of each association the power to "increase assessments" to fund such a study, overriding any bylaws or other governing documents capping assessment increases. It became law without the signature of Governor Larry Hogan.
Provisions
The law requires community associations, specifically cooperative housing corporations and residential condominiums, established on or after October 2022, to conduct reserve studies, then update those studies every five years. The legislation also requires associations to annually fund the reserve amount, for repairs and maintenance, recommended in the reserve study, for the study to be publicly available for inspection by any unit owner, and to attain the annual recommended level of reserve funding within three years of the initial study's completion, with no exemptions based on association size "or number of condominium units."
Furthermore, the law defines the specifics of a reserve study, mandates reserve studies of "common area components" every five years (for those associations without a reserve study after October 2018), requires that the level of reserves be included in the annual budget, and gives association boards the power to raise money for the reserve fund regardless of governing documents restricting or capping assessment increases. The legislation's broad language says that common-area components are important “structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing” components that need to be replaced. The law also outlines four requirements for those who can prepare reserve studies.
The bill does not identify funding methods for which the capital for the reserve fund needs to be collected.
Reserve Advisors, an engineering firm, notes that the funding recommendations of the reserve study do not have to be followed, but advised homeowner associations to not "forgo meeting the funding recommendations" In contrast, the Maryland Attorney General stated that reserves must be budgeted "in accordance" with the reserve study and other commercial organizations stated that funding for reserves is "mandatory" or "required." Commercial condominiums and homeowners associations with costs of purchase and installation costs of common components under $10,000 are not impacted by the law.
Similar provisions were included in the 2020 Maryland reserve study law applying to Prince George's County and Montgomery County, with this law expanding those requirements to make them applicable statewide.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Maryland House Bill 107” as maryland state law on reserve studies. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as maryland state law on reserve studies. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 23, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q123990280. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2022, 2023, 2018 and 2020.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Maryland House Bill 107”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Maryland House Bill 107 primary sources, Maryland House Bill 107 archive and Maryland research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Maryland House Bill 107”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Maryland House Bill 107” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.