Maryland Supreme Court Clarifies Key Principles for Commercial Lease Enforcement

by Aaron J. Turner, Esquire

Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@chamo_007?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Allan Vega</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/fmucSosUiz4?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>
Photo by Allan Vega on Unsplash

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Maryland addressed two important principles for commercial lease disputes. First, a tenant may validly waive the right of redemption in a commercial lease. Second, although a commercial landlord is not obligated serve the same statutory pre-suit notice required in residential cases, a landlord can only pursue a failure to pay rent action if the tenant has advanced notice of both the nature and amount of the charge and the time allowed under the lease to pay such charges has expired. For landlords and tenants alike, the decision highlights the importance of clear lease drafting, accurate billing, and prompt written notice of amounts claimed as rent.

A. What Happened in the Case

In Kapneck 14-16, LLC v. Bkeezy’s Speakeasy, LLC, the parties entered into a commercial lease that required the tenant to pay base rent, as well as certain additional charges identified in the lease as additional rent, including taxes, utilities, and other costs related to the property.1 The lease also provided that the tenant waived its right to redeem the premises in a summary ejectment proceeding.2

A dispute arose when the landlord filed a failure to pay rent action and claimed that the tenant owed not only base rent, but also additional rent, including utility charges, real estate taxes, late fees, attorney’s fees, and HVAC replacement costs.3 The tenant disputed several of those charges, arguing that some amounts were not yet due and others were not properly chargeable under the lease. The tenant also disputed the enforceability of the waiver provision in the lease.

The District Court ruled that the tenant owed additional rent and entered judgment for possession in favor of the landlord. Because the lease included a waiver of the right of redemption, the District Court held that the tenant was precluded from curing the default following entry of the judgment of possession.

On appeal, the dispute centered on two important questions: whether a tenant may waive the statutory right of redemption in a commercial lease, and what notice a landlord must give before pursuing a failure to pay rent action.4

B. Commercial Leases May Waive the Right of Redemption

Maryland’s summary ejectment statute gives tenants facing a failure to pay rent action two potential opportunities to avoid eviction: they may pay before judgment or may redeem the premises after entry of a judgment of possession by paying the amount due and costs. In Kapneck, the tenant argued that this right could not be waived because doing so would violate public policy.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument. It held that, in a nonresidential lease, a waiver of the right of redemption does not violate Maryland public policy. The Court relied on the general principle that commercial parties are free to allocate rights and remedies by contract unless a statute says otherwise. The Court also noted that Maryland law expressly restricts similar waivers in residential leases, but not in commercial leases. The practical takeaway is straightforward: if a commercial lease clearly waives redemption rights, Maryland courts may enforce that provision.

Importantly, the Court distinguished Kapneck from another recent case, Copinol Restaurant, Inc. v. 26 North Market, LLC. In Copinol, the Court considered whether a landlord could use lease language to frame a failure to pay rent action as a tenant holding over action.v In Kapneck, by contrast, the landlord was not attempting to rewrite the elements of the statute. Instead, the parties agreed in advance to waive a post-judgment protection. The Court drew a line between contract terms that attempt to create a statutory remedy and contract terms that waive a right after the statutory action is otherwise properly brought. The former is unenforceable, while the latter is a valid exercise of the freedom of contact in a commercial lease.

C. Landlords Still Must Give Clear Notice of Charges Claimed as Rent

The Court also made clear that commercial landlords are not required to use the same 10-day statutory pre-suit notice form applicable in residential cases under § 8-401(c)(1) of the Real Property Article. Even so, a landlord may obtain possession based upon rent that is actually due and unpaid under the lease. When a landlord seeks to treat taxes, utilities, late fees, or similar charges as rent, those amounts must be sufficiently definite, tied to the tenant’s use or occupancy, and intended by the parties to function as rent.

Accordingly, the Court held that a charge cannot be treated as due and unpaid unless the tenant had advanced notice of both the nature and amount of the charge and the time allowed under the lease to pay it had expired.6 That means a commercial landlord cannot rely on undisclosed charges first disclosed during litigation to obtain possession. For landlords, the decision underscores the need for clear lease language, organized invoicing, and written notice before suit. For tenants, it confirms that disputed charges may not support a summary ejectment action unless they were properly billed and had actually become payable under the lease.

If you are involved in a commercial landlord/tenant dispute or have questions about a commercial lease, contact Aaron J. Turner, Esq. at (410) 321-4667 for a consultation.

  1. Kapneck 14-16, LLC v. Bkezzy’s Speakeasy, LLC, 2026 WL 1158049 at *3 (Md. Sup. Ct. April 29, 2026).
  2. Id.
  3. Id.
  4. Id. at 4.
  5. Copinol Restaurant, Inc. v. 26 North Market, LLC, 491 Md. 246, 259-295 (2025).
  6. Kapneck, 2026 WL 1158049 at *13.