What HB 127 removed, what remedies still exist, and why asset information matters more now
Since October 1, 2023, Maryland District Court cannot order an individual to attend an examination or answer interrogatories to enforce a money judgment resulting from a small claims action. An ordinary Maryland District Court money claim qualifies as a small claim when the amount is $5,000 or less, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. The judgment remains enforceable, but the creditor must pursue collection without those court-compelled post-judgment discovery tools.
Winning a Case and Collecting a Judgment Are Two Different Things
Winning a small claims case in Maryland gives you a judgment. If the losing party does not pay voluntarily, you have to take additional steps to enforce it.
That distinction became considerably more important on October 1, 2023. Maryland changed the law governing post-judgment collection in small claims cases, removing two tools that creditors had relied on to find out where a judgment debtor works, banks, and owns property.
For attorneys and institutional creditors with access to commercial databases, the loss may be manageable. For a self-represented person who won a $2,500 or $5,000 case, the practical effect can be significant. You can win the case and still have very little actionable information about what to do next.
What Changed on October 1, 2023
House Bill 127 became Chapter 709 of the 2023 Laws of Maryland and added Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 11-704. The statute provides that when a money judgment results from a small claims action, the District Court may not order an individual to appear for an examination or answer interrogatories to aid enforcement or execution.
In plain terms: a creditor with a Maryland small claims judgment against an individual can no longer use the court to compel that person to sit for a debtor examination or provide sworn answers to post-judgment interrogatories.
The law did not cancel small claims judgments. It did not eliminate wage garnishment, bank garnishment, judgment liens, or execution against property. It removed a direct, court-supervised path to discovering the information a creditor often needs before deciding which remedy to use.
Before October 2023 vs. Now
| Before the 2023 Change | For a Small Claims Judgment Now |
| A judgment creditor could use the Judgment Debtor Information Sheet under Rule 3-634. | The Judgment Debtor Information Sheet procedure is not available to enforce a small claims judgment against an individual. |
| A creditor could serve up to 15 interrogatories about assets and income | The court cannot compel the individual to answer post-judgment interrogatories |
| A creditor could request an examination in aid of enforcement | The court cannot compel the individual to attend an examination |
| Noncompliance could lead to a show cause proceeding, and continued failure could eventually result in a body attachment under the applicable procedure | The creditor can still pursue lawful collection remedies, but must identify a viable target without court-compelled disclosure |
Maryland did not erase the judgment. It removed two of the most direct court-supervised ways for a small claims creditor to find out what the debtor has and where it is.
Legal Timeline
2022: HB 349 / SB 452
The Maryland General Assembly passed substantially similar legislation. Governor Larry Hogan vetoed it, warning that creditors could be left without practical tools to locate assets and collect.
May 16, 2023: HB 127 Signed
Governor Wes Moore approved HB 127 as Chapter 709.
October 1, 2023: CJP Section 11-704 Takes Effect
CJP Section 11-704 takes effect. Maryland District Court loses authority to compel an individual to answer interrogatories or appear for a debtor examination on a small claims judgment.
July 1, 2024: Rules Amended
The Supreme Court of Maryland amends Rules 3-633, 3-634, and 7-112 to conform court procedure to the statute. A de novo appeal of a small claims case does not restore post-judgment discovery.
February 25, 2026: HB 1641 Introduced
HB 1641 is introduced to repeal Section 11-704. As of September 18, 2026, it has not passed, and Section 11-704 remains in effect.
Why Maryland Changed the Law and What the Record Shows
This is not a simple story, and presenting both sides helps creditors understand their situation.
What Supporters Argued
The Maryland Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division supported the legislation, focusing on ending body attachments in civil debt collection. Under the former procedure, a body attachment was not automatic when a debtor failed to answer post-judgment discovery. Noncompliance could lead to a show cause proceeding, and additional failure to comply or appear could eventually result in a body attachment under the applicable procedure.
The Attorney General’s testimony also cited representations from the debt collection industry that creditors increasingly used skip tracing and consumer database searches rather than interrogatories or oral examinations.
What the Maryland Judiciary Warned
The Judiciary opposed the legislation. Its testimony emphasized that small claims proceedings are used by many self-represented litigants, that courts do not collect judgments for successful parties, and that removing these tools could leave a winning litigant with a judgment that is difficult to turn into actual recovery.
What the State’s Own Fiscal Analysis Predicted
The Department of Legislative Services fiscal note was unusually direct. It warned that creditors without asset information could file inaccurate or unsuccessful garnishment petitions, experience collection delays, and file additional petitions. It also noted that small claims litigants are often self-represented and might be discouraged from attempting collection altogether.
That concern was not hypothetical. A self-represented creditor may have no subscription databases, no collection department, no investigator, and no practical way to discover the debtor’s employer or financial relationships. The State’s own analysis identified that gap before the law took effect.
The policy debate focused on consumer protection and the use of body attachments, not on a finding that courts were overwhelmed by post-judgment discovery. The stronger practical point: the law pursued a consumer-protection objective by removing tools that also served a legitimate information-gathering function for judgment creditors, including pro se creditors with no other path to that information.
What Creditors Can Still Do
Maryland courts identify the primary enforcement methods available after the required waiting period. Each one requires information the creditor may no longer be able to compel through the courts.
1. Wage Garnishment
If the debtor is employed and wages are legally subject to garnishment, wage garnishment can provide a continuing collection mechanism. The problem is that you need to know the correct employer. Filing against the wrong employer wastes time and money.
2. Bank and Property Garnishment
A bank garnishment is useful only when directed to an institution that holds the debtor’s reachable funds. After the small claims discovery change, a creditor can no longer compel the individual to identify banking relationships through interrogatories or an oral examination.
3. Judgment Lien on Real Property
Under Maryland procedure, a judgment can be recorded as a lien against real property the debtor owns in the county where it is recorded. Maryland courts identify placing a lien against property, and seizing the property if the debt is not paid, as an available collection tool. A recorded judgment lien can affect the debtor’s ability to sell or refinance the property without addressing the judgment. The first step is identifying whether the debtor owns real property and, if so, in which county. Consult Maryland Courts resources or an attorney for the specific recording procedure that applies to your judgment.
4. Execution Against Personal Property or Real Estate
A creditor may be able to use a writ of execution against nonexempt property, subject to Maryland procedure, exemptions, ownership issues, and prior liens. Identifying the correct property before spending money on enforcement matters. Real property records can be useful, but a name match alone is not sufficient.
5. Negotiate a Payment Agreement
Not every judgment justifies aggressive enforcement. If the debtor is cooperative and has limited present assets, a documented payment agreement may produce a better economic result than repeated unsuccessful garnishments. Note any deadlines for judgment renewal so that waiting does not create an avoidable legal problem.
6. Use a Lawful Asset Search to Identify Enforcement Targets
This is where professional asset investigation becomes directly relevant. A judgment asset search can help identify potential banking relationships, brokerage or investment accounts, real property, vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, and other reportable assets, giving a creditor the information needed to make a more informed enforcement decision. Freestate Investigations requires a valid signed court judgment before conducting these searches.
| Already Have a Judgment but Don’t Know What to Garnish?If you have won a Maryland judgment and do not know where the debtor banks or what assets or property the debtor may own, an asset search can help identify potential enforcement targets. Freestate Investigations conducts nationwide asset searches for judgment creditors who hold a valid signed court judgment. An asset search does not garnish or seize anything and does not guarantee collection. It replaces guesswork with better information.Learn about Freestate’s Asset Search Services |
Can You Legally Work Around the Restriction?
The correct goal is not to circumvent Section 11-704. It is to understand what the statute restricts and make lawful choices within Maryland procedure.
Before Filing: Consider Whether Small Claims Is the Right Track
Maryland courts expressly compare small claims with regular civil cases. Small claims do not permit discovery, including post-judgment discovery. Regular civil cases do. A claim of $5,000 or less, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, is within Maryland’s small claims monetary limit. To proceed under the small claims procedure, the case must also seek money only and meet Maryland’s other small claims requirements. If discovery may be important to collection, evaluate that procedural tradeoff before filing.
An Appeal Does Not Restore Post-Judgment Discovery
The 2024 amendment to Rule 7-112 prevents a de novo appeal of a small claims case from becoming a route back to the interrogatories and examinations the small claims judgment did not allow.
Regular Civil Judgments Are Different
The restriction in Section 11-704 applies specifically to money judgments resulting from small claims actions against an individual. For judgments outside the small claims track, Maryland’s ordinary post-judgment discovery rules under Rules 3-633 and 3-634 remain relevant and operate differently.
Judgments Against an LLC or Corporation Are Treated Separately
The restriction in Section 11-704 and the conforming language in Rule 3-633 apply specifically to a small claims judgment against an individual. A judgment against a business entity, such as an LLC or corporation, is not automatically subject to the same prohibition. Business entity judgments can involve different post-judgment procedures, different questions about who owns the asset, and different questions about which entity was actually named in the judgment. Treat these matters separately, not as falling under the individual debtor rule. Confirm the applicable post-judgment procedure with counsel or the court for your specific case.
Lawful Alternatives to Interrogatories and Debtor Examinations
With the court-compelled discovery route closed for small claims judgments against individuals, creditors have to locate asset information through other lawful means: public records, property records, known financial relationships, employment information, or a professional asset search for judgment collection. None of these replaces the court process required to reach an asset once it is identified, but they give the creditor a factual basis for choosing which enforcement remedy to pursue.
If the creditor does not even know the debtor’s current location, skip tracing can help identify a current address and contact information as a starting point before any asset investigation begins.
The 2026 Repeal Effort
HB 1641 was introduced in the 2026 Maryland General Assembly session to repeal the prohibition in Section 11-704 and restore the court’s authority to order examinations and interrogatories for small claims judgments. As of September 18, 2026, the bill has not passed. Section 11-704 remains in effect, and the October 1, 2023 restriction still applies.
Why Asset Information Matters More After HB 127
A judgment tells you that money is owed. It does not tell you where collectible value is located.
Before October 2023, a small claims creditor had court-backed procedures that could require the debtor to provide that information directly. Today, those procedures aren’t available in the small claims track for a judgment against an individual. That shifts more responsibility to the creditor to locate reliable information through public records, lawful investigation, or professional asset searching.
For a pro se creditor, this can be the difference between filing garnishments blindly and making an informed decision about whether a particular bank, employer, or property is worth pursuing.
The Attorney General’s testimony acknowledged this shift. It cited industry representations that creditors increasingly relied on skip tracing and consumer databases rather than court-compelled discovery. That approach works for creditors who already have access to those tools. It is less complete when applied to an individual who won a $3,500 judgment and has no idea what to do next. A lawful asset investigation can help fill that gap by identifying potential bank accounts, brokerage and investment accounts, real property, vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, and other available asset information so the creditor can make a more informed decision about which enforcement method may be worth pursuing.
How Freestate Investigations Can Help
Freestate Investigations provides nationwide asset search services for attorneys, businesses, and individuals who hold a valid signed court judgment. A valid signed judgment is required before an asset search can begin.
Depending on the search and the identifying information available, potential asset categories may include bank accounts, brokerage and investment accounts, real property, vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft. Freestate hand-verifies reported findings rather than delivering a raw database export.
An asset search does not itself garnish or seize anything and does not guarantee collection. An account may contain exempt funds, an asset may carry liens, or a lead may require additional legal process before it can be reached. The purpose is to replace guesswork with better information so the creditor, and when appropriate the creditor’s attorney, can choose a more informed enforcement strategy.
Freestate’s role is investigative. The creditor or the creditor’s attorney remains responsible for selecting and pursuing the appropriate legal enforcement procedure.
| Have a Signed Judgment but Don’t Know Where to Look?You can still collect a Maryland small claims judgment. The State removed some of the court-compelled tools that previously helped creditors discover where a debtor’s assets were, but the enforcement remedies remain. If you already have a valid signed judgment and need help identifying potential assets to pursue, Freestate Investigations can assist with the investigative piece. Nationwide asset searches for attorneys, businesses, and individuals enforcing valid court judgments.Review Asset Search Services and Requirements |
Frequently Asked Questions
For a money judgment resulting from a Maryland small claims action against an individual, no. The District Court cannot compel the person to answer interrogatories in aid of execution. CJP Section 11-704 has applied since October 1, 2023.
Not through a court-compelled oral examination or written interrogatories, if the judgment resulted from a small claims action against an individual. The law prohibits the District Court from ordering that form of post-judgment discovery for small claims judgments, and the 2024 rules amendment to Rule 3-633 conforms the court rules to the statute.
No. Maryland courts still identify wage garnishment, bank or property garnishment, judgment liens, and seizure of personal property or real estate as enforcement methods. The practical challenge is obtaining accurate information about the debtor’s employment, banking relationships, and property without court-compelled disclosure.
Winning gives you a judgment, not payment. If the debtor does not pay voluntarily, you will need to pursue enforcement: wage garnishment, bank garnishment, a judgment lien on real property, or execution against nonexempt property. Each requires knowing where to direct enforcement. For a small claims judgment against an individual, the court can no longer compel the debtor to disclose that information. Hence, identifying assets through public records or a lawful asset search becomes the first practical step.
No. Maryland Rule 3-634 excludes a money judgment arising from a small claims action from the Fact Information Sheet process.
Not automatically. The Supreme Court of Maryland amended Rule 7-112 in 2024 so that a de novo appeal of a case tried as a small claim does not restore the post-judgment discovery that was unavailable under the original small claims judgment.
No. Maryland courts tell litigants to compare the small claims and regular civil tracks before filing. Small claims do not permit discovery, including post-judgment discovery. Regular civil cases do. The best filing choice depends on the facts of the case and should be evaluated before filing.
For a small claims judgment against an individual, the court can no longer compel the debtor to disclose banking relationships or assets. Creditors have to identify that information through other lawful means: public records, property records, known financial relationships, or a professional asset search. An asset search can help identify potential bank accounts, brokerage and investment accounts, real property, vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft. It does not garnish or seize assets and does not guarantee collection.
Yes. Under Maryland procedure, a judgment can be recorded as a lien against real property the debtor owns in the county where it is recorded. Maryland courts recognize placing a lien against property as a collection tool. The first step is identifying whether the debtor owns real property and where. Consult Maryland Courts resources or an attorney for the specific recording procedure.
Freestate requires a valid, signed court judgment before an asset search can begin. Searches are conducted for lawful judgment enforcement purposes. Current requirements are listed on the Asset Search Services page.
Yes. HB 1641 was introduced in February 2026 to repeal Section 11-704. As of September 18, 2026, the bill has not passed, and Section 11-704 remains in effect.
No, not automatically. The statute and Rule 3-633 apply specifically to a small claims judgment against an individual. Business entity judgments can involve different post-judgment procedures and should be treated separately. Creditors with judgments against an LLC, corporation, or other entity should confirm the applicable post-judgment procedure with counsel or the court for their specific case.
Sources and Primary Legal References
* Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 11-704
* HB 127, 2023 Regular Session
* Chapter 709, Laws of Maryland 2023
* Department of Legislative Services Fiscal and Policy Note, HB 127
* Supreme Court of Maryland Rules Order, April 5, 2024
* Maryland Courts: How to File a Small Claim (DC-CV-001BR)
* Maryland Courts: Collecting on a Judgment
* Maryland Courts: Judgments and Debt Collection
* HB 1641, 2026 Regular Session
Legal Disclaimer: Freestate Investigations, LLC is not a law firm, and its employees are not attorneys. This article provides general information about Maryland judgment enforcement and investigative services and does not constitute legal advice. Court rules, exemptions, ownership, jurisdiction, and case-specific facts can all affect collection options. Consult a licensed attorney or Maryland Courts resources for legal advice about a particular judgment.
Last reviewed: September 22, 2026. The current law and HB 1641 status have been rechecked as of this date. Section 11-704 remains in effect and HB 1641 has not passed. This article will be updated if Section 11-704 is amended or repealed.
