SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Minutes of a meeting of the Rules Committee held in Rooms

131-132 of the Maryland Judicial Center, 187 Harry S. Truman

Parkway, Annapolis, Maryland on Thursday, June 26, 2025.

Members present:

Hon. Yvette M. Bryant, Chair

Hon. Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Vice

Chair

Hon. Tiffany H. Anderson

Hon. Vicki Ballou-Watts

James M. Brault, Esq.

Julia Doyle, Esq.

Monica Garcia Harms, Esq.

Brian A. Kane, Esq.

Hon. Karen R. Ketterman

Dawne D. Lindsey

Stephen S. McCloskey, Esq.

Kathleen H. Meredith, Esq.

Judy Rupp, State Court

Administrator

Scott D. Shellenberger, Esq.

Gregory K. Wells, Esq.

Hon. Dorothy J. Wilson

Brian L. Zavin, Esq.

In attendance:

Sandra F. Haines, Esq., Reporter

Colby L. Schmidt, Esq., Deputy Reporter

Heather Cobun, Esq., Assistant Reporter

Meredith A. Drummond, Esq., Assistant Reporter

Louise Carwell, Esq., Chief Attorney, Baltimore City Housing &

Consumer Law, Maryland Legal Aid

J. Isaac De La Cruz

Robert Enten, Esq.

Thomas Fisher, Esq., Managing Director, Maryland Center for

Legal Assistance

Marianne Lee, Esq., Executive Counsel and Director, Attorney

Grievance Commission

Erica LeMon, Esq., Advocacy Director for Children’s Rights,

Maryland Legal Aid

Mary Migues-Jordan, Esq., Managing Attorney, Civil Justice, Inc.

Hon. John P. Morrissey, Chief Judge, District Court of Maryland

Chelsea Ortega, Esq.

Pamela Ortiz, Esq., Director, Access to Justice

Shaoli Sarkar, Esq., MSBA

Gillian Tonkin, Esq., Staff Attorney to Chief Judge, District

Court

David Wanger, Esq., Office of the Public Defender

Brittany West, Esq., Legal Content Analyst, Access to Justice

Magistrate Erica J. Wolfe, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

The Chair convened the meeting.

She announced that Judge

Ballou-Watts and Mr. Shellenberger’s terms were expiring at the

end of the month.

She thanked them for their services to the

Committee.

The Reporter informed the Committee that Judge Catherine

Chen, who filled a District Court seat on the Committee, was

recently elevated to the circuit court; this leaves her seat

vacant.

She noted that the Supreme Court has several upcoming

conference days, after which she hopes to receive the names of

new appointees to the Committee and Rules Orders pertaining to

the 224th Report and the amendment to Rule 16-701, which the

Court had proposed on its own initiative.

The Reporter said that the next Report to the Court will

contain the changes necessary to implement the NextGen Bar Exam,

which will be offered in Maryland beginning July 2026.

The

remaining Rules approved by the Committee in March and May and

at today’s meeting will be in the next general Report to the

Court.

The Reporter announced that Committee members are reminded

to submit mileage and expenses to Ms. Towles by July 10 for the

fiscal year ending on June 30.

The Reporter also advised that the meeting would be

recorded for the purpose of assisting with the preparation of

meeting minutes and that speaking will be treated as consent to

being recorded.

The Chair called for a motion to approve the May Rules

Committee meeting minutes.

A motion was made, seconded, and

approved by consensus.

The Reporter said that this morning, as reflected in the

agenda, members will hear a special presentation by Senior U.S.

District Judge Paul Grimm on evidentiary issues associated with

artificial intelligence (“AI”) and updates on the Federal Rules

of Evidence.

She said that the presentation would be recorded

and available on request.

The meeting will resume after the

lunch break.

The Chair introduced Judge Grimm.

She said that AI is an

important issue that the Committee will likely have to deal with

in the Rules sooner or later.

She said that judges heard Judge

Grimm’s presentation on AI at the Maryland Judiciary’s annual

Judicial Conference, and she felt that it would be beneficial to

invite the judge to present to the Committee as well.

She said

that Judge Grimm is a Senior U.S. District Judge (retired) of

the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

He is the

David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of

the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School, with plans to

return to Maryland later this year.

She thanked Judge Grimm for

his time and invited him to address the Committee.

The Committee heard Judge Grimm’s presentation and resumed

the agenda after lunch.

The Chair reconvened the meeting and welcomed the Committee

and guests.

The Reporter restated the recording announcement.

Agenda Item 1. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rules 2625 and 3-625 (Expiration and Renewal of Money Judgment), Rules

2-643 and 3-643 (Release of Property from Levy), and Rules 2-645

and 3-645 (Garnishment of Property – Generally).

Judge Nazarian informed the Committee that the proposed

amendments in Agenda Item 1 include three pairs of circuit court

and District Court Rules governing judgments.

He said that the

amendments flow from the Equal Justice Committee Rules Review

Subcommittee Report and Recommendations (the “EJC Report”).

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 2-625, Expiration and Renewal

of Money Judgment, and Rule 3-625, Expiration and Renewal of

Money Judgment, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 2-625 by creating new section (a)

pertaining to renewal of judgments in general, by

creating new section (b) governing the renewal of

judgments entered prior to the effective date of the

Rule change, and by making stylistic changes, as

follows:

Rule 2-625. EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL OF MONEY

JUDGMENT

(a) Generally

Except as otherwise provided in section (b) of this

Rule, a money judgment expires 12 years from the

date of entry, except that the judgment holder may

extend the judgment for one additional period of 12

years by filing a Notice of Renewal at any time before

the expiration of the judgment. A Notice of Renewal

under section (a) of this Rule shall state (1) the date of

entry of the judgment and (2) that there has been no

prior renewal of the judgment. Upon receipt of a

timely filed Notice of Renewal, the clerk shall enter the

judgment renewed for a period of 12 years from the

date the Notice of Renewal was filed.

(b) Money Judgments Entered before [Eff. Date of

Rule Change]

A money judgment entered before [effective date

of Rule change] expires 12 years from the date of entry

or most recent renewal. At any time before expiration

of the judgment, the judgment holder may file a notice

of renewal Notice of Renewal, and the clerk shall enter

the judgment renewed. There is no limit to the

number of timely filed renewals under section (b) of

this Rule.

Committee note: This Rule does not extinguish an

unrenewed judgment held by the State. See Code,

Courts Article, § 5-102; Comptroller of Md. v. Shipe,

221 Md. App. 425 (2015); and Central Collection Unit v.

Buckingham, 214 Md. App. 672 (2013).

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 2-625 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

In March 2023, the Judicial Council approved

for dissemination the Report and Recommendations of

the Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review

Subcommittee (hereinafter “the EJC Report”). The

Subcommittee was tasked with identifying instances in

the Rules which “reflect, perpetuate, or fail to correct

systemic biases.”

The Rules Committee’s Judgments

Subcommittee first discussed a series of proposed

amendments impacting the Rules governing judgments

and their enforcement in June 2023. After

consideration, the Subcommittee deferred action on

any proposed amendments until interested parties and

stakeholders could confer and possibly identify points

of agreement. Consumer rights advocates, via the

Access to Justice Office in the Administrative Office of

the Courts (“Access to Justice”), proposed a series of

amendments late last year which were reviewed by the

Subcommittee in consultation with creditors’

attorneys.

The EJC Report made two alternate

recommendations for amendments to Rules 2-625 and

3-625: “The Rules Committee should consider

amending the rule to include a requirement that a

party seeking to renew a judgment must document

what collection efforts have been undertaken during

the previous 12-year term, or alternatively, limit the

number of times a judgment may be renewed.”

The Subcommittee was informed that lowincome individuals report little to no enforcement

activity for years only to be faced with collection efforts

on a debt which has accumulated significant interest.

The advocates alleged that if creditors must make and

document efforts to collect, deficiencies in judgments

could be identified sooner and fewer debtors will be

surprised by high amounts of interest accrued years

after the judgment was entered. The representatives

for the creditors’ bar disputed the contention that

creditors either intentionally or carelessly allow

interest on debts to accrue rather than pursuing

collection efforts to increase their return. They also

argued that the first alternative suggested by the EJC

Report would be a significant change to collections law

in Maryland and questioned whether it was within the

purview of the Maryland Rules. They expressed

support for an amendment that would limit a creditor

to one renewal for an additional 12-year term as a

reasonable alternative.

Rule 2-625 was adopted in 1984 and

superseded former Rule 624 and provisions in the BT

Rules. See Paul V. Niemeyer & Linda M. Schuett,

Maryland Rules Commentary, 369-370 (1984). The

amendment “replace[d] the former more complex

practice with respect to renewing a judgment by writ of

scire facias (“sci fa”).” Id. The practice of scire facias

permitted a judgment to be renewed after 12 years

with service of the writ by the sheriff. The debtor was

entitled to respond, and the expiration of the judgment

could be raised as an affirmative defense. See id.

Scire facias is a writ warning the defendant to

appear and show cause why a judgment should not be

executed. See Foster’s Writ of Scire Facias (1851).

Scire facias was established by common law regarding

real property and by statute for personal actions.

Generally, it was presumed that a judgment would be

satisfied within one year. If the debt was not paid, a

writ of scire facias was established by statute as a way

for a creditor to revive a judgment without the

necessity and cost of filing suit again. The writ was an

optional remedy to save time and expense for both

parties. Id.

Prior to 1984, renewing or “reviving” a judgment

by writ of scire facias in Maryland dated back to at

least the 1800s:

“And be it enacted that where any judgment

obtained before a single magistrate shall have

continued for more than one year, and the said

judgment had not been paid or satisfied, it shall

and may be lawful for the justice before whom

the said [judgement has] been obtained, or any

other justice of the peace for said county, to

revive the same by a writ of scire facias...” Ch.

62, 1801 Laws of Maryland.

It remained in the Code until 1957 when it was

repealed entirely. See Ch. 399, 1957 Laws of

Maryland. Prior to its repeal in 1957, the statute read,

in pertinent part:

“On all judgments or decrees in any court of law

or equity, and on all judgments of justices of the

peace recorded in the clerk's office of any court

of law, an execution or attachment may issue

out of such court or by the clerk thereof, at any

time within twelve years from the date of the

judgment or decree, or the said judgment or

decree may be otherwise proceeded with within

twelve years from its date... provided, that at

any time before the expiration of twelve years

from the date of any such judgment or decree, or

in case of the death or marriage of any

defendant in the judgment, the plaintiff shall

have the right to have a writ of scire facias to

renew or revive the same...” Maryland Code

1951, Article 26, § 21.

The only relevant provision remaining in the

Code is the 12-year duration of a judgment, now

contained in Code, Courts Article, § 5-102.

The Maryland Rule governing renewal did not

significantly change between the 1950s and the 1980s

when it was repealed. In 1983, the Rule stated:

“A plaintiff may have a writ of scire facias issued

to renew or revive a judgment, but such

judgment shall not be renewed or revived over

the objection of the judgment debtor after it has

been barred by limitations. On a judgment of a

People’s Court, trial magistrate or justice of the

peace recorded with the clerk, such writ may be

issued out of the court as if said judgment had

been originally rendered by the court. The lien

of a judgment renewed or revived on a writ of

scire facias issued after the expiration of twelve

years from the date of the original judgment

shall exist only from the date of the issuance of

the writ of scire facias.” Md. Rule 624 (1983).

The Rules Committee in 1981 voted to

recommend replacing Rule 624 with new Rule 2-624

(eventually adopted as Rule 2-625). The Reporter’s

note accompanying the proposed new Rule in 1981

explained that it would “eliminate the service and

adversarial aspects of scire facias by substituting an

ex parte procedure under which the plaintiff simply

files a notice of renewal and the clerk as a ministerial

function renews the judgment, unless the court

records show that more than 12 years have passed

since the judgment was entered or more recently

renewed.” Minutes of the Nov. 20 and 21, 1981 Rules

Committee meeting, p. 24-25 (attached). There was no

discussion of this policy change at the meeting, and it

was later included in the 82nd Report in 1983.

Rules 2-625 and 3-625 have not been

significantly modified since their adoption in 1984.

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-625 eliminate

the system of unlimited judgment renewals for

judgments entered on or after the effective date of the

Rule change. A “new” judgment expires 12 years from

its entry and, prior to its expiration, may be renewed

for one additional 12-year period, which runs from the

date the Notice of Renewal was filed. A new provision

requires the Notice of Renewal to state the date on

which the judgment was entered and confirm that no

prior renewal has been entered. New section (b)

contains the existing language of the Rule and applies

to judgments entered prior to the effective date of the

Rule change. The distinction addresses concerns

about potentially abrogating vested property rights by

Rule without due process.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 3-625 by creating new section (a)

pertaining to renewal of judgments in general, by

creating new section (b) governing the renewal of

judgments entered prior to the effective date of the

Rule change, and by making stylistic changes, as

follows:

Rule 3-625. EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL OF MONEY

JUDGMENT

(a) Generally

Except as otherwise provided in section (b) of this

Rule, a money judgment expires 12 years from the

date of entry, except that the judgment holder may

extend the judgment for one additional period of 12

years by filing a Notice of Renewal at any time before

the expiration of the judgment. A Notice of Renewal

under section (a) of this Rule shall state (1) the date of

entry of the judgment and (2) that there has been no

prior renewal of the judgment. Upon receipt of a

timely filed Notice of Renewal, the clerk shall enter the

judgment renewed for a period of 12 years from the

date the Notice of Renewal was filed.

(b) Money Judgments Entered before [Eff. Date of

Rule Change]

A money judgment entered before [effective date

of Rule change] expires 12 years from the date of entry

or most recent renewal. At any time before expiration

of the judgment, the judgment holder may file a notice

of renewal Notice of Renewal, and the clerk shall enter

the judgment renewed. There is no limit to the

number of timely filed renewals under this section.

Upon request of the judgment holder, the clerk

shall transmit a copy of the notice of renewal Notice of

Renewal to each clerk to whom a certified copy of the

judgment was transmitted pursuant to Rules 3-621

(c)(1) and 3-622 and to each circuit court clerk to

whom a Notice of Lien was transmitted pursuant to

Rule 3-621, and the receiving clerk shall enter the

judgment or Notice of Lien renewed.

Committee note: This Rule does not extinguish an

unrenewed judgment held by the State. See Code,

Courts Article, § 5-102; Comptroller of Md. v. Shipe,

221 Md. App. 425 (2015); and Central Collection Unit v.

Buckingham, 214 Md. App. 672 (2013).

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 3-625 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 3-625 eliminate

the system of unlimited judgment renewals. See the

Reporter’s note to Rule 2-625. A judgment entered

after the effective date of the Rule expires 12 years

from its entry and, prior to its expiration, may be

renewed for one additional 12-year period, which runs

from the date the Notice of Renewal was filed. A new

provision requires the notice of renewal to state the

date on which the judgment was entered and confirm

that no prior renewal has been entered. New section

(b) contains the existing language of the Rule and

applies to judgments entered prior to the effective date

of the Rule change. The distinction addresses

concerns about potentially abrogating vested property

rights by Rule without due process.

Judge Nazarian explained that the lengthy Reporter’s note

to Rule 2-625 sets forth the history of judgment terms,

expiration, and renewal.

Currently, judgments expire by law

after 12 years, and Rules 2-625 and 3-625 provide a procedure to

renew a judgment – before it expires – for an additional 12

years.

Judge Nazarian explained that the concern raised by the EJC

Report was that, due to these lengthy terms with theoretically

unlimited renewals, a judgment can accrue an astronomical amount

of interest while a debtor possibly is not aware of its

existence or the interest accrual.

He said that the proposed

amendment, which would apply to judgments entered on or after

the effective date of the Rule change, would permit only one

renewal for an additional 12-year term.

He added that new

section (b) maintains the current law permitting multiple

renewals for judgments in existence at the time of the

amendment.

This section was added due to concerns about

impacting a vested property interest without due process.

Judge Nazarian asked Ms. Lindsey whether the proposed

language works for the clerks.

Ms. Lindsey responded that she

questions whether the use of the term “timely filed” requires

clerks to confirm that the judgment had not expired before

accepting the Notice of Renewal.

The Reporter asked Ms. Lindsey

what clerks do now when someone seeks to renew a judgment that

is expired.

Ms. Lindsey said that clerks inform the filer that

the judgment sought to be renewed is expired, take the filing

fee if the filer insists, and inform the filer that the fee will

not be refunded.

She said that there is an advice letter from

the Maryland Attorney General that states that once the judgment

expires, there is nothing to renew.

Judge Nazarian commented

that the amendment to the Rules should not change that process.

Judge Bryant suggested that section (a) be amended to state

that the clerk will enter the judgment renewed “provided the

judgment has not expired” or require a statement from the filer

that the judgment has not expired.

She asked whether the clerk

should have the authority to reject a renewal if the judgment is

expired.

Judge Wilson said that she supports adding a requirement

that the filer certify that the judgment sought to be renewed

has not expired.

Chief Judge Morrissey commented that there is

caselaw stating that the clerk must accept any filing in any

paper form; the only filing that can be rejected “at the

counter” is one that lacks the required certificate of service

or is not accompanied by a required filing fee.

The Reporter suggested moving the “(2)” in section (a) to

the end of the sentence and adding “and (2) contain a

certification by the filer that the judgment has not expired.”

Judge Wilson moved to make the Reporter’s suggested amendment to

Rules 2-625 and 3-625.

The motion was seconded and approved by

consensus.

Judge Nazarian asked if there was any further discussion or

comment on Rules 2-625 and 3-625.

There being no motion to

further amend or reject the proposed Rules, they were approved

as amended.

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 2-643, Release of Property

from Levy, and Rule 3-643, Release of Property from Levy, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 2-643 by clarifying in section (c)

when the court shall release property from levy and

when the court may release property from levy; by

creating new subsection (d)(1) consisting of the current

language of section (d), with amendments; by setting

forth in subsection (d)(1) when the court may proceed

without a hearing; by adding new subsection (d)(2)

governing immediate release of cash in deposit

accounts totaling $6,000 or less; by clarifying the

hearing requirement in section (f); and by making

stylistic changes, as follows:

Rule 2-643. RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM LEVY

(a) Upon Satisfaction of Judgment

Property is released from a levy when the

judgment has been entered as satisfied and the costs

of the enforcement proceedings have been paid.

(b) Upon Posting Bond

The judgment debtor may also obtain release of

property from a levy by filing a bond in an amount

sufficient to satisfy the judgment and enforcement

costs.

Upon motion of the judgment debtor, the court

may shall release some or all of the property from a

levy if it finds that (1) the judgment has been vacated,

has expired, or has been satisfied, (2) or the property

is exempt from levy, and the court may release some

or all of the property from a levy if it finds that (3)(1)

the judgment creditor has failed to comply with these

rules or an order of court regarding the enforcement

proceedings, (4)(2) property sufficient in value to

satisfy the judgment and enforcement costs will

remain under the levy after the release, (5)(3) the levy

upon the specific property will cause undue hardship

to the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor has

delivered to the sheriff or made available for levy

alternative property sufficient in value to satisfy the

judgment and enforcement costs, or (6)(4) the levy has

existed for 120 days without sale of the property,

unless the court for good cause extends the time.

The motion and any response to the motion may be

accompanied by a request for court review of the

sheriff's appraisal made at the time of the levy.

(d) Upon Election of Exemption by Judgment Debtor

(1) Generally

By motion filed within 30 days after a levy, the

judgment debtor may elect to exempt from execution of

the judgment selected items of property or cash not

exceeding in amount the cumulative value permitted

by law. The motion and any response to the motion

may be accompanied by a request for court review of

the sheriff's appraisal made at the time of the levy. If

subsection (d)(2) of this Rule is applicable, or if no

party timely files a response to the motion or request

for a hearing, the court may proceed without a

hearing. The court promptly shall release from the

levy items of cash or property selected by the debtor to

the extent required by law. Promptly upon receipt of

an order of release from levy, the person in possession

of the property shall comply.

(2) Release of Funds in Deposit Accounts Totaling

$6,000 or Less

If, by motion filed pursuant to subsection (d)(1)

of this Rule, the judgment debtor elects up to the

maximum exemption permitted by Code, Courts

Article, § 11-504(b)(6) for deposit accounts listed in the

motion, the court, no later than ten days after the

motion was filed, and without holding a hearing or

awaiting a response from the judgment creditor, shall

order the prompt release from the levy of aggregate

account funds totaling $6,000 or less.

(e) Upon Claim of a Third Person

A person other than the judgment debtor who

claims an interest in property under levy may file a

motion requesting that the property be released. The

motion shall be served on the judgment creditor and, if

reasonably feasible, on the judgment debtor. If the

judgment debtor is not served and does not voluntarily

appear, the claimant shall file an affidavit showing

that reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain

the whereabouts of the judgment debtor and to provide

the judgment debtor with notice of the motion. The

court may require further attempts to notify the

judgment debtor. The judgment creditor or the

judgment debtor may file a response to the motion.

(f) Hearing

A party desiring a hearing on a motion filed

pursuant to this Rule shall so request pursuant to

Rule 2-311 (f) and, if. If requested, a hearing to which

a party is entitled shall be held promptly.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is new.

Section (b) is derived from former Rule G51.

Section (c) is derived from former Rule G51.

Section (d) is new.

Section (e) is new.

Section (f) is new.

Rule 2-643 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

In March 2023, the Judicial Council approved

for dissemination the Report and Recommendations of

the Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review

Subcommittee (hereinafter “the EJC Report”). The

Subcommittee was tasked with identifying instances in

the Rules which “reflect, perpetuate, or fail to correct

systemic biases.”

The Rules Committee’s Judgments

Subcommittee first discussed a series of proposed

amendments impacting the Rules governing judgments

and their enforcement in June 2023. After

consideration, the Subcommittee deferred action on

any proposed amendments until interested parties and

stakeholders could confer and possibly identify points

of agreement. Consumer rights advocates, via the

Access to Justice Office in the Administrative Office of

the Courts (“Access to Justice”), proposed a series of

amendments late last year which were reviewed by the

Subcommittee in consultation with creditors’

attorneys.

Proposed amendments to section (c) distinguish

the situations where the court “shall” order release of

the property (when the judgment has been vacated,

expired, or satisfied or if the property is exempt) and

when the court has discretion to release the property.

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-643

recommended by Access to Justice and the consumer

rights advocates require the court to “promptly”

release property from the levy in subsection (d)(1) after

the debtor elects exemptions and requires the

garnishee to “promptly” release property included in

the order.

New subsection (d)(2) governs release of funds in

deposit accounts where the debtor indicates that the

debtor wishes to elect the statutory exemption for the

funds. The subsection permits the court to order

release of the funds without waiting for a response or

holding a hearing.

Section (f) is amended to clarify that the court

must only hold a requested hearing if the party is

entitled to a hearing under the Rule.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 3-643 by clarifying in section (c)

when the court shall release property from levy and

when the court may release property from levy; by

creating new subsection (d)(1) consisting of the current

language of section (d), with amendments; by setting

forth in subsection (d)(1) when the court may proceed

without a hearing; by adding new subsection (d)(2)

governing immediate release of cash in deposit

accounts totaling $6,000 or less; by clarifying the

hearing requirement in section (f); and by making

stylistic changes, as follows:

Rule 3-643. RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM LEVY

(a) Upon Satisfaction of Judgment

Property is released from a levy when the

judgment has been entered as satisfied and the costs

of the enforcement proceedings have been paid.

(b) Upon Posting Bond

The judgment debtor may also obtain release of

property from a levy by filing a bond in an amount

sufficient to satisfy the judgment and enforcement

costs.

Upon motion of the judgment debtor, the court

may shall release some or all of the property from a

levy if it finds that (1) the judgment has been vacated,

has expired, or has been satisfied, (2) or the property

is exempt from levy, and the court may release some

or all of the property from a levy if it finds that (3)(1)

the judgment creditor has failed to comply with these

rules or an order of court regarding the enforcement

proceedings, (4)(2) property sufficient in value to

satisfy the judgment and enforcement costs will

remain under the levy after the release, (5)(3) the levy

upon the specific property will cause undue hardship

to the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor has

delivered to the sheriff or made available for levy

alternative property sufficient in value to satisfy the

judgment and enforcement costs, or (6)(4) the levy has

existed for 120 days without sale of the property,

unless the court for good cause extends the time.

The motion and any response to the motion may be

accompanied by a request for court review of the

sheriff's appraisal made at the time of the levy.

(d) Upon Election of Exemption by Judgment Debtor

(1) Generally

By motion filed within 30 days after a levy, the

judgment debtor may elect to exempt from execution of

the judgment selected items of property or cash not

exceeding in amount the cumulative value permitted

by law. The motion and any response to the motion

may be accompanied by a request for court review of

the sheriff's appraisal made at the time of the levy. If

subsection (d)(2) of this Rule is applicable, or if no

party timely files a response to the motion or request

for a hearing, the court may proceed without a

hearing. The court promptly shall release from the

levy items of cash or property selected by the debtor to

the extent required by law. Promptly upon receipt of

an order of release from levy, the person in possession

of the property shall comply.

(2) Release of Funds in Deposit Accounts Totaling

$6,000 or Less

If, by motion filed pursuant to subsection (d)(1)

of this Rule, the judgment debtor elects up to the

maximum exemption permitted by Code, Courts

Article, § 11-504(b)(6) for deposit accounts listed in the

motion, the court, no later than ten days after the

motion was filed, and without holding a hearing or

awaiting a response from the judgment creditor, shall

order the prompt release from the levy of aggregate

account funds totaling $6,000 or less.

(e) Upon Claim of a Third Person

A person other than the judgment debtor who

claims an interest in property under levy may file a

motion requesting that the property be released. The

motion shall be served on the judgment creditor and, if

reasonably feasible, on the judgment debtor. If the

judgment debtor is not served and does not voluntarily

appear, the claimant shall file an affidavit showing

that reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain

the whereabouts of the judgment debtor and to provide

the judgment debtor with notice of the motion. The

court may require further attempts to notify the

judgment debtor. The judgment creditor or the

judgment debtor may file a response to the motion.

(f) Hearing

A party desiring a hearing on a motion filed

pursuant to this Rule shall so request pursuant to

Rule 2-311 (f) and, if. If requested, a hearing to which

a party is entitled shall be held promptly.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is new.

Section (b) is derived from former M.D.R. G51.

Section (c) is derived from former M.D.R. G51.

Section (d) is new.

Section (e) is new.

Section (f) is new.

Rule 3-643 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 3-643 are

recommended by the Access to Justice Office in the

Administrative Office of the Courts in consultation

with consumer and creditors’ rights attorneys. See the

Reporter’s note to Rule 2-643.

Judge Nazarian said that Rules 2-643 and 3-643 contain the

process for releasing property under levy.

stylistic changes.

Section (c) contains

Section (d) is divided into two subsections

with a new subsection (d)(2) carving out situations where a

debtor seeks to release the statutory maximum exemption for cash

in deposit accounts.

The new language authorizes the court to

order the funds released without a hearing and without waiting

for a response from the creditor.

Judge Nazarian invited D. Robert Enten, an attorney

representing the Maryland Bankers Association, to address the

Committee.

Mr. Enten said that he spoke with Ronald Canter, a

collections attorney who also consulted with the Judgments

Subcommittee on these Rules, and they wanted to raise a concern

with the Committee.

He explained that the new provision in

subsection (d)(2) does not require the court to wait for a

response before releasing funds.

He asked what would happen if

the debtor has already claimed some or all of the $6,000

exemption and the new request for release from levy exceeds the

maximum.

A creditor would not have the opportunity to raise

this issue with the court before an order could be entered.

The Chair suggested adding an exception to the prompt

release if the court determines that the maximum exemption

already had been claimed.

She noted that previous requests

should be in the file for the judge to review prior to entering

the order.

Mr. Enten suggested that the creditor should be able

to respond, allege that the funds are not subject to release,

and have a hearing.

Louise Carwell, an attorney with Maryland Legal Aid,

addressed the Committee.

Ms. Carwell said that the amendments

were proposed because her office sees clients with encumbered

property that they are entitled to have released from levy as a

matter of law, but it can take time for the court to enter an

order.

She said that she has never seen the situation described

by Mr. Enten, but concedes that it is possible.

She pointed out

that the point of the Rule is to have property released quickly

when it is not disputed that the debtor is entitled to it.

She

suggested that it should be possible for the court to check for

previous exemption claims in the case.

Judge Nazarian said that the goal of the amendment is to

address an exemption to which the debtor is entitled and the

creditor cannot dispute; however, the concern is about whether a

debtor could accidentally or intentionally take advantage of a

process that does not allow for a response or require a hearing.

Assistant Reporter Cobun asked the Committee if there is any

interest in the Chair’s suggestion that would require the court

to verify that the statutory maximum had not been exceeded

previously.

The Reporter suggested subsection (d)(2) be amended

to add “provided that the case file reflects that this exemption

has not already been exhausted.”

Mr. Enten voiced his support

of the amendment.

Judge Wilson moved to amend Rules 2-643 and 3-643 as

suggested by the Chair and as stated by the Reporter.

motion was seconded and approved by consensus.

The

There being no

further motion to amend or reject the proposed Rules, they were

approved as amended.

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 2-645, Garnishment of

Property – Generally, and Rule 3-645, Garnishment of Property –

Generally, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 2-645 (c)(4) by adding a reference

to a certain statutory exemption, as follows:

Rule 2-645. GARNISHMENT OF PROPERTY –

GENERALLY

···

The writ of garnishment shall:

(1) contain the information in the request, the name

and address of the person requesting the writ, and the

date of issue,;

(2) direct the garnishee to hold, subject to further

proceedings or to termination of the writ, the property

of each judgment debtor in the possession of the

garnishee at the time of service of the writ and all

property of each debtor that may come into the

garnishee's possession after service of the writ,;

(3) notify the garnishee of the time within which the

answer must be filed and that the failure to do so may

result in judgment by default against the garnishee,;

(4) notify the judgment debtor and garnishee that

federal and state exemptions may be available, and

that up to an aggregate amount of $500 in deposit

accounts of the debtor held by a depository institution

pursuant to Code, Courts Article, § 11-504 is exempt

from execution without the necessity of an election by

the debtor;

(5) notify the judgment debtor of the right to contest

the garnishment by filing a motion asserting a defense

or objection,; and

(6) notify the judgment debtor that, if the garnishee

files an answer pursuant to section (e) of this Rule and

no further filings concerning the writ of garnishment

are made with the court within 120 days following the

filing of the answer, the garnishee may file a notice of

intent to terminate the writ of garnishment pursuant

to subsection (k)(2) of this Rule.

Committee note: A writ of garnishment may direct a

garnishee to hold the property of more than one

judgment debtor if the name and address of each

judgment debtor whose property is sought to be

attached is stated in the writ.

···

Rule 2-645 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

In March 2023, the Judicial Council approved

for dissemination the Report and Recommendations of

the Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review

Subcommittee (hereinafter “the EJC Report”). The

Subcommittee was tasked with identifying instances in

the Rules which “reflect, perpetuate, or fail to correct

systemic biases.”

The Rules Committee’s Judgments

Subcommittee first discussed a series of proposed

amendments impacting the Rules governing judgments

and their enforcement in June 2023. After

consideration, the Subcommittee deferred action on

any proposed amendments until interested parties and

stakeholders could confer and possibly identify points

of agreement. Consumer rights advocates, via the

Access to Justice Office in the Administrative Office of

the Courts (“Access to Justice”), proposed a series of

amendments late last year which were reviewed by the

Subcommittee in consultation with creditors’

attorneys.

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-645, which

applies to garnishment in general, adds to subsection

(d)(4) reference to the provision that exempts $500

from garnishment without any action from the

judgment debtor.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 3-645 (c)(4) by adding a reference

to a certain statutory exemption, as follows:

Rule 3-645. GARNISHMENT OF PROPERTY –

GENERALLY

···

The writ of garnishment shall:

(1) contain the information in the request, the name

and address of the person requesting the writ, and the

date of issue,;

(2) direct the garnishee to hold, subject to further

proceedings or to termination of the writ, the property

of each judgment debtor in the possession of the

garnishee at the time of service of the writ and all

property of each debtor that may come into the

garnishee's possession after service of the writ,;

(3) notify the garnishee of the time within which the

answer must be filed and that the failure to do so may

result in judgment by default against the garnishee,;

(4) notify the judgment debtor and garnishee that

federal and state exemptions may be available, and

that up to an aggregate amount of $500 in deposit

accounts of the debtor held by a depository institution

pursuant to Code, Courts Article, § 11-504 is exempt

from execution without the necessity of an election by

the debtor;

(5) notify the judgment debtor of the right to contest

the garnishment by filing a motion asserting a defense

or objection,; and

(6) notify the judgment debtor that, if the garnishee

files an answer pursuant to section (e) of this Rule and

no further filings concerning the writ of garnishment

are made with the court within 120 days following the

filing of the answer, the garnishee may file a notice of

intent to terminate the writ of garnishment pursuant

to subsection (k)(2) of this Rule.

Committee note: A writ of garnishment may direct a

garnishee to hold the property of more than one

judgment debtor if the name and address of each

judgment debtor whose property is sought to be

attached is stated in the writ.

···

Rule 3-645 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 3-645, which

applies to garnishment in general, adds to subsection

(d)(4) reference to the provision that exempts $500

from garnishment without any action from the

judgment debtor.

Judge Nazarian informed the Committee that Rules 2-645 and

3-645 are amended to require that notice to the debtor

explicitly reference the statutory requirement that $500 of

funds in a deposit account are exempt from a writ of garnishment

without the necessity of a request or motion.

Assistant

Reporter Cobun pointed out that this information currently

appears on the garnishment notice forms.

Judge Wilson agreed.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rules 2-645 and 3-645, they were approved as

presented.

Agenda Item 2. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 11216 (Disposition Hearing and Order) and Form 11-309 (Consent by

Parent to Guardianship).

Judge Anderson presented Rule 11-216, Disposition Hearing

and Order, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 11 - JUVENILE CAUSES

CHAPTER 200 - CHILD IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE

AMEND Rule 11-216 by adding to subsection

(f)(2) a provision for implementation of a magistrate’s

commitment order pending a hearing on exceptions, as

follows:

Rule 11-216. DISPOSITION HEARING AND ORDER

(a) Generally

Unless a CINA petition is dismissed, the court

shall:

(1) determine promptly any pending motion to

intervene; and

(2) conduct a separate disposition hearing to

determine whether the respondent child is a child in

need of assistance as defined in Code, Courts Article,

§3-801(f).

(b) Scheduling

(1) The disposition hearing shall be held on the

same day as the adjudicatory hearing unless the court,

on motion of a party or on its own initiative, finds good

cause for a postponement.

(2) If the court postpones the disposition hearing, it

shall be held no later than 30 days after the

conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, unless the

court finds good cause for a further delay.

The purpose of a disposition hearing is to

determine:

(1) whether the child is in need of assistance; and

(2) if so, the nature and extent of the court’s

intervention necessary to protect the child’s health,

safety, and well-being.

Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, §3-801(m).

(d) Possible Dispositions

The court shall make one of the following

dispositions:

(1) find that the child is not in need of assistance

and, subject to entering an order of custody pursuant

to Code, Courts Article, §3-819(e), dismiss the petition;

(2) hold in abeyance a finding whether a child with a

developmental disability or mental illness is a child in

need of assistance and take an action provided for in

Code, Courts Article, §3-819(b)(1)(ii); or

(3) find that the child is in need of assistance and

take one or more of the actions provided for in Code,

Courts Article, §3-819 or §3-819.2, as appropriate.

(e) Inpatient Commitment to Certain Facilities

(1) Order for Evaluation

If the court has reason to believe that a child

should be placed for inpatient care or treatment in a

psychiatric facility or facility for developmentally

disabled persons and has not already received a

current evaluation report pursuant to Rule 11-210, it

shall order that the child be evaluated pursuant to

that Rule. The order shall require the agency

conducting the evaluation to submit a written report

setting forth:

(A) the extent to which the standard for

commitment set forth in Code, Courts Article, §3819(h) or (i) is met;

(B) the basis for that finding; and

(2) Conduct of Evaluation

(A) The evaluation shall be conducted on an

outpatient basis unless, considering the child’s

condition, that is not feasible.

(B) If an inpatient evaluation is necessary, the

court may authorize the admission of the child to a

facility for a period not to exceed 21 days unless, for

good cause, the court extends that time.

(3) Limitations on Commitment

The court may not commit a child for inpatient

care and treatment in a psychiatric facility or a facility

for developmentally disabled persons unless the court

finds by clear and convincing evidence that the

standards set forth in Code, Courts Article, §3-819(h)

or (i) are met.

(4) Commitment for Inpatient Care and Treatment

Each order that commits a child for inpatient

care and treatment in a psychiatric facility or facility

for developmentally disabled persons shall require the

custodian to file progress reports with the court at

intervals no greater than every six months during the

life of the order.

Cross reference: See Rule 11-218 requiring periodic

review hearings based on progress reports.

(f) Statement of Reasons

(1) By a Judge

If the disposition hearing is conducted by a

judge and the disposition order includes placement of

the child outside the child’s home, the judge shall

announce and dictate into the record a statement of

the reasons for the placement.

(2) By a Magistrate

If the disposition hearing is conducted by a

magistrate, the magistrate shall comply with Rule 11103 (c). A commitment or other custody

recommendation by a magistrate is subject to approval

by the court in accordance with Rule 11-103 but may

be implemented in advance of that approval, subject to

immediate review if requested by a party, pending a

hearing on exceptions. An immediate review shall be

on the record, with oral arguments permitted.

(3) Reasonable Efforts Finding

The court shall make a finding as required by

Code, Courts Article, §3-816.1.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 11-115

(2021).

Rule 11-216 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The proposed amendment to Rule 11-216 was

prompted by a request by a magistrate for clarification

of a provision of the revised Juvenile Rules in Title 11,

which went into effect on January 1, 2022. Current

Rule 11-216 was derived from former Rule 11-115 and

its predecessor, which stated, “A commitment

recommended by a [magistrate] is subject to approval

by the court... but may be implemented in advance of

court approval.” Rule 11-216 did not carry this

provision forward in the Title 11 revision; Rule 11-422

did carry forward a similar provision for delinquency

dispositions. The magistrate questioned whether it

was intentional that Rule 11-216 does not contain the

“implemented in advance of court approval” provision

for CINA cases.

Magistrates are appointed by the circuit court

for juvenile causes arising under Code, Courts Article,

Title 3, Subtitle 8 and Subtitle 8A. A magistrate may

conduct hearings and “shall make findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and recommendations as to an

appropriate order.” Code, Courts Article, § 3-807. A

magistrate’s recommendations “do not constitute

orders or final action of the court.” Id.

A magistrate is authorized by statute to order

emergency detention, community detention, or shelter

care, but that order is subject to review by the court.

Id. The Maryland Rules require that a

recommendation to continue detention, community

detention, or shelter care be immediately reviewed by a

judge on request. See Rule 11-204 (d)(4) pertaining to

CINA proceedings and Rule 11-406 (g) pertaining to

delinquency proceedings.

The Supreme Court has held that “a

[magistrate’s] recommendations are not binding upon

the parties and do not carry the force of the law until

they are adopted by the trial judge.” In re Kaela C., 394

Md. 432, 473 (2006). The magistrate’s conclusions

and judgments are subject to a judge’s independent

review of the record. Domingues v. Johnson, 323 Md.

486, 491 (1991).

The ultimate conclusions and recommendations

of the [magistrate] are not simply to be tested against

the clearly erroneous standard, and if found to be

supported by evidence of record, automatically

accepted. That the conclusions and recommendations

of the [magistrate] are well supported by the evidence

is not dispositive if the independent exercise of

judgment by the chancellor on those issues would

produce a different result.” Id. at 491-92.

In analyzing the role of the magistrate and the

role of the court, the Supreme Court discussed thenRule 11-115 (b)’s provision permitting the magistrate’s

recommendation for commitment to be implemented

pending exceptions. See In re Kaela C. at 472. The

Court reiterated that this provision does not “obviate a

party’s right” to file exceptions and determined that

the judge is prohibited from adopting the magistrate’s

recommendations prior to the expiration of the time for

filing exceptions. Id.

When the Title 11 revision project recommenced

in earnest in late 2020, the Juvenile Subcommittee

relied heavily on drafting by a workgroup. The drafts

of the disposition Rules for both CINA and delinquency

proceedings that were transmitted to the

Subcommittee for consideration contained some

version of the provision permitting a magistrate’s

commitment recommendation to be implemented

pending a hearing on exceptions, but the language of

the two proposals was not identical.

The early drafts read:

(In Chapter 200 – CINA)

A commitment recommend by a magistrate is

subject to approval by the court in accordance

with Rule 11-103 but may be implemented in

advance of court approval, subject to

immediate review if requested by a party.

(In Chapter 400 – Delinquency)

A commitment recommend by a magistrate is

subject to approval by the court in accordance

with Rule 11-103 but may be implemented in

advance of court approval, subject to a stay if

requested by a party, pending a hearing on

the exceptions.

Prior to the first meeting of the Juvenile

Subcommittee on the 2020 revision project, a “handout” version of the end of the Chapter 200 Rule was

circulated. The hand-out did version did not contain a

provision about implementing a magistrate’s

recommendation in advance of court approval. It is

substantially that version of the Rule that was adopted

by the Supreme Court. Committee staff was unable to

locate any discussion of the omission of the

“implemented in advance of court approval” provision.

The Juvenile Rules Subcommittee discussed the

concern raised by the magistrate that the current

scheme of Rules does not have a provision for the

interim period in a CINA case between disposition by a

magistrate and the order of the court. Anecdotally, the

Subcommittee was informed that this has not been an

issue in practice as, in most cases, the commitment is

continued and the parties either consent or do not

object to implementation of the magistrate’s

recommendation.

The Subcommittee was presented with two

options to amend Rule 11-216 (f): recommend the

readoption of the prior language, which was omitted

from the 2022 revision, or recommend the adoption of

language from the parallel provision in Rule 11-422.

The Subcommittee heard from representatives

from the Office of the Public Defender’s Parental

Defense Division (the “OPD”), Maryland Legal Aid’s

children’s rights division, and the Maryland

Department of Human Services (the “DHS”). The

Maryland Legal Aid attorney, the DHS attorney, and

the magistrate present at the meeting supported

restoring the prior language.

The OPD argued that Rule 11-103 (d)(2), which

authorizes a magistrate to submit a recommendation

for an immediate order to a judge when the magistrate

finds extraordinary circumstances exist, should be

used to authorize commitment after a disposition.

Concerns were raised about the practicality of

requiring a magistrate to make a finding of

extraordinary circumstances and prepare findings and

recommendations to take to a judge to maintain the

status quo while the parties file and litigate exceptions.

There was general agreement that the continued

commitment of the child while exceptions are pending

is what happens in CINA matters.

The Subcommittee ultimately recommended a

more robust version of the prior provision be added to

section (f). The proposed amendment permits the

magistrate’s commitment or other custody

recommendation be implemented in advance of court

approval but permits a party to request immediate

review. The review is limited to the custody

determination and is on the record with an

opportunity for oral argument.

Judge Anderson informed the Committee that prior to the

2021 revision of the Juvenile Rules, there was a provision in

Title 11 authorizing the implementation of a magistrate’s

recommendation after disposition and prior to an exceptions

hearing before a judge.

She directed the Committee’s attention

to the Reporter’s note, which summarizes the legislative history

and the discussions at the Juvenile Subcommittee.

In the 2021

revision, this provision was not carried forward and the

Assistant Reporter could find no record of the Subcommittee or

full Committee explicitly discussing the change.

Judge Anderson explained that a magistrate is authorized to

order emergency shelter care in a Child in Need of Assistance

(“CINA”) action, but that decision is subject to immediate

review by a judge.

After an adjudicatory hearing and

disposition hearing, the magistrate recommends a disposition in

accordance with the Courts Article.

The magistrate’s report and

recommendation are then transmitted to a circuit court judge,

and parties may file exceptions.

Judge Anderson stated that Magistrate Erica Wolfe contacted

the Subcommittee recently because it had been pointed out to her

that the provision authorizing implementation of her

recommendation while exceptions are pending no longer is in the

Rules; consequently, there is no provision for what happens to a

child who a magistrate has found to be a CINA while the parties

wait for a judge to review the case and hold a hearing.

Judge Anderson said that, after significant discussion, the

Subcommittee recommended adding language to Rule 11-216 (f)(2)

that authorizes implementation of the magistrate’s

recommendation but permits a party to request immediate review

by a judge.

Mr. Zavin commented that this issue may have arisen because

of an oversight, but some doubt whether the prior provision had

been constitutional.

He pointed out that former Rules Committee

Chair Judge Alan M. Wilner was on the Court of Appeals (now the

Supreme Court), when it decided In re Kaela C., 394 Md. 432

(2006).

In her opinion, Judge Lynne A. Battaglia said in a

footnote, “Although no challenge to the constitutionality of

[the Rule’s] provision permitting the immediate implementation

of a [magistrate’s] recommendations has been raised in this

case, it is important to note that this provision is not

consistent with this Court's holdings regarding the role of a

[magistrate].” Id. at n. 30.

Mr. Zavin said that he is

concerned about whether a constitutional issue should be

reinserted into the Rules.

The Reporter commented that the problem identified by the

Juvenile Subcommittee was that a child must be somewhere, and

there must be some authorization for a placement outside of the

home.

If a magistrate has adjudicated a child to be a CINA and

has recommended anything other than a return to the child’s home

as a disposition, the child should not be returned to a

potentially dangerous situation while the parties wait for a

judge to review the case.

She suggested that the addition of

immediate review for an aggrieved party who does not want to

wait for a hearing on exceptions may address the constitutional

concerns.

The Chair said that she envisions an immediate review as

something that happens “right now,” if requested:

the parties

walk next door and have a hearing with a judge the same day.

She said that she did not envision the review happening days

later.

Mr. Zavin pointed out that the Rule does not say that

the hearing would occur on the same day; could it be up to 24

hours later?

The Reporter replied that a Committee note could

explain how “immediately” the hearing is supposed to occur.

Judge Ketterman said that, without this provision, there is

technically no order for where the child is supposed to be until

the judge rules on exceptions.

She noted that Rule 11-103

(d)(2) contains a provision for immediate review where a

magistrate finds that, due to extraordinary circumstances, the

magistrate’s recommendation needs to be implemented immediately.

Judge Ketterman said that a magistrate is not going to find

“extraordinary circumstances” for every out-of-home placement.

David Wanger, a supervising attorney in the Maryland Office

of the Public Defender (“OPD”), addressed the Committee.

said that “immediate” review of a magistrate’s shelter care

order is supposed to happen within three days, but it can be

much longer before a hearing is set before a judge.

reiterated Mr. Zavin’s point that there is no statutory or

constitutional authority for a magistrate to issue a commitment

order.

Mr. Wanger added that an immediate review of the

magistrate’s commitment recommendation would take time and

stretch the overall pendency of the case further by delaying a

hearing on exceptions.

He pointed out that the record of the

proceedings before the magistrate could be lengthy, with many

documents, and he questioned what the judge would be able to

review on the spot.

Mr. Wanger suggested that the Title 11 Rules emulate the

Rule in Title 9 for family law actions, which permits referral

of certain issues to a magistrate only on agreement of the

parties.

He commented that it can take more than a year from

the filing of a petition for emergency shelter care to the

completion of a disposition hearing, which has real consequences

for a parent and child who have been separated.

He noted that,

where the magistrate recommends that a child be returned to the

parent, the child stays in foster care pending exceptions.

said that every time there is an issue, it seems to be resolved

“against” the parent.

Mr. Wanger said that Rule 11-103 (d)(2)

already provides authorization for the magistrate to refer a

recommendation to a judge where there are actual extraordinary

circumstances.

Ms. Doyle asked what happens now after a disposition.

Mr.

Wanger responded that the child remains in the shelter care

placement.

Ms. Doyle asked Mr. Wanger if there is a way to

accomplish the goal of assuring prompt review of a magistrate’s

placement decision without bogging down proceedings.

Mr. Wanger

responded that not every CINA case is contested; he suggested

that litigants should have the choice of whether to go forward

with a magistrate or a judge.

Ms. Doyle asked how serious a problem it is that

magistrates do not have the authority to implement a placement

recommendation without a judge’s approval.

Mr. Wanger said

that, in contested cases, he does not know how to address the

issue other than his suggestion that cases be heard by a judge

unless the parties consent.

He commented that he does not know

if most jurisdictions could effectively provide prompt review of

a commitment recommendation made by a magistrate.

He reiterated

that many cases are not contested, but the issue of not meeting

statutory timelines for prompt resolution is pervasive.

Judge Nazarian said that the problem of not meeting

statutory timelines is a serious one, but not one that the

Committee can resolve today.

In terms of the proposal before

the Committee today, he asked whether it will make anything

better.

The Chair responded that a child adjudicated to be a

CINA by a magistrate with a recommended placement outside of the

home has to be somewhere on some authority while exceptions are

pending.

Judge Anderson explained that the proposed amendment

addresses the issue to the extent there is confusion or concern

about the “gap” in a CINA case after disposition and before a

hearing on exceptions.

She added that it is her understanding

that parties frequently agree to maintain the status quo for a

child who is in a placement outside of the home.

Judge Nazarian asked if there is a constitutional issue

with providing by Rule for the magistrate to fill that gap.

Judge Anderson replied that this already is being done.

Assistant Reporter Cobun added that the proposed amendment adds

an opportunity for immediate review.

Magistrate Wolfe pointed

out that the provision had been in the Rules prior to 2022.

Judge Ballou-Watts suggested that the Rule could provide

that the magistrate’s recommendation may be implemented by

consent of the parties or after consideration on immediate

review by the court.

Judge Nazarian replied that this would be

what happens without this Rule change.

The Chair invited Erica LeMon, Advocacy Director for

Children’s Rights for Maryland Legal Aid, to address the

Committee.

Ms. LeMon said that Mr. Wanger’s suggestions would

compound the delays in adjudicating CINA cases; attorneys will

be strategic with when they request to have a case heard by a

magistrate or a judge.

She said that the Subcommittee’s

recommendation protects all parties by allowing prompt review by

a judge if a parent would like to contest the continued

placement.

She said that the amendment balances due process and

protection for children.

She expressed concern that, without a

change to the Rule, a parent’s attorney could tell a client that

there is no court order in effect while exceptions are pending

and argue for return of the child to a potentially abusive home.

Judge Nazarian said that he understands Ms. LeMon’s

concerns, but the Committee cannot grant constitutional

authority to magistrates.

He said that the proposed amendments

would appear to fill the “gap” identified by Judge Anderson and

Magistrate Wolfe, but questioned whether it was appropriate.

Judge Anderson pointed out that this is the reason for the

provision authorizing immediate review of the magistrate’s

recommendation by a judge.

Judge Nazarian replied that he

worried that this review could take days to occur.

Mr. Wanger asked what the standard of review would be for a

judge reviewing a commitment recommendation while exceptions are

pending.

Will the judge defer to the magistrate’s findings?

The Chair responded that the judge would review the evidence and

the recommendation.

Judge Anderson said that the proposed

amendment provides for immediate review on the record with oral

argument, if requested.

Magistrate Wolfe said that, if emergency shelter care had

been granted and findings were made after the adjudicatory

hearing that caused the magistrate to recommend the continued

out-of-home placement for the child, the magistrate must now

have to find extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Rule 11-103

(d)(2).

Ms. LeMon agreed that extraordinary circumstances would

have to be found in every case to have a judge review and

approve the continued placement while exceptions are pending.

The Chair commented that the Committee can decline to

recommend the amendment to Rule 11-216 and let the current

system remain in place.

She moved to reject the recommendation

of the Juvenile Subcommittee.

The motion was seconded and

approved by a majority vote.

Judge Wilson asked about the impact of the Committee’s vote

and whether there would be further discussion.

Judge Anderson

responded that the current Rules and practices will remain in

place.

Mr. Kane asked whether more of the procedures for immediate

review from Rule 11-103 (d)(2) could be placed in Rule 11-216

(f).

The Chair replied that it does not address the underlying

constitutional issue, which the Committee cannot fix.

She said

that there remains disagreement over how to manage the small

percentage of cases where there is a debate over what should

happen to a child who has been adjudicated to be a CINA and a

magistrate recommends continued placement outside of the home.

There being no further discussion, the proposed amendments

to Rule 11-216 were rejected.

Judge Anderson presented Form 11-309, Consent by Parent to

Guardianship, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 11 – JUVENILE CAUSES

CHAPTER 300 – GUARDIANSHIP TERMINATING

PARENTAL RIGHTS

FORMS

AMEND Form 11-309 by correcting the

numbering in subsection (b)(4) of section B of the form

and by moving section I of the form to be prior to the

signature block, with additional language, as follows:

Form 11-309. CONSENT BY PARENT TO

GUARDIANSHIP

A consent by a parent to guardianship shall be

substantially in the following form:

CONSENT BY PARENT TO GUARDIANSHIP WITH THE RIGHT TO

CONSENT TO ADOPTION OF [NAME OF CHILD] BY [NAME OF

LOCAL DEPARTMENT/GUARDIAN]

INSTRUCTIONS

The attached written consent form is an important legal document.

You must read all of these instructions BEFORE you decide whether to

sign the consent form. If you do not understand the instructions or the

consent form, you should not sign it. If you are under 18 years old or if

you have a disability that makes it difficult for you to understand, do not

sign the consent form unless you have a lawyer.

···

CONSENT TO GUARDIANSHIP WITH THE RIGHT TO CONSENT TO

ADOPTION OR OTHER PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT OF

______________________ TO _______________________

Use a pen to fill out this form. You must complete each section.

A. Language of Form

1. The instructions and this consent form are in __________ (language),

which is a language I can read and understand.

2. If the form is in a language other than English, attached to it is an

affidavit in English of the person who translated the document from English

attesting that the translation is accurate and listing the translator’s

qualifications.

B. Identifying Information

1. Name

My full name is ______________________________________.

2. Age

My date of birth is __________________________________.

3. Child’s Birth Information

The child who is the subject of this consent was born

on _______________________ (date) at ___________________________

(name of hospital or address of birthplace) in _________________

(city, state, and county, and country of birth).

4. Status as Parent

(a) I am

[ ] the mother of the child;

[ ] the father of the child;

[ ] alleged to be the father of the child.; or

[ ] found by a court to be the “de facto” parent

of the child.

(b) If I checked “alleged to be the father of the child” or “found by a

court to be the ‘de facto’ parent of the child” (Check all that apply):

(1) [ ] I was married to the mother of the child at the time of

conception of the child.

(2) [ ] I was married to the mother of the child at the time the child

was born.

(3) [ ] I was the registered domestic partner of the parent of the

child at the time of conception of the child.

(4) [ ] I was the registered domestic partner of the parent of the

child at the time the child was born.

(7) (5) [ ] I was named as the father on the child’s birth certificate.

(8) (6) [ ] The child’s mother named me as the child’s father.

(9) (7) [ ] I have been adjudicated by a court to be the child’s

parent.

(10) (8) [ ] I have acknowledged myself orally or in writing to be the

child’s father.

(11) (9) On the basis of genetic testing, I [ ] have been [ ] have not

been indicated to be the child’s biological father.

(12) (10) [ ] I do not know if I am the father of the child.

(13) (11) [ ] I deny that I am the father of the child.

···

H. Effect of this Consent

I UNDERSTAND THAT IF I SIGN THIS CONSENT FORM AND

GUARDIANSHIP IS GRANTED, I WILL BE GIVING UP ALL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES RELATING TO THE CHILD, EXCEPT THOSE RIGHTS

THAT I HAVE KEPT UNDER ANY WRITTEN POST-ADOPTION AGREEMENT.

I. Oath and Signature

I have read carefully and understand the instructions at the front of this

consent form. I am signing this consent form voluntarily and of my own free

will.

I solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of this

consent form are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_________________________________

(Signature)

____________________________

(Date)

_________________________________

(Printed Name)

_________________________________

Address

_________________________________

(City, State, Zip Code)

_________________________________

(Telephone Number)

_________________________________

(E-Mail Address)

_________________________________

(Witness Signature)

____________________________

(Date)

_________________________________

(Printed Name)

_________________________________

Address

_________________________________

(City, State, Zip Code)

_________________________________

(Telephone Number)

_________________________________

(E-Mail Address)

I. Oath and Signature

Form 11-309 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 11-309 correct

typographical errors and unintended deletions. The

numbering subsection (b)(4) of section B of the form is

corrected. In addition, the oath prior to the signature

block was inadvertently omitted when the Rule was recodified in the 208th Report. This is corrected in

section I of the form.

Judge Anderson informed the Committee that the amendments

to Form 11-309 correct errors and inadvertent omissions from

prior revisions to the Form.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Form 11-309, the form was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 3. Consideration of a proposed amendment to Rule

16-104 (Circuit Court – Circuit Administrative Judge)

The Chair presented Rule 16-104, Circuit Court – Circuit

Administrative Judge, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 100 – COURT ADMINISTRATIVE

STRUCTURE

AMEND Rule 16-104, by adding new section (c),

authorizing a Circuit Administrative Judge to

designate another County Administrative Judge in the

same Circuit as Acting Circuit Administrative Judge,

as follows:

RULE 16-104. CIRCUIT COURT – CIRCUIT

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

(a) Designation

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall

designate, from among the incumbent judges in each

judicial circuit, a Circuit Administrative Judge for each

judicial circuit, to serve in that capacity at the

pleasure of the Chief Justice. The Circuit

Administrative Judge shall serve also as the County

Administrative Judge of the circuit court for the

county within which the judge resides.

(b) Duties

Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and to

the direction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court, the Circuit Administrative Judge is generally

responsible for the overall administration of the circuit

courts within the judicial circuit, and for matters that

may affect more than one of those courts. In carrying

out those responsibilities, the Circuit Administrative

Judge:

(1) may perform, on a temporary basis, any of the

duties of a County Administrative Judge for a circuit

court within the judicial circuit in the absence of the

County Administrative Judge or acting County

Administrative Judge for that court;

(2) after consulting with the County Administrative

Judges in the circuit, may direct the assignment of

magistrates appointed on a circuit-wide basis among

the courts within the circuit as judicial business

requires; and

(3) shall convene a meeting of all of the circuit court

judges within the judicial circuit at least once every six

months. The meeting may be conducted in person or

by video, telephonic, or other electronic means.

A Circuit Administrative Judge may designate

another County Administrative Judge in the same

Circuit to serve as Acting Circuit Administrative Judge

during the temporary absence of the Circuit

Administrative Judge.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-101

c (2016).

Rule 16-104 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Chair of the Conference of Circuit Judges

has requested a change to Rule 16-104 in order to

permit a Circuit Administrative Judge to designate

another Country Administrative Judge from the same

Circuit as Acting Circuit Administrative Judge in the

Circuit Administrative Judge’s temporary absence.

This is accomplished by new subsection (c).

The Chair explained that the proposed amendment to Rule 16104 was prompted by a request from Judge Fred S. Hecker, Chair

of the Conference of Circuit Judges.

She said that he requested

that the Rules permit a circuit administrative judge to

designate another county administrative judge to serve as acting

circuit administrative judge.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendment to Rule 16-104, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 4. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 6121 (Form of Court Papers) and Rule 7-501 (Applicability).

The Chair presented Rule 6-121, Form of Court Papers, Rule

7-501, Applicability, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 6 – SETTLEMENT OF DECEDENTS’ ESTATES

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 6-121, by adding new subsections

(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), pertaining to formatting

requirements, by adding new subsection (c)(1)

pertaining to forms, by adding a cross reference and

Committee note following section (c), and by making

stylistic changes, as follows:

RULE 6-121. FORM OF COURT PAPERS

(a) Caption

Unless a rule Rule in this Title specifies a different

form of caption, all papers filed with the court or the

IN THE ORPHANS' COURT

(OR)

BEFORE THE REGISTER OF WILLS

FOR

______________________, MARYLAND

IN THE ESTATE

ESTATE NO. ________

OF ___________:

(b) Legibility and Durability

A paper and the writing on it shall be of

permanent quality and the writing shall be legible.

(1) Size of Paper; Orientation

Any paper filed shall be printed, typed, or

handwritten on paper eight and one-half inches wide

and 11 inches in length, portrait format.

(2) Ink Color; Margins; One-sided Papers

Any paper filed shall be printed, typed, or

handwritten in black or blue ink, shall have a margin

of not less than one inch at the top, bottom, and each

side of the page, except that the page number may be

written within the bottom margin, and shall make use

of only one side of the paper.

(3) Type and Font Size

Any computer-generated paper prepared

electronically and filed shall be formatted in at least an

eleven-point font size. Any typewritten paper prepared

and filed shall be typed in at least a ten-point font size.

Sections (a) and (b) of this Rule do not apply to

(1) any form approved by the registers of wills and

posted on the Register of Wills’ website and (2) any

document already in existence which that is filed as an

exhibit to a petition or paper. However, they sections

(a) and (b) do apply to any document prepared as an

exhibit.

Cross Reference: See Rule 6-108 (a).

Committee note: Section (a) of Rule 6-108 prohibits a

paper on the ground that it is not in the form

mandated by a Rule in this Title. This includes the

formatting requirements under sections (b) and (c) of

this Rule. An orphans’ court has the discretion,

however, to determine that a paper has been prepared

in a manner insufficient for the court to adequately

review its contents, and order the filing party to file a

revised paper that complies with the provisions of

section (b) of this Rule.

Rule 6-121 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Probate and Fiduciary Subcommittee

proposes, at the request of the Orphans’ Court judges,

Registers of Wills, and the Estates and Trust Law

Section of the MSBA, that Rule 6-121 be revised to

promulgate uniform standards statewide to minimize

the number of illegible filings received by the Registers

of Wills. In many situations, accounts filed with the

Registers have been illegible due to the use of small

fonts, illegible handwriting, and filings printed in

“landscape” format.

New subsection (b)(1) is proposed and requires

that a filing be submitted on 8 ½ by 11 inch paper in

“portrait” format.

New subsection (b)(2) is proposed and specifies

that filings must be in blue or black ink on one-sided

papers with one-inch margins.

New subsection (b)(3) is proposed and requires

that computer-generated papers must be prepared

using at least an 11 point font and type-written papers

using at least a 10 point font.

Revisions are proposed to section (c) to clarify

that the formatting provisions in section (b) do not

apply to the statewide forms promulgated on the

Registers of Wills’ website. Conforming and stylistic

amendments are also proposed to section (c).

In addition, a cross-reference to Rule 6-108 and

an explanatory Committee note are proposed following

section (c).

The Chair informed the Committee that the Registers of

Wills and orphans’ courts for the various counties requested

clarifying amendments.

Rule 6-121 is proposed to be amended to

standardize the form of court papers filed with the Register.

The Rule mandates paper size, ink color, font size, and other

details, with an exception for any forms promulgated by the

Registers.

A Committee note explains the possible consequences

for failing to comply with the requirements.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 6-121, the Rule was approved as presented.

The Chair presented a “hand-out” version of Rule 7-501,

Applicability, for consideration.

HANDOUT

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 7 – APPELLATE AND OTHER JUDICIAL

REVIEW IN CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 500 – APPEALS FROM THE ORPHANS’

COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

AMEND Rule 7-501 by adding the word

“appealable” before order and by making a stylistic

change as follows:

RULE 7-501. APPLICABILITY

The rules Rules in this Chapter govern appeals to a

circuit court from a judgment or appealable order of

an orphans' court.

Committee note: In Harford County, Howard County,

and Montgomery County, direct appeal to the

Appellate Court is the only method of appellate review

of a judgment of the Orphans' Court. See Code,

Courts Article, § 12-502. In all other jurisdictions, the

appellant has the option of a direct appeal to the

Appellate Court or an appeal to the circuit court for

the county.

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 7-501 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Probate and Fiduciary Subcommittee

proposes, at the request of the Orphans’ Court judges,

Registers of Wills, and the Estates and Trust Law

Section of the MSBA, that Rule 7-501 be revised to

clarify that, in addition to judgments, only appealable

orders of the Orphans’ Courts are eligible to be

appealed. This revision was requested because some

litigants in Orphans’ Court matters were seeking to

take appeals from non-final judgments and

unappealable orders.

The Chair explained that Rule 7-501 is amended to make it

clear that only orders of the orphans’ court that are subject to

appeal may be appealed pursuant to Title 7.

The Reporter noted

that a “hand-out” version of the Rule had been circulated prior

to the meeting.

The Reporter said that the “hand-out” version of Rule 7-501

was approved by the Probate/Fiduciary Subcommittee.

There being

no motion to amend or reject the proposed amendments to Rule 7501, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 5. Consideration of proposed amendments to 16-912

(Access to Notice, Special Judicial Unit, License, and Domestic

Partnership Records) and Rule 10-711 (Resignation of Fiduciary

and Appointment of Substituted or Successor Fiduciary).

The Chair presented Rule 16-912, Access to Notice, Special

Judicial Unit, License, and Domestic Partnership Records, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 900 – ACCESS TO JUDICIAL RECORDS

DIVISION 2 – LIMITATIONS ON ACCESS

AMEND Rule 16-912 by revising section (d) to

exclude certain information pertaining to sensitive

information from public inspection and by deleting the

cross reference following section (d), as follows:

Rule 16-912. ACCESS TO NOTICE, SPECIAL

JUDICIAL UNIT, LICENSE, AND DOMESTIC

PARTNERSHIP RECORDS

(a) Notice Records

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a

custodian may not deny inspection of a notice record

that has been recorded and indexed by the clerk.

Cross reference: See Code, Real Property Article, § 3111, precluding certain personal information from

being included in recordable documents after June 1,

2010 and providing for the redaction of such

information if included.

(b) Special Judicial Unit Records

(1) Generally

Subject to unwaived lawful privileges and

subsection (b)(2) of this Rule, where a requested record

falls within the confidentiality rules applicable to a

special judicial unit, access to the record is governed by

the confidentiality Rules applicable to that unit.

(2) Exception

Access to administrative records of special

judicial units that are not subject to a confidentiality

provision in the Rules governing the unit shall be

governed by Rule 16-913.

Cross reference: See Rule 18-407, applicable to

records and proceedings of the Commission on

Judicial Disabilities, the Judicial Inquiry Board, and

Investigative Counsel; Rule 19-105, applicable to the

State Board of Law Examiners, the Accommodation

Review Committee, and the character committees; and

Rule 19-707, applicable to records and proceedings of

the Attorney Grievance Commission and Bar Counsel.

(1) Business License Records

Except as otherwise provided by the Rules in

this Chapter, the right to inspect business license

records is governed by the applicable provisions of

Parts II, III, and IV of the PIA.

(2) Marriage License Records

A custodian shall deny inspection of the

following records pertaining to a marriage license:

(A) certificate of a physician or certified nurse

practitioner filed pursuant to Code, Family Law Article,

§ 2-301, attesting to the pregnancy of a child under 18

years of age who has applied for a marriage license;

and

(B) until the license becomes effective, the fact that

an application for a license has been made, except to

the parent or guardian of a minor party to be married

who is 15 years old or older.

Cross reference: See Code, Family Law Article, § 2301, which lists the conditions necessary to permit a

minor between 15 and 17 years old to legally marry

and Code, Family Law Article, § 2-402 (e), which

permits disclosure to a parent or guardian of such a

minor prior to the license becoming effective.

(d) Domestic Partnership Records

A Pursuant to Code, Estates and Trusts Article, §

2-214(d), a custodian shall deny inspection of the

portion portions of a declaration of domestic

partnership or declaration of termination that contains

contain the home address and Social Security number

of either domestic partner.

Cross reference: See Code, Estates and Trusts Article,

§ 2-214(d)(3).

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 16-912 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 16-912 are in

response to Chapters 226/227, 2025 Laws of

Maryland (HB 323/SB 286). The legislation updates

the information required to be provided as part of a

declaration of domestic partnership filed with a

Trusts Article, § 2-214 include adding the Social

Security number of each party to the declaration, if the

party has one, as well as a restriction on public access

to that information.

Proposed amendments to Rule 16-912 (d)

update the Rule to encompass the additional

restriction on access to information contained in these

records.

The Chair explained that a bill passed during the 2025

session of the General Assembly updated the information required

to be provided in a declaration of domestic partnership and

imposed a restriction on public disclosure of that information.

The proposed amendment conforms Rule 16-912 to the statute.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 16-912, the Rule was approved as presented.

The Chair presented Rule 10-711, Resignation of Fiduciary

and Appointment of Substituted or Successor Fiduciary, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 10 – GUARDIANS AND OTHER FIDUCIARIES

CHAPTER 700 – FIDUCIARY ESTATES INCLUDING

GUARDIANSHIPS OF THE PROPERTY

AMEND Rule 10-711 by expanding the cross

reference at the end of the Rule, as follows:

Rule 10-711. RESIGNATION OF FIDUCIARY AND

APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTED OR SUCCESSOR

FIDUCIARY

(a) Commencement of Action

A fiduciary may file a petition to resign. The

petition shall state the reasons for the resignation and

may request the appointment of a substituted or

successor fiduciary. When a fiduciary resigns, dies, is

removed, or becomes otherwise incapable of filling the

position, and there is no substituted or successor

fiduciary already named, the court may, on its own

initiative or on petition filed by any interested person,

appoint a substituted or successor fiduciary.

(b) Venue

(1) Guardianships of the Property

The petition to resign or to appoint a substituted

or successor fiduciary shall be filed in the court that

has assumed jurisdiction over the guardianship. If

jurisdiction has not been assumed, the petition shall

be filed pursuant to Rule 10-301(c).

(2) Other Fiduciary Proceedings

The petition shall be filed in the court that has

assumed jurisdiction over the fiduciary estate, or if

jurisdiction has not been assumed, in the county in

which the property is situated, or where the fiduciary

resides, is regularly employed, or maintains a place of

business.

The resigning fiduciary shall file with the petition

an accounting pursuant to Rule 10-706 for any period

not covered in any annual accountings previously

filed, or, if none, from the date the fiduciary assumed

the office.

In the case of an estate not previously subject to

court jurisdiction, where all beneficiaries have filed a

waiver or where the court does not require an

accounting, an accounting need not be filed.

(d) Notice

The petitioner shall give notice to those interested

persons designated by the court by mailing to them by

ordinary mail a copy of the petition and a show cause

order issued pursuant to Rule 10-104.

(e) Termination of Fiduciary's Appointment

Resignation of a fiduciary does not terminate the

appointment of the fiduciary until the court enters an

order accepting the resignation.

(f) Proceedings

The court may, and upon request shall, hold a

hearing and shall grant or deny the relief sought in the

petition. Pending the appointment of the successor

fiduciary, the court may appoint a temporary fiduciary.

(g) Resignation of Co-Fiduciary

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a cofiduciary may resign the office pursuant to this Rule.

The resigning co-fiduciary shall turn over all property

belonging to the estate to the remaining co-fiduciary.

(h) Duty of Personal Representative of the Estate of

Deceased Fiduciary or Guardian of Disabled Fiduciary

Upon the death or disability of a fiduciary, the

personal representative or the guardian of the

fiduciary, if any, shall, subject to order of court:

(1) Have the duty to protect all property belonging to

the estate;

(2) Have the power to perform acts necessary for the

protection of the estate;

(3) Immediately apply to the court for the

appointment of a substituted or successor fiduciary;

(4) Upon appointment of a substituted or successor

fiduciary have the duty to file an accounting pursuant

to Rule 10-708 and deliver any property of the estate

to the substituted or successor fiduciary.

Committee note: Code, Estates and Trusts Article, §

13-220(c) applies to deceased or disabled guardians of

the property; section (i) of this Rule applies to all

deceased or disabled fiduciaries.

(i) Additional Means of Resignation

This Rule is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any

other procedure for the resignation or discharge of a

fiduciary provided by law or by the instrument

creating the estate or appointing the fiduciary.

Cross reference: See Code, Estates and Trusts Article,

§ 14.5-705 pertaining to resignation of a trustee. See

Code, Estates and Trusts Article, § 15-111 pertaining

to the effect of resignation of a fiduciary.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is derived from former Rule V81 a and

former Rule V82 a.

Section (b):

Subsection (1) is derived from former Rule R72 a and

Subsection (2) is derived from former Rule V81 a.

Section (c) is in part derived from former Rule V81 b 1

and is in part new.

Section (d) is derived from former Rule V81 c 1.

Section (e) is new.

Section (f) is in part derived from former Rule V78 b 5

and is in part new.

Section (g) is new.

Section (h) is derived from former Rule V82 e.

Section (i) is derived from former Rule V81 e.

Rule 10-711 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 10-711 are in

response to Chapters 228/229, 2025 Laws of

Maryland (HB 146/SB 126). The legislation adds a

provision to the Maryland Trust Act (codified at Code,

Estates and Trusts Article, Title 14.5) to permit

resignation of a trustee with 30 days’ notice to certain

stakeholders. This procedure is an alternative to

approval of the court. Proponents of the legislation

informed the General Assembly that many modern

trust instruments include a provision for resignation of

the trustee with notice; older instruments may not

contain such a provision and resignation must occur

pursuant to Rule 10-711, which requires time and

resources.

Rule 10-711 concludes with section (i),

“Additional Means of Resignation,” which provides,

“This Rule is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any

other procedure for the resignation or discharge of a

fiduciary provided by law or by the instrument

creating the estate or appointing the fiduciary.”

The proposed amendments expand the cross

reference following section (i) to add this statute and to

explain the context of the existing reference.

The Chair said that Rule 10-711 is amended to refer to a

new statutory provision allowing resignation of a trustee with

30 days’ notice to certain stakeholders.

The cross reference

following section (i) is expanded to add the new statute.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 10-711, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 6. Consideration of “housekeeping” amendments to

Rule 8-422 (Stay of Enforcement of Judgment) and Rule 16-301

(Term of Court and Grand Jury).

Assistant Reporter Drummond presented housekeeping

amendments to Rule 8-422, Stay of Enforcement of Judgment, and

Rule 16-301, Term of Court and Grand Jury, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE COURT OF

APPEALS AND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

CHAPTER 400 – PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES

AMEND Rule 8-422 by correcting the cross

reference after subsection (a)(1), as follows:

Rule 8-422. STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT

(a) Civil Proceedings.

(1) Generally

Stay of an order granting an injunction is

governed by Rules 2-632 and 8-425. Except as

otherwise provided in the Code or Rule 2-632, an

appellant may stay the enforcement of any other civil

judgment from which an appeal is taken by filing with

the clerk of the lower court a supersedeas bond under

Rule 8-423, alternative security as prescribed by Rule

1-402 (e), or other security as provided in Rule 8-424.

The bond or other security may be filed at any time

before satisfaction of the judgment, but enforcement

shall be stayed only from the time the security is filed.

Cross reference: For provisions permitting a stay

without the filing of a bond, see Code, Family Law

Article, § 5-518 and Courts Article, § 12-701(a)(1). For

provisions limiting the extent of the stay upon the

filing of a bond, see Code, Alcoholic Beverages and

Cannabis Article, § 4-908; Courts Article, § 12701(a)(2); Insurance Article § 2-215(j)(2); and Tax-Property Article, § 14-514. For general provisions

governing bonds filed in civil actions, see Title 1,

Chapter 400 of these Rules.

...

Rule 8-422 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

A proposed amendment to Rule 8-422 corrects

the title of an Article of the Code in the cross reference

after subsection (a)(1). The title “Alcoholic Beverages

Article” is corrected to “Alcoholic Beverages and

Cannabis Article.”

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 300 – CIRCUIT COURTS –

ADMINISTRATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT

AMEND Rule 16-301 by updating the cross

reference after section (b), as follows:

Rule 16-301. TERM OF COURT AND GRAND JURY

...

(b) Term of Grand Jury; Extension to Complete

Investigation

(1) Definition

In section (b) of this Rule, “State's Attorney”

includes the Attorney General when using a grand jury

pursuant to Article V, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution

or other law and the State Prosecutor when using a

grand jury pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure

Article, § 14-110.

(2) Term of Grand Jury and Additional Grand Jury

The term of a grand jury for a county shall be as

determined in the jury plan for that county. The term

of any additional grand jury for a county appointed

pursuant to Code, Courts Article, § 8-413 shall be

determined by the County Administrative Judge.

(3) Extension of Term

On motion of the State's Attorney, the County

Administrative Judge or the jury judge may enter an

order extending the term of a grand jury or additional

grand jury so that it may complete an investigation

specified by the judge in the order. During an

extension, the grand jury shall continue until it

concludes its investigation or is sooner discharged by

the judge but is limited to the investigation specified in

the order.

Cross reference: For the definition of “jury plan,” see

Code, Courts Article, § 8-101 (c)(d).

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-107

(2016).

Rule 16-301 was accompanied by the following

Reporter’s note:

Chapter 137, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 1440),

effective October 1, 2025, includes an amendment to

Code, Courts Article, § 8-101. The new law adds a

new section (b) and re-letters the subsequent sections.

Accordingly, a proposed amendment to Rule 16-301

updates the cross reference after section (b) to reflect

the re-lettering of sections in Code, Courts Article, § 8101.

Ms. Drummond explained that both amendments are nonsubstantive conforming amendments necessitated by legislation.

Rule 8-422 updates a reference to a re-titled Article.

Rule 16-

301 is amended to update a cross reference to reflect relettering in a statute.

A motion to approve the housekeeping amendments to Rules 8422 and 16-301 was made, seconded, and approved by consensus.

The Chair reiterated her thanks to Judge Ballou-Watts and

Mr. Shellenberger, whose terms are expiring.

Judge Ballou-Watts

said that it has been an honor and a privilege to serve on the

Committee, adding that she was always fascinated by the Rules

and enjoyed seeing the process of how they are drafted.

Mr.

Shellenberger thanked the Committee for the civility and

professionalism of the members.

The Chair said that the service

of both members would be missed.

There being no further business before the Committee, the

Chair adjourned the meeting.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.