# SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A0f76de8cf18cb607

## Record

- **Collection:** Court rules
- **Document type:** Court rule

## Text

SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE
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.

1

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.

2

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

3

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.

4

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,

5

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
6

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:

7

“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

8

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
9

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

10

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.
(c) Transmittal of Notice
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.

11

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

12

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

13

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.

14

(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.
(c) Upon Motion of Judgment Debtor
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
15

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.

16

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.

17

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.
(c) Upon Motion of Judgment Debtor
Upon motion of the judgment debtor, the court
may shall release some or all of the property from a
18

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

19

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.

20

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

21

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

22

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
···
(c) Content
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

23

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.”
24

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
···
(c) Content
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,;

25

(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

26

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
27

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.
(c) Purpose of Hearing
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;
28

(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
(C) the reason for its recommended disposition.
(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.

29

(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

30

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).

31

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)

32

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.

33

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.
34

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

35

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.

36

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.

He

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.

He

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

37

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.

He

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

38

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

39

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

40

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

41

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.

42

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.
···

43

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;
44

[ ] 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.
45

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)
46

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
47

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

48

months. The meeting may be conducted in person or
by video, telephonic, or other electronic means.
(c) Delegation of Authority
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.

49

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
register shall be appropriately captioned as follows:
IN THE ORPHANS' COURT
(OR)
BEFORE THE REGISTER OF WILLS
FOR
______________________, MARYLAND
IN THE ESTATE

ESTATE NO. ________

OF ___________:

(b) Legibility and Durability

50

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.
(c) Forms; Existing Documents
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
register of wills from refusing to accept for filing any
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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

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).

54

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
55

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.
(c) License Records
(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

56

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
Register of Wills. The changes to Code, Estates and
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.

57

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

58

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.
(c) Account of Resigning Fiduciary
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

59

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
b.
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.

60

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.

61

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.

62

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

63

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.

64

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.

65

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A0f76de8cf18cb607. Public record. Not legal advice.