STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES CHANGES

The Rules Committee has submitted its Two Hundred and TwentySeventh Report to the Supreme Court of Maryland, transmitting thereby

proposed new Title 16, Chapter 900, Division 5 (Other Requests); proposed new

Rules 1-315, 8-306, 9-103.1, 10-304.2, and 16-942; proposed amendments to

current Rules 2-305, 2-512, 2-601, 2-625, 2-643, 2-645, 3-305, 3-505, 3-601,

3-621, 3-625, 3-643, 3-645, 4-215, 4-508.1, 4-512, 6-121, 7-501, 8-111,

8-301, 8-305, 8-422, 8-502, 8-503, 8-504, 8-523, 9-102, 9-103, 9-105, 9-107,

9-109, 9-111, 9-112, 9-204.1, 9-204.2, 9-206, 9-301, 10-711, 11-112, 11-220,

11-410, 11-503, 12-103, 15-901, 16-104, 16-203, 16-204, 16-301, 16-406,

16-904, 16-912, 16-914, 16-915, 18-305, 19-409, 19-503, 19-606, 19-728,

20-106, 20-203, 20-205, 20-403, 20-404, and 20-504; proposed re-numbering

of Rule 16-934; and proposed amendments to Form 11-309.

The Committee’s Two Hundred and Twenty-Seventh Report and the

proposed Rules changes are set forth below.

Interested persons are asked to consider the Committee’s Report and

proposed Rules changes and to forward on or before January 20, 2026 any

written comments they may wish to make to rules@mdcourts.gov or:

Sandra F. Haines, Esquire

Reporter, Rules Committee

580 Taylor Avenue, Judiciary A-POD

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Gregory Hilton

Clerk

Supreme Court of Maryland

THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Hon. YVETTE M. BRYANT, Chair

Hon. DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, Vice Chair

SANDRA F. HAINES, Reporter

COLBY L. SCHMIDT, Deputy Reporter

HEATHER COBUN, Assistant Reporter

MEREDITH A. DRUMMOND, Assistant Reporter

Judiciary A-POD

580 Taylor Avenue

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

(410) 260-3630

EMAIL: rules@mdcourts.gov

December 17, 2025

The Honorable Matthew J. Fader,

Chief Justice

The Honorable Shirley M. Watts

The Honorable Brynja M. Booth

The Honorable Jonathan Biran

The Honorable Steven B. Gould

The Honorable Angela M. Eaves

The Honorable Peter K. Killough,

Justices

The Supreme Court of Maryland

Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Honorable Justices:

The Rules Committee submits this, its Two Hundred and TwentySeventh Report, and recommends that the Court adopt the new Rules, new

Division, and proposed amendments to existing Rules and a Form in the

thirteen categories submitted in this Report.

CATEGORY ONE – RECUSAL

Proposed new Rule 1-315 implements a recommendation made by the

Committee on Equal Justice’s (the “EJC”) Rules Review Subcommittee. The

subcommittee noted that the only Rule addressing recusal appeared in Title 3,

leaving individuals in the circuit courts and appellate courts without clear

direction. For additional guidance, the Rules Committee proposes new Rule 1315 to advise litigants that a recusal request may be made of any Maryland

judge or judicial appointee. Unlike Rule 3-505, which prescribes the specific

procedure applicable to recusal of judges of the District Court, and in

recognition of the fact that various circuit and appellate courts may follow

different reassignment procedures, the new Rule seeks to make clear that

litigants may seek recusal; however, the Committee does not recommend

outlining a specific procedure, as outlined in Rule 3-505.

Should the Court adopt proposed Rule 1-315, the Committee

recommends a conforming amendment to Rule 3-505 that references Rule 1315 and contains a stylistic change.

CATEGORY TWO – JUDGMENTS

Money Judgments from Medical Debt

Proposed amendments in Titles 2 and 3 are the result of action taken by

the General Assembly through Chapters 497/498, 2025 Laws of Maryland (SB

439/HB 428), adding a requirement to Code, Courts Article § 11-402 that a

complaint seeking judgment for a medical debt must so indicate. The

complaint must also state the defendant’s primary residence because the

legislation provides that a money judgment for medical debt does not create a

lien on the debtor’s primary residence. The new requirements are effective

after October 1, 2025.

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-305 reorganize the Rule by creating

sections and subsections. New language addresses the new requirements for a

complaint if a demand for money judgment seeks payment of medical debt.

The cross reference at the end of the Rule is expanded to include a citation to

Code, Courts Article, § 11-402(b). Parallel amendments are proposed to Rule

3-305 concerning pleadings in the District Court.

A proposed amendment to Rule 2-601 adds a new subsection that

requires the court, when entering a judgment in an action commenced on or

after October 1, 2025, to state whether the complaint indicated that a money

judgment for medical debt was sought. A new cross reference explains the

statutory basis for the requirement.

Rules 3-601 and 3-621 are amended also to acknowledge that the new

legislation provides that a judgment for medical debt does not constitute a lien

on owner-occupied real property in an action commenced on or after October 1,

2025.

Renewal of Money Judgments

Following release of the EJC’s report in March 2023, the Rules

Committee’s Judgments Subcommittee examined whether any Rules changes

were warranted and deferred action pending further discussion with

stakeholders and other interested parties. In 2024, consumer rights advocates,

via the Administrative Office of the Court’s Access to Justice office, raised a

concern about the judgment renewal process.

The EJC recommended either that a party seeking to renew a judgment

following expiration of the 12-year period set forth in Code, Courts Article § 5102 specify the attempts made to collect the debt in the interim, or that the

court limit the number of times a judgment creditor may renew a judgment.

Specifically, advocates contended that requiring creditors to take steps to

collect the debt might reveal problems sooner, in addition to tamping down on

the high amount of interest that accrues over the years. Additionally, some

argued that the decision to “sit on” a debt for years was deliberate, with the

intent to allow accumulation of interest, an allegation with which the creditors’

bar disagreed. Nevertheless, representatives of the creditors’ bar indicated that

an amendment limiting a creditor to one judgment renewal would not be

unreasonable.

Proposed amendments to Rules 2-625 and 3-625 would require the

Supreme Court to make a policy change for judgments entered after the

effective date of the changes. For existing judgments, there would be no

procedural change.

Release of Property from Levy

Proposed modifications to Rules 2-643 and 3-643 emanate from an EJC

recommendation. Amendments are offered to distinguish between when a

court is required to release property from levy, such as when a judgment has

been vacated or expired or is exempt from levy, and when the court has

discretion to release property.

Additionally, subsection (d)(2) would permit a court to release funds in

deposit accounts where a debtor elects to assert the statutory exemption. As

proposed, in an effort to alleviate economic stress experienced by the debtor,

the Rule would allow a court, upon motion, to release exempt funds, in an

amount up to but not exceeding the statutory maximum, without awaiting a

response from the judgment creditor. Under the proposed Rule, if a party

requests a hearing, the court is only required to hold a hearing if the party is

entitled to a hearing.

Garnishments

Proposed amendments to Rules 2-645 and 3-645, also resulting from

EJC recommendations, add statutory references concerning the $500

exemption applicable to garnishments without any action by the judgment

debtor.

CATEGORY THREE – DISCHARGE OF COUNSEL

The proposed amendment to Rule 4-215 is an attempt to provide

guidance, through caselaw, on the procedure a trial judge should follow when

an individual seeks to discharge counsel in a criminal action. In Dykes v.

State, 444 Md. 642 (2015), Justice Watts, in her concurrence, suggested that

the Rules Committee consider providing guidance to trial judges, particularly

where a defendant presents a meritorious reason for discharging counsel.

When weighing whether to outline a specific guidepost versus whether to

provide a cross reference, the Rules Committee determined that guidance

through citation to caselaw should suffice.

CATEGORY FOUR – ORPHANS’ COURT

Rule 6-121

At the request of Orphans’ Court judges, Registers of Wills, and the

Estate and Trust Law Section of the Maryland State Bar Association (“MSBA”),

the Rules Committee recommends amendments to Rule 6-121. The Committee

learned that individuals file documents of all shapes and sizes, and that often

documents are illegible due to font size, handwriting, and landscape

orientation. In an effort to eliminate the problem of illegibility, changes are

recommended to standardize font size and margin width, and to require that

documents be submitted using indelible ink and in portrait orientation.

Recognizing that standardized forms used by Registers of Wills may be

formatted differently, the proposed changes do not apply to forms appearing on

the Registers of Wills’ website.

Rule 7-501

At the request of Orphans’ Court judges, Registers of Wills, and the

MSBA’s Estate and Trust Law Section, the Rules Committee recommends

amendments to Rule 7-501. The problem identified for the Committee is that

litigants in Orphans’ Courts seek to take appeals from unappealable orders. In

an effort to distinguish between unappealable and appealable orders, those

stakeholders request a change to the Rule.

CATEGORY FIVE – DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Proposed New Rule 8-306

At the request of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Clerk of

the Supreme Court, the Committee considered and recommends adoption of

new Rule 8-306 (Direct Appeal to Supreme Court). The Rule has at its aim,

clarifying the procedures governing direct appeals to the Supreme Court. In an

effort to provide guidance to litigants, a cross reference provides examples, not

designed to be all-inclusive, of statutes permitting direct appeal to the Supreme

Court.

Rules 8-301, 8-504, 8-523, and 16-406

Should the Court adopt proposed new Rule 8-306, the Rules Committee

proposes amending Rule 8-301 to provide a reference to that Rule. The

Committee also recommends conforming amendments to Rules 8-504 and 8523 to guide individuals to new Rule 8-306. Additionally, as to Rule 16-406, a

new section is proposed, to add to the list of filings a notice of appeal to the

Supreme Court. The amendment also seeks to clarify that the provision

pertaining to Information Reports remains applicable only to appeals to the

Appellate Court.

CATEGORY SIX – OTHER APPELLATE RULES

Rule 8-111

The proposed amendment to Rule 8-111 is a housekeeping amendment

designed to conform section (c) to the current version of Code, Criminal

Procedure, § 11-103(b), as amended in 2013, to permit a victim to appeal from

a final order, without leave from the Appellate Court. Additionally, as a matter

of style, the Committee recommends removing the reference to Rule 8-204,

since having the reference may lead a reader to believe the Appellate Court still

must grant leave.

Rule 8-305

Proposed amendments to Rule 8-305 result from a request from the

Clerk of the Supreme Court. The amendments are designed to conform the

Rule to a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. District Court for

the District of Maryland and the Supreme Court of Maryland, and to outline

the procedures to be followed by the Clerk where the District Court seeks a

certification order.

Rules 8-502, 20-403, and 20-404

Proposed amendments to 8-502, which would reduce from eight to five

the number of copies of briefs parties are required to file in the Appellate Court,

and from two to one the number of copies parties are required to serve on other

parties, is offered as a cost-cutting measure. Proposed amendments to Rules

20-403 and 20-404 conform the Rules to amended Rule 8-502.

Rule 8-503

The first proposed amendment to Rule 8-503 emanates from a

discrepancy between the 3900-word limit in Rule 8-503 (d)(4)(B) for an amicus

curiae supporting or opposing a petition for certiorari or other extraordinary

writ and the word count provision in Rule 8-511 (e)(4) of 1900 words.

Additionally, new subsection (d)(5) is proposed in an effort to clarify that,

while an image may be used in a brief for demonstrative purposes, a party may

not use an image to circumvent word count restrictions. The Committee

considered whether words appearing on images should be included within the

word count. Having learned that current technology does not allow words

within the image to be counted easily, the Committee opted to emphasize that

the words in the image must not be used improperly.

CATEGORY SEVEN – THE WILKINSON ACT

Rule 16-941

The language in proposed Rule 16-941 is not new language. Rather, it is

the language of current Rule 16-934 (Case Records – Court Orders Denying or

Permitting Inspection Not Otherwise Authorized by Rule). Rule 16-934

currently resides in Division 4 – Resolution of Disputes, along with Rules that

govern the procedure for disputes resulting from decisions records custodians

make on whether to permit or deny access. The Committee determined that

Rule 16-934 should be relocated, in its entirety, and renumbered as Rule 16941.

Proposed New Rule 16-942

Proposed Rule 16-942 extends the protections of the Judge Andrew F.

Wilkinson Judicial Security Act (the Act) to publicly available court records.

Although the Act established the Office of Information Privacy in the

Administrative Office of the Courts (the “AOC”), allowed for current and retired

judicial officers and their families to seek removal from the public arena of

certain personal information, and created a judicial address confidentiality

program, the Act does not apply to public case records.

In response to concerns judicial officers expressed about having personal

information appear in court records due to having been private parties in a

case, the AOC requested that the Rules Committee consider a proposed Rule

that would permit individuals protected by the Act to request shielding from

public-facing judiciary systems. New Rule 16-942 is intended to address the

concern.

A “protected party,” as defined by the Act, may request shielding of

personal information contained in a case record. As is the case with any other

request for shielding, the Clerk of Court is required automatically to shield the

record for a period of five days in order to allow for consideration of the

shielding request. If the request is granted, the Clerk of Court is required to

redact personal information from a case record subject to inspection and shield

the unredacted portion of the record. In an ongoing case, the onus rests with

the parties to redact personal information from future filings, as well as file

redacted and unredacted versions of documents containing personal

information.

Rules 2-512, 15-901, 16-203, 16-204, 16-904, 16-914, 16-915, 20-203, and

20-504

Rules 2-512, 15-901, 16-203, 16-204, 16-904, 16-914, 16-915, 20-203,

and 20-504 contain proposed amendments to conform to the renumbering of

Rule 16-934 to Rule 16-941 and the addition of new Rule 16-942.

CATEGORY EIGHT – ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ OBLIGATIONS

As to each of the Rules in this category, the Committee proposes

amendments designed to update and streamline attorneys’ annual professional

requirements. Currently, attorneys must meet four obligations to continue

practicing law, including payment of the annual Client Protection Fund (“CPF”)

assessment, verification of the attorney’s Tax Identification Number (“TIN”), if

applicable, submitting a report on pro bono activities, and reporting

information concerning the attorney’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts

(“IOLTA”) compliance.

An attorney who fails to pay the CPF assessment or report a TIN is

subject to “temporary suspension.” An attorney who fails to file the pro bono

or IOLTA report is subject to “decertification.”

Currently, the CPF payment, TIN verification, and submission of reports

are due at the same time, and attorneys receive one notice encompassing all

four requirements, all of which must be completed through the Attorney

Information System (“AIS”).

The Clerk of the Supreme Court, along with the Executive Director of the

Client Protection Fund, the Executive Director of the Maryland Legal Services

Corporation, and the Director of the AOC’s Access to Justice department

recommend amendments to Title 19 that reflect current practices, apply the

same status to all violations, require the same procedure for curing any

default, standardize the reinstatement process, and correct errors in the

existing Rules. The Rules Committee recommends amending the Rules to meet

the goals stated by the proponents of these changes.

The Committee agrees that while a “suspension” is appropriate for failure

to meet reporting guidelines, the Rules should be amended to clarify that the

suspension is in the nature of an administrative, rather than a disciplinary,

suspension by indicating in the Rules that the attorney is “administratively”

suspended, rather than “temporarily” suspended.

Rule 19-409

In addition to stylistic changes, the Committee recommends deleting the

definition of the “Client Protection Fund” from section (a), as the definition is

superfluous and does not appear in Rule 19-409.

Proposed amendments to subsection (c)(2), pertaining to the IOLTA

Compliance Report, place the onus upon the State Court Administrator to send

notice to active attorneys to timely file the report on a form approved by the

State Court Administrator, in consultation with the Maryland Legal Services

Corporation.

An amendment to subsection (c)(3) clarifies that, where a law firm has a

reporting attorney, the non-reporting attorneys in the firm need not include

account information for a shared law firm IOLTA account.

Additions and deletions to section (d) set forth a clearer process for

administrative suspension and reinstatement of defaulting attorneys, replacing

the current procedure related to decertification. Amendments to subsection

(d)(1) place upon the State Court Administrator the onus to notify attorneys of

a default and advise that failure to cure the default will result in administrative

suspension. The Committee recommends eliminating existing subsection (5)(B)

which currently provides for additional notice to defaulting attorneys through

means other than electronic notice.

Proposed amendments to subsection (d)(2) place the onus upon the State

Court Administrator to provide the list of defaulting attorneys to the Supreme

Court and to update the information required in the list.

Pursuant to amendments in subsection (d)(3), the Supreme Court will

issue administrative suspension orders, if satisfied that proper notice was given

to the defaulting attorneys. The Clerk of Court will then make the appropriate

notifications of the administrative suspensions.

New subsection (d)(4) clarifies that an administratively suspended

attorney may not practice law unless restored to good standing. An attorney

who practices law while administratively suspended may face a contempt

action, in addition to any other remedy or sanction provided by law.

New subsection (d)(5)(A) provides that, once an attorney cures the

default, the State Court Administrator will notify the Supreme Court and

request that the Court terminate the administrative suspension. Proposed new

subsection (d)(5)(B) provides for reinstatement by the Supreme Court upon

payment of any reinstatement fee.

Proposed subsection (d)(5)(C) indicates an attorney who has been

administratively suspended for failure to file the IOLTA report is not required to

disclose the suspension as a disciplinary action or remedial proceeding.

The elimination of current subsections (c)(5)(E) and (c)(5)(F) divests the

AOC of the obligation to send notice of decertification to noncompliant

attorneys and requests for recertification to the Supreme Court since those

actions will now be taken by the State Court Administrator.

An amendment to section (e) clarifies that IOLTA reports are confidential

and not subject to disclosure under Title 16, Chapter 900 of the Rules.

Section (f) places upon the AOC the obligation to share with the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation all information from the IOLTA

compliance reports.

Rules 19-503 and 19-606

Proposed modifications to Rule 19-503 about the reporting of pro bono

activities follow in the same vein as the previous modifications to the IOLTA

reporting rules and consequences from the failure to report. The amendments

parallel the changes to Rule 19-409, reflecting current practices, applying the

same administrative suspension for noncompliance, and creating the same

process for reinstatement after curing a default.

Amendments to Rule 19-606 match modifications to the other reporting

Rules. Although the Rule’s structure differs from that of Rules 19-409 and 19503, Rule 19-606 also is amended to sanction a failure to pay the CPF

assessment or report a TIN, if applicable, by administrative suspension. The

process for reinstatement after curing a default is also streamlined to parallel

the process set forth in the other reporting Rules.

CATEGORY NINE – MOTIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Having considered a request from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the

Committee proposes amending section (b) of Rule 19-728 to include motions in

the list of filings a party may submit within 30 days of service of notice that the

Clerk of the Supreme Court received the record in disciplinary proceedings.

The Committee also proposes an amendment to section (c) to require

parties to respond to motions within 15 days of service.

CATEGORY TEN – MDEC

Rule 20-106

Based upon concerns raised by the Major Projects Committee, the Rules

Committee proposes amendments to subsection (a)(3) of Rule 20-106 regarding

self-represented litigants. Problems that arise when self-represented litigants

switch between electronic and paper filings should be rectified if the Court

implements the proposed amendments. With the amendments, a selfrepresented litigant who is a registered user of MDEC may elect to file either

electronically or in paper form. Once the election is made, absent a good cause

showing, the self-represented litigant must use the same format throughout

the course of the proceedings.

Rule 20-205

Proposed amendments to Rule 20-205 are designed to address a gap in

the MDEC Rules regarding service of electronic submissions. The amendments

clarify that the Clerk of Court bears responsibility for causing the system to

serve court orders and communications on registered users who are entitled to

service. Likewise, the amendments are designed to clarify that the filer bears

responsibility for causing the system to serve electronically submissions on

registered users who are entitled to service.

The Committee was advised that some users neglect to direct MDEC to

serve filings electronically. The existing language of Rule 20-205, which reads

“the MDEC system shall electronically serve” certain submissions, does not

reference the duty of the filer to cause the service. The proposed language is

designed to fill this gap, as well as ensure that the filer understands the

obligation to serve anyone who is not a registered user in accordance with Rule

1-321.

CATEGORY ELEVEN – FAMILY LAW

Adult Adoption Rules

Several proposed amendments to Title 9 of the Rules implement Chapter

501, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 243). The law exempts adult adoption

proceedings from the consent and show cause requirements of Code, Family

Law Article, Title 5, Subtitle 3B.

To address this legislation and account for the differences between the

adoption of a minor and the adoption of an adult, a separate petition for an

adult adoption is proposed in new Rule 9-103.1. Most notably, the legislation

eliminates the requirement that an adult adoption petition include consents.

The Rules Committee considered the public policy implications of this change,

including the possibility of fraud or undue influence, the estate planning

implications for biological parents of the adoptee, and the absence of the

consent of the adoptee. Accordingly, the new Rule requires the adoptee to join

in an adult adoption petition and requires the petition to state the name and

last known address of the adoptee’s living parents so that the court may send

notice of the judgment of adoption.

The remaining proposed amendments in this category reflect the new

distinctions between the adoption of an adult and the adoption of a minor. An

amendment to Rule 9-102 clarifies that the provisions of Code, Family Law

Article, Title 5, Subtitle 3B apply only to the adoption of a minor. A new

section (a) is added to Rule 9-103 clarifying the applicability of the Rule, and a

cross reference notes that adult adoptions are addressed in new Rule 9-103.1.

A new Committee note in Rule 9-107 explains that, while a living parent of an

adult adoptee has no statutory right to file an objection, there is nothing in the

Rules precluding the filing of a motion to intervene. Rule 9-111 is proposed to

be amended to add new section (g) pertaining to notice sent to a living parent

after the entry of a judgment of adoption of an adult adoptee. Amendments to

Rule 9-112 clarify access to court records in an adult adoption proceeding.

Rule 16-914 is amended also to reflect that Rule 9-112 no longer will prohibit

inspection of docket entries, indices, or judgments in an adult adoption

proceeding.

The proposed amendment to Rule 9-105 is conforming only. A

“housekeeping” amendment is proposed to Rule 9-109.

Best Interest Factors

Amendments are proposed to Rule 9-204.1 and 9-204.2 to address

Chapters 483/484, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 1191/SB 458). The legislation

sets forth the factors that a court may consider when determining the legal and

physical custody of a child.

Changes to Rule 9-204.1 include an amendment to section (b) to permit

the parenting plan instructions and forms, in either paper or electronic format,

to be provided to the parties before their first court appearance. Amendments

to section (c) conform the language of the Rule to the new statutory language.

Amendments to Rule 9-204.2 also implement the new legislation.

Although the legislation provides that the court “may consider” the listed

factors, it also requires the court to make findings as to each factor.

Accordingly, the Committee recommends amending Rule 9-204.2 (d) to state

that the court must “address” the statutory factors, which may include a

statement that a factor is inapplicable given the facts of a particular case, and

to articulate findings in accordance with the statute.

Child Support Multifamily Adjustment

In Chapter 532, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 275), the General Assembly

amended the definition of the “adjusted actual income” of a parent for purposes

of child support to include an adjustment for other children in the home of a

parent if the parent owes a duty of support to the other children. This is

considered a “multifamily adjustment.”

Proposed amendments to Rule 9-206 conform the Rule to the statutory

changes. The definition of “multifamily adjustment” is added as new

subsection (a)(1), and a Committee note explains that the adjustment is

calculated pursuant to the statute. Additional amendments to the worksheets

contained within the Rule reflect the impact of the new adjustment.

Name Change of Minor

A proposed amendment to Rule 15-901 adds a cross reference to In the

Matter of Becker, 265 Md. App. 301 (2025). In the case, a parent petitioned to

change a child’s surname after the child’s name was mutually agreed to at

birth. Because this topic has limited relevant published case law, the

Committee proposes a cross reference to the opinion.

CATEGORY TWELVE – SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS

Proposed new Rule 10-304.2 was suggested by the Guardianship &

Vulnerable Adult Workgroup of the Judicial Council’s Domestic Law Committee

to provide guidance to courts on ordering a specific transaction. A transaction

related to the property, service, or care of a minor or disabled person may be

authorized by a court, without the appointment of a guardian, pursuant to

Code, Estates and Trusts Article, § 13-204.

Rule 10-304.2 aims to standardize motions and court processes for

specific transactions by setting forth the required contents of a motion,

establishing the need for a hearing before ordering a specific transaction, and

delineating the process for expedited hearings. The Rule also specifies the

findings that must be made, the contents of an order by the court, and the

processes for modification or termination of authority. Payment of a

reasonable and necessary fee is permitted as set forth in the Rule.

CATEGORY THIRTEEN – ADMINISTRATIVE AND “HOUSEKEEPING”

The remaining proposed amendments are administrative or address

“housekeeping” matters.

Amendments to Rules 4-508.1 and 4-512 involve updates to crossreferences resulting from enactment of the Expungement Reform Act of 2025

(Chapter 95, 2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 432).

The amendment to Rule 8-422 corrects the title of an Article of the Code

that appears in the cross reference after subsection (a)(1), in that the title is

now “Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article.”

The amendment to Rule 9-301 updates the cross reference to reflect

changes to Code, Family Law Article, § 4-501 resulting from the addition of a

new definition by Chapters 530/531, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 533/SB

273).

The amendment to Rule 10-711, by way of expanding the cross reference

at the end of the Rule, references action taken by the General Assembly

through Chapters 228/229, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 146/SB 126). As a

result of the legislation, a trustee now may resign with 30 days’ notice, which is

an alternative to court approval. The amendment references, as well as

highlights, the new legislation.

The amendment to Rule 11-112 updates the statutory language quoted

in the Committee note. The legislature recently amended the statute in

Chapter 434, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 1473), changing the language cited

in Rule 11-112.

Amendments to Rules 11-220 and 11-503 are necessitated by Chapters

261/262, 2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 280/HB 1060) in which the legislature

added a new section and re-lettered subsequent sections in Code, Courts

Article, § 3-804.

The amendment to Form 11-309 will allow for correction of a numbering

error as well as unintended deletion of the oath above the signature block when

the Rule was re-codified in the 208th Report.

The amendment to Rule 11-410 corrects a statutory reference in the

cross reference following subsection (f)(1)(C).

The amendment to Rule 12-103 updates the cross reference to Code,

Real Property Article, § 3-105 after Chapters 65/66, 2025 Laws of Maryland

(HB 347/SB 150) deleted a section from the Code.

The amendment to Rule 16-104 resulted from a request from the Chair of

the Conference of Circuit Judges, who noted that Circuit Administrative Judges

lacked the ability to designate another County Administrative Judge within the

same circuit to serve as Acting Circuit Administrative Judge in the Circuit

Administrative Judge’s temporary absence. New section (c) seeks to rectify the

problem.

The amendment to Rule 16-301 updates a cross reference, the result of

an amendment to § 8-101 of the Courts Article through Chapter 137, 2025

Laws of Maryland (HB 1440).

The amendment to Rule 16-912 involves a revision to section (d) that will

exclude from public inspection a Social Security number that appears in a

domestic partnership record. The amendment is in response to Chapters

226/227, 2025 Laws of Maryland (HB 323/SB 286), through which the

legislature updated information required to be provided in a declaration of

domestic partnership filed with the Register of Wills to include a Social Security

number.

A housekeeping amendment is proposed in Rule 18-305 to replace

incorrect references to Rules 18-703 and 18-704 with the correct references to

Rules 18-603 and 18-604.

For the further guidance of the Court and the public, following the

proposed amendments to each existing Rule is a Reporter’s note describing in

further detail the reasons for the proposals. We caution that the Reporter’s

notes are not part of the Rules, have not been debated or approved by the

Committee, and are not to be regarded as any kind of official comment or

interpretation. They are included solely to assist the Court in understanding

some of the reasons for the proposed changes.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/

Yvette M. Bryant

Chair

cc: Hon. Douglas R. M. Nazarian, Vice Chair

Greg Hilton, Clerk

RULE 1-315

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 300 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 1-315, as follows:

Rule 1-315. REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

(a) Request

A party asserting that a fair and impartial proceeding cannot be had

before the judge or judicial appointee to whom the proceeding has been

assigned may request that the judge or judicial appointee recuse.

Cross reference: For the obligation of judges to recuse, see Md. Const. Art. IV,

§ 7 and Rule 18-102.11. For the obligation of judicial appointees to recuse, see

Rule 18-202.11.

(b) Reassignment

If the judge or judicial appointee grants the request, the proceeding shall

be reassigned in the court where the action is pending in accordance with the

assignment policies and procedures of that court.

Cross reference: For recusal and reassignment in District Court proceedings,

see Rules 3-505 and 4-254 (a). For assignment of proceedings in the circuit

courts, see Rule 16-302. For assignment of proceedings in the courts of this

State, generally, see the Rules in Title 16, Chapter 100.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from Rule 3-505 (a) and is in part new.

RULE 1-315

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Rule 1-315 implements a recommendation in the Report

and Recommendations of the Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review

Subcommittee (“the EJC Report”).

The EJC Report briefly discusses the issue of judicial recusal, which is

addressed in detail in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 18-102.11 provides

that judges must recuse themselves under certain circumstances and suggests

in its comments that, “A judge should disclose on the record information that

the judge believes the parties or their attorneys might reasonably consider

relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes

there is no basis for disqualification.”

The EJC Report notes that Rule 3-505 is the only Rule that discusses the

procedure for requesting recusal and the EJC Report proposes that the

Committee “consider moving Rule 3-505 to Title 1 of the rules and reword it to

make clear that it applies to all judges in all courts.”

Proposed new Rule 1-315 is derived from Rule 3-505 (a). Section (a) of

new Rule 1-315 contains the provision that a party may request a judge or

judicial appointee to recuse if the party believes a fair and impartial trial

cannot be had before that judge or judicial appointee. A cross reference to the

Maryland Constitution and the Title 18 Rules governing disqualification of

judges and judicial appointees follows section (a).

Rather than set forth the administrative procedure for reassignment in

each court (e.g., by the administrative judge or that judge’s designee in the

District Court and the circuit courts, by the Chief Judge in the Appellate

Court), section (b) of new Rule 1-315 provides that reassignment shall be done

in accordance with the policies of the court. The various courts in the State

have established methods of dealing with reassignment when there is a recusal

or disqualification and there is no indication that those procedures are

insufficient. Because the intent of the Rule is to highlight for the public the

option of requesting recusal, section (b) simply refers to the assignment policies

and procedures of the court where the action is pending.

RULE 3-505

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 500 – TRIAL

AMEND Rule 3-505 by adding a reference to Rule 1-315 in section (a)

and by making stylistic changes, as follows:

Rule 3-505. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE

(a) Request for Recusal

A party who believes asserting that a fair and impartial trial cannot be

had before the judge to whom the action has been assigned may request that

judge’s recusal of that judge pursuant to Rule 1-315. If the judge grants the

request, the action shall be reassigned by the administrative judge of the

district or a person designated by the administrative judge.

(b) Motion and Affidavit

Without a request for recusal, or upon denial of a request by the assigned

judge, a party may at any time before trial file a motion for reassignment with

the administrative judge of the district or, if the assigned judge is the

administrative judge of the district, with the Chief Judge of the District Court.

The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit alleging that the party cannot

receive a fair and impartial trial before the assigned judge and setting forth

reasonable grounds for the allegation. If the motion is granted, the action shall

be reassigned.

RULE 3-505

When an action is reassigned upon motion of one party, any other party

may obtain further reassignment pursuant to this Rule.

Source: This Rule is derived from former M.D.R. 542.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 3-505 (a) is proposed to be amended to refer to a request to recuse

pursuant to proposed new Rule 1-315, which addresses requests for recusal in

any court, and to make stylistic changes in the first sentence.

The Committee determined that, due to the distinct qualities of the

District Court, the recusal and reassignment procedures should remain in Rule

3-505. In particular, the provision pertaining to reassignment by the

administrative judge and the mechanism in section (b) for a “motion for

reassignment,” with or without a prior request for recusal, were considered to

be unique and appropriate to maintain in the District Court Rule.

RULE 2-305

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 300 – PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS

AMEND Rule 2-305 by creating new section (a) consisting of the first and

last sentences of the current Rule, by creating new subsection (b)(1) consisting

of the second sentence of the current Rule, by creating new subsection (b)(2)

pertaining to money judgments for medical debt, by adding a cross reference at

the end of the Rule, and by making stylistic changes, as follows:

Rule 2-305. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(a) Generally

A pleading that sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain a clear statement

of the facts necessary to constitute a cause of action and a demand for

judgment for the relief sought. Relief in the alternative or of several different

types may be demanded.

(b) Demand for Money Judgment

(1) Amount Sought

Unless otherwise required by law, (a)(A) a demand for a money judgment

that does not exceed $75,000 shall include the amount of damages sought, and

(b)(B) a demand for a money judgment that exceeds $75,000 shall not specify

the amount sought, but shall include a general statement that the amount

RULE 2-305

sought exceeds $75,000. Relief in the alternative or of several different types

may be demanded.

Cross reference: For pleading requirements and other procedures when

attorneys' fees are claimed, see the Rules in Title 2, Chapter 700.

Committee note: If the amount sought exceeds $75,000, a general statement

to that effect is necessary in order to determine if the case may be removed to a

federal court based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.S. U.S.C. § 1332.

A specific dollar amount must be given when the damages sought are less than

or equal to $75,000 because the dollar amount is relevant to determining

whether the amount is sufficient for circuit court jurisdiction or a jury trial.

(2) Medical Debt

If a demand for money judgment seeks payment of medical debt as

defined by Code, Real Property Article, § 14-203.1, the complaint shall (A)

indicate that the judgment sought is for medical debt and (B) state the address

of the primary residence of the defendant.

Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 11-402(b) for pleading

requirements for a complaint seeking judgment for medical debt.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rules 301 c, 340 a, and 370 a

3 and the 1966 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and is in part new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-305 implement Chapters 497/498,

2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 349/HB 428). The legislation adds a requirement

to Code, Courts Article, § 11-402 that a complaint seeking judgment for

medical debt – defined elsewhere in the Code – must so indicate and must

include the address of the defendant’s primary residence. The legislation goes

on to create an exception to the general principle that a money judgment

properly indexed and recorded acts as a lien on the debtor’s property in the

county where the judgment is recorded. The legislation is prospective for

actions filed on or after October 1, 2025.

RULE 2-305

Rule 2-305 is proposed to be divided into two sections. New section (a)

contains the first and last sentences of the current Rule pertaining to general

requirements for a pleading setting forth a claim for relief. New section (b)

pertains to pleading requirements when there is a demand for money

judgment.

Subsection (b)(1) contains the current provisions of the Rule governing

money judgments, with stylistic changes. A stylistic citation correction is made

in the Committee note following the subsection. New subsection (b)(2) sets

forth the new pleading requirement for money judgments for medical debt. A

cross reference is added after new subsection (b)(2) to cite to the new pleading

requirement in the Courts Article.

RULE 3-305

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 300 – PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS

AMEND Rule 3-305 by creating new section (a) consisting of the current

Rule, by creating new section (b) pertaining to money judgments for medical

debt, and by adding to the cross reference at the end of the Rule, as follows:

Rule 3-305. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(a) Generally

A pleading that sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain a clear statement

of the facts necessary to constitute a cause of action and a demand for

judgment for the relief sought. Relief in the alternative or of several different

types may be demanded.

(b) Medical Debt

If a demand for money judgment seeks payment of medical debt as

defined by Code, Real Property Article, § 14-203.1, the complaint shall (1)

indicate that the judgment sought is for medical debt and (2) state the address

of the primary residence of the defendant.

Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 11-402(b) for pleading

requirements for a complaint seeking judgment for medical debt. For pleading

requirements and other procedures when attorneys' fees are claimed, see Rule

3-741.

RULE 3-305

Source: This Rule is derived from former M.D.R. 301 a (ii) and the 1966

version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a).

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed amendments to Rule 3-305 implement Chapters 497/498,

2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 349/HB 428). The legislation adds a requirement

to Code, Courts Article, § 11-402 that a complaint seeking judgment for

medical debt – defined elsewhere in the Code – must so indicate and must

include the address of the defendant’s primary residence. Additionally, the

legislation creates an exception to the general principle that a money judgment

properly indexed and recorded acts as a lien on the debtor’s property in the

county where the judgment is recorded. The legislation is prospective for

actions filed on or after October 1, 2025.

The current language of the Rule 3-305 is contained now in section (a).

Proposed new section (b) sets forth new pleading requirements when a demand

for money judgment seeks payment of medical debt. The cross reference at the

end of the Rule is expanded to cite to the new requirements in Code, Courts

Article, § 11-402.

RULE 2-601

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 2-601 by adding new subsection (a)(6) and by adding a

cross reference following the new subsection, as follows:

Rule 2-601. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

(a) Separate Document—Prompt Entry

(1) Each judgment shall be set forth on a separate document and should

include a statement of an allowance of costs as determined in conformance

with Rule 2-603.

Committee note: The failure of the separate document to include an allowance

or assessment of costs does not preclude the document from constituting a

final and appealable judgment. See Mattison v. Gelber, 202 Md. App. 44

(2011).

(2) Upon a verdict of a jury or a decision by the court allowing recovery only

of costs or a specified amount of money or denying all relief, the clerk shall

forthwith prepare, sign, and enter the judgment, unless the court orders

otherwise.

(3) Upon a verdict of a jury or a decision by the court granting other relief,

the court shall promptly review the form of the judgment presented and, if

approved, sign it, and the clerk shall forthwith enter the judgment as approved

and signed.

RULE 2-601

(4) A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as

provided in section (b) of this Rule.

(5) Unless the court orders otherwise, entry of the judgment shall not be

delayed pending determination of the amount of costs.

Committee note: The judgment document need not include the amount of

costs but only which party or parties are to be charged with them. If the

prevailing party is to be allowed costs, it will suffice to state in the document

that the judgment is in favor of that party “with costs.”

(6) When a money judgment is awarded in an action commenced on or after

October 1, 2025, the court shall state whether the complaint indicated that a

money judgment for medical debt was sought.

Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 11-402(b) for the requirement to

indicate whether a money judgment is sought for medical debt. See Code, Real

Property Article, § 14-203.1 for the definition of “medical debt.”

···

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-601 implement Chapters 497/498,

2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 349/HB 428). The legislation adds a requirement

to Code, Courts Article, § 11-402 that a complaint seeking judgment for

medical debt – defined elsewhere in the Code – must so indicate and must

include the address of the defendant’s primary residence. See the Reporter’s

note to Rule 2-305.

The legislation creates an exception to the general principal that a money

judgment properly indexed and recorded acts as a lien on the debtor’s property

in the county where the judgment is recorded. The legislation is prospective for

actions filed on or after October 1, 2025. The Judgments Subcommittee of the

Rules Committee consulted attorneys from the creditors’ bar and a title

searcher to determine how to implement the legislation in a way that minimizes

burdens on those groups and maintains the integrity of Maryland land records.

RULE 2-601

Proposed amendments to Rule 2-601 add new subsection (a)(6), which

requires the court to state on a judgment entered in an action commenced on

or after the effective date of the law whether the plaintiff indicated on the

complaint that it sought a judgment for medical debt. A cross reference to the

pleading requirement and the Real Property Article statute defining “medical

debt” follows the section.

Rule 2-601 (a)(6) requires the court to carry forward the plaintiff’s

statement indicating that the complaint sought a judgment for medical debt.

This provision ensures that a judgment recorded and indexed in the county of

origin or another jurisdiction clearly alerts anyone reviewing judgment records

of the fact that the judgment may not constitute a lien on certain property.

The Subcommittee was informed that putting title searchers and others on

notice inquiry that a judgment resulted from medical debt will assist with

determining what impact the judgment may have on property.

The Subcommittee discussed requiring the court to determine that the

judgment is for medical debt regardless of whether the complaint so stated. In

situations where a complaint was obviously one for medical debt but the

plaintiff failed to so state, the court could make the finding when entering the

judgment. Where the complaint did indicate that it sought a judgment for

medical debt, the court could verify this statement when entering the

judgment. The Subcommittee concluded that it would be inappropriate for the

court to raise issues not generated by the parties and, if there are not facts in

evidence on the issue of whether the debt meets the definition of “medical

debt,” the court is not in a position to make the determination.

The Rules Committee concurs in the recommendations of the

Subcommittee.

RULE 3-601

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 3-601 by adding a requirement to section (a) that the court

take certain steps when entering a money judgment where the complaint

indicated that the judgment is for medical debt and by adding a cross reference

after section (a), as follows:

Rule 3-601. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

(a) When Entered

Upon a decision by the court denying or granting relief, the court shall

enter the judgment promptly. When a money judgment is awarded in an action

commenced on or after October 1, 2025, the court shall state whether the

complaint indicated that a money judgment for medical debt was sought.

Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 11-402(b) for the requirement to

indicate whether a money judgment is sought for medical debt. See Code, Real

Property Article, § 14-203.1 for the definition of “medical debt.”

···

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed amendments to Rule 3-601 implement Chapters 497/498,

2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 349/HB 428). The legislation adds a requirement

to Code, Courts Article, § 11-402 that a complaint seeking judgment for

medical debt – defined elsewhere in the Code – must so indicate and must

include the address of the defendant’s primary residence. The amendments to

Rule 3-601 add a sentence to section (a) requiring the court to state in a

RULE 3-601

judgment entered in an action commenced on or after the effective date of the

law whether the plaintiff indicated on the complaint that it sought a judgment

for medical debt. See the Reporter’s note to Rule 2-601.

A cross reference to the relevant statutes follows section (a).

RULE 3-621

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 3-621 by adding an exception to section (b) and by adding

a Committee note at the end of the Rule, as follows:

Rule 3-621. LIEN OF MONEY JUDGMENT

(a) Generally

A money judgment constitutes a lien in the amount of the judgment and

post-judgment interest on the judgment debtor's interest in land located in a

county, except as provided by law, only in accordance with this Rule.

(b) In Baltimore City

In Except as provided in Code, Real Property Article, § 14-203.1, in

Baltimore City a money judgment, when recorded and indexed pursuant to

Rule 3-601 (d), constitutes a lien from the date of entry if entered in Baltimore

City, or from the date of recording if received from another county.

(1) Notice of Lien

A person holding a money judgment entered in a county other than

Baltimore City may file with the clerk of the court of entry a request that a

certified Notice of Lien of Judgment be transmitted for recording to the clerk of

the circuit court for that county or any other county. Within 24 hours after the

filing of the request, the clerk shall transmit the Notice of Lien. If the Notice of

RULE 3-621

Lien is transmitted to another county, the clerk at the same time shall transmit

a certified copy of the judgment to the clerk of the District Court sitting in that

county. The clerk shall maintain a record of all transmittals.

(2) Content of Notice

A Notice of Lien shall contain: (A) the names of the parties, designating

each judgment creditor as a plaintiff and each judgment debtor as a defendant;

(B) the name of the court and assigned docket reference; (C) the date of the

judgment; and (D) the amount of the judgment.

(3) Date of Lien

When a Notice of Lien is recorded and indexed in the circuit court, the

judgment constitutes a lien from the date of recording.

Committee note: A judgment for medical debt in an action commenced on or

after October 1, 2025 does not constitute a lien on owner-occupied residential

property as defined by Code, Real Property Article, § 7-105.1. See Code, Courts

Article, § 11-402(b) and Code, Real Property Article, § 14-203.1.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is derived from former M.D.R. 620 b.

Section (b) is derived from former M.D.R. 620 c.

Section (c) is derived from former M.D.R. 621 b and c.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed amendments to Rule 3-621 implement Chapters 497/498,

2025 Laws of Maryland (SB 349/HB 428). The legislation adds a requirement

to Code, Courts Article, § 11-402 that a complaint seeking judgment for

medical debt – defined elsewhere in the Code – must so indicate and must

include the address of the defendant’s primary residence.

Rule 3-621 states that, in general, a money judgment constitutes a lien

on the judgment debtor’s interest in land located in a county if the holder of

the judgment requests that a notice of the lien be transmitted to the clerk of

RULE 3-621

the circuit court of that county. Section (b) applies only to the District Court in

Baltimore City and provides that a money judgment recorded and indexed in

that court constitutes a lien on property in Baltimore City.

Section (a) includes the qualifier “except as provided by law,” but the

proposed amendments to section (b) would make it clear that new Code, Real

Property Article, § 14-203.1 creates an exception to the longstanding practice

pertaining to money judgments in the District Court in Baltimore City.

A Committee note at the end of the Rule draws attention to and

summarizes the exception created by the new statute.

RULE 2-625

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 2-625 by adding 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

a stylistic change, 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 (1) state the date of entry of the

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

contain a certification by the filer that the judgment has not expired. 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

RULE 2-625

Notice of Renewal, and the clerk shall enter the judgment renewed. There is no

limit to the number of timely filed renewals under section (b) of this Rule.

Committee note: This Rule does not extinguish an unrenewed judgment held

by the State. See Code, Courts Article, § 5-102; Comptroller of Md. v. Shipe,

221 Md. App. 425 (2015); and Central Collection Unit v. Buckingham, 214 Md.

App. 672 (2013).

Source: This Rule is new.

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 in 2024 which

were considered by the Subcommittee in consultation with stakeholders.

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 low-income 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, irregularities in

judgments could be identified sooner and fewer debtors will be surprised by

high amounts of interest accrued years after the judgment was entered. The

representatives for the creditors’ bar disputed the contention that creditors

either intentionally or carelessly allow interest on debts to accrue – rather than

pursuing collection efforts – in order to increase their return. They also argued

RULE 2-625

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 indicated that an amendment

limiting a creditor to one renewal for an additional 12-year term would not be

unreasonable.

Historically, Rule 2-625 was adopted in 1984, superseding former Rule

624 and provisions in the BT Rules. See Paul V. Niemeyer & Linda M. Schuett,

Maryland Rules Commentary 369-370 (1984). The amendment “replace[d] the

former more complex practice with respect to renewing a judgment by writ of

scire facias (‘sci fa’).” Id. The practice of scire facias permitted a judgment to

be renewed after 12 years with service of the writ by the sheriff. The debtor

was entitled to respond, and the expiration of the judgment could be raised as

an affirmative defense. See id.

Scire facias is a writ warning the defendant to appear and show cause

why a judgment should not be executed. See Foster’s Writ of Scire Facias

(1851). Scire facias was established by common law regarding real property

and by statute for personal actions. Generally, it was presumed that a

judgment would be satisfied within one year. If the debt was not paid, a writ of

scire facias was established by statute as a way for a creditor to revive a

judgment without the necessity and cost of filing suit again. The writ was an

optional remedy to save time and expense for both parties. Id.

Prior to 1984, renewing or “reviving” a judgment by writ of scire facias in

Maryland dated back to at least the 1800s:

And be it enacted that where any judgment obtained

before a single magistrate shall have continued for

more than one year, and the said judgment had not

been paid or satisfied, it shall and may be lawful for

the justice before whom the said [judgement has] been

obtained, or any other justice of the peace for said

county, to revive the same by a writ of scire facias...

Ch. 62, 1801 Laws of Maryland.

It remained in the Code until 1957 when it was repealed entirely. See

Ch. 399, 1957 Laws of Maryland. Prior to its repeal in 1957, the statute read,

in pertinent part:

On all judgments or decrees in any court of law or

equity, and on all judgments of justices of the peace

recorded in the clerk's office of any court of law, an

execution or attachment may issue out of such court

RULE 2-625

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 current Code is the 12-year

duration of a judgment, now contained in Code, Courts Article, § 5-102.

The Maryland Rule governing renewal did not significantly change

between the 1950s and the 1980s when it was repealed. In 1983, the Rule

stated:

A plaintiff may have a writ of scire facias issued to

renew or revive a judgment, but such judgment shall

not be renewed or revived over the objection of the

judgment debtor after it has been barred by

limitations. On a judgment of a People’s Court, trial

magistrate or justice of the peace recorded with the

clerk, such writ may be issued out of the court as if

said judgment had been originally rendered by the

court. The lien of a judgment renewed or revived on a

writ of scire facias issued after the expiration of twelve

years from the date of the original judgment shall exist

only from the date of the issuance of the writ of scire

facias. Md. Rule 624 (1983).

The Rules Committee in 1981 voted to recommend replacing Rule 624

with new Rule 2-624 (eventually adopted as Rule 2-625). The Reporter’s note

accompanying the proposed new Rule in 1981 explained that it would

“eliminate the service and adversarial aspects of scire facias by substituting an

ex parte procedure under which the plaintiff simply files a notice of renewal

and the clerk as a ministerial function renews the judgment, unless the court

records show that more than 12 years have passed since the judgment was

entered or more recently renewed.” Minutes of the Nov. 20 and 21, 1981 Rules

Committee meeting, p. 24-25. There was no discussion of this policy change at

the meeting, and it was later included in the 82nd Report in 1983.

RULE 2-625

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 and that the judgment has not expired.

New section (b) contains the existing language of the Rule and applies to

judgments entered prior to the effective date of the Rule change. A new

sentence at the end of the section clarifies that judgments entered before the

Rule change will not be subject to the limit on renewals. The distinction

addresses concerns about potentially abrogating vested property rights by Rule

without due process.

A stylistic change in section (b) capitalizes the phrase “Notice of

Renewal.”

RULE 3-625

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT

CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT

AMEND Rule 3-625 by adding 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