# STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A2a23724278783c3a

## Record

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

## Text

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
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

1

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,
2

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.

3

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,
4

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.

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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
9

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
10

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.

11

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

12

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).

13

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

14

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.

15

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.

16

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.
(c) Further Reassignment by Another Party
17

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.

18

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

19

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.

20

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.

21

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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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
27

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).

28

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.
(c) In Counties Other Than Baltimore City
(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
29

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
30

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.

31

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
32

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
33

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

34

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.

35

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.”

36

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
(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
37

RULE 3-625
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.

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 3-625 eliminate the system of unlimited
judgment renewals in the District Court. See the Reporter’s note to Rule 2625. 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 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. The
distinction addresses concerns about potentially abrogating vested property
rights by Rule without due process.
Section (c) is created with current language of the Rule and stylistic
38

RULE 3-625
changes in sections (b) and (c) capitalize the phrase “Notice of Renewal.”

39

RULE 2-643
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT
CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT
AMEND Rule 2-643 by clarifying in section (c) when the court shall
release property from levy and when the court may release property from levy;
by creating new subsection (d)(1) consisting of the current language of section
(d), with amendments; by setting forth in subsection (d)(1) when the court may
proceed without a hearing; by adding new subsection (d)(2) governing
immediate release of cash in deposit accounts totaling $6,000 or less; by
clarifying the hearing requirement in section (f); and by making stylistic
changes, as follows:
Rule 2-643. RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM LEVY
(a) Upon Satisfaction of Judgment
Property is released from a levy when the judgment has been entered as
satisfied and the costs of the enforcement proceedings have been paid.
(b) Upon Posting Bond
The judgment debtor may also obtain release of property from a levy by
filing a bond in an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment and enforcement
costs.
(c) Upon Motion of Judgment Debtor

40

RULE 2-643
Upon motion of the judgment debtor, the court may (1) 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 (2) may release some or all of the property from a levy if it finds that:
(3)(A) the judgment creditor has failed to comply with these rules or an order
of court regarding the enforcement proceedings,
(4)(B) property sufficient in value to satisfy the judgment and enforcement
costs will remain under the levy after the release,
(5)(C) 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)(D) 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

41

RULE 2-643
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 the 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, provided that the record reflects that this exemption has not already been
exhausted.
(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

42

RULE 2-643
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 requested, a hearing. If the party is
entitled to a hearing, it 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.

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.
Proposed amendments to Rule 2-643 section (c) distinguish the
situations where the court “shall” order release of the property from a levy
(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 section (d), recommended by Access to Justice
and the consumer rights advocates, require the court to release promptly

43

RULE 2-643
property from the levy in subsection (d)(1) after the debtor elects exemptions
and requires the garnishee to release promptly 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, provided the record does
not show that the exemption was previously exhausted.
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.

44

RULE 3-643
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 (1) shall release some
or all of the property from a levy if it finds that (1) the judgment has been
45

RULE 3-643
vacated, has expired, or has been satisfied, (2) or the property is exempt from
levy, and (2) may release some or all of the property from a levy if it finds that:
(3)(A) the judgment creditor has failed to comply with these rules or an order
of court regarding the enforcement proceedings,
(4)(B) property sufficient in value to satisfy the judgment and enforcement
costs will remain under the levy after the release,
(5)(C) 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)(D) 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

46

RULE 3-643
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 the 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, provided that the record reflects that this exemption has not already been
exhausted.
(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.

47

RULE 3-643
(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 requested, a hearing. If a party is
entitled to a hearing, it 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.

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 2643.

48

RULE 2-645
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT
CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT
AMEND Rule 2-645 by adding a reference to a certain statutory
exemption in subsection (c)(4) and by making stylistic changes, 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 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

49

RULE 2-645
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.
···

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, proposed a series of amendments in 2024 which were considered by
the Subcommittee in consultation with stakeholders.
Proposed amendments to Rule 2-645, which applies to garnishment in
50

RULE 2-645
general, adds to subsection (c)(4) reference to the provision that exempts $500
from garnishment without any action by the judgment debtor.
Stylistic changes modifying punctuation are proposed also.

51

RULE 3-645
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 3 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT
CHAPTER 600 – JUDGMENT
AMEND Rule 3-645 by adding a reference to a certain statutory
exemption in subsection (c)(4) and by making stylistic changes, 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,;
(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

52

RULE 3-645
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.
···

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 3-645, which applies to garnishment in
general, adds to subsection (c)(4) reference to the provision that exempts $500
from garnishment without any action by the judgment debtor.
Stylistic changes modifying punctuation are proposed also.

53

RULE 4-215
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
AMEND Rule 4-215 by adding to the cross reference at the end of the
Rule and by making a stylistic change, as follows:
Rule 4-215. WAIVER OF COUNSEL
(a) First Appearance in Court Without Counsel
At the defendant’s first appearance in court without counsel, or when the
defendant appears in the District Court without counsel, demands a jury trial,
and the record does not disclose prior compliance with this section by a judge,
the court shall:
(1) Make certain that the defendant has received a copy of the charging
document containing notice as to the right to counsel.
(2) Inform the defendant of the right to counsel and of the importance of
assistance of counsel.
(3) Advise the defendant of the nature of the charges in the charging
document, and the allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any.
(4) Conduct a waiver inquiry pursuant to section (b) of this Rule if the
defendant indicates a desire to waive counsel.
(5) If trial is to be conducted on a subsequent date, advise the defendant
that if the defendant appears for trial without counsel, the court could
determine that the defendant waived counsel and proceed to trial with the
54

RULE 4-215
defendant unrepresented by counsel.
(6) If the defendant is charged with an offense that carries a penalty of
incarceration, determine whether the defendant had appeared before a judicial
officer for an initial appearance pursuant to Rule 4-213 or a hearing pursuant
to Rule 4-216 and, if so, that the record of such proceeding shows that the
defendant was advised of the right to counsel.
The clerk shall note compliance with this section in the file or on the docket.
(b) Express Waiver of Counsel
If a defendant who is not represented by counsel indicates a desire to
waive counsel, the court may not accept the waiver until after an examination
of the defendant on the record conducted by the court, the State’s Attorney, or
both, the court determines and announces on the record that the defendant is
knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to counsel. If the file or docket
does not reflect compliance with section (a) of this Rule, the court shall comply
with that section as part of the waiver inquiry. The court shall ensure that
compliance with this section is noted in the file or on the docket. At any
subsequent appearance of the defendant before the court, the docket or file
notation of compliance shall be prima facie proof of the defendant’s express
waiver of counsel. After there has been an express waiver, no postponement of
a scheduled trial or hearing date will be granted to obtain counsel unless the
court finds it is in the interest of justice to do so.
(c) Waiver by Inaction—District Court
In the District Court, if the defendant appears on the date set for trial

55

RULE 4-215
without counsel and indicates a desire to have counsel, the court shall permit
the defendant to explain the appearance without counsel. If the court finds
that there is a meritorious reason for the defendant’s appearance without
counsel, the court shall continue the action to a later time, comply with section
(a) of this Rule, if the record does not show prior compliance, and advise the
defendant that if counsel does not enter an appearance by that time, the action
will proceed to trial with the defendant unrepresented by counsel. If the court
finds that there is no meritorious reason for the defendant’s appearance
without counsel, the court may determine that the defendant has waived
counsel by failing or refusing to obtain counsel and may proceed with the trial
only if (1) the defendant received a copy of the charging document containing
the notice as to the right to counsel and (2) the defendant either (A) is charged
with an offense that is not punishable by a fine exceeding five hundred dollars
or by imprisonment, or (B) appeared before a judicial officer of the District
Court pursuant to Rule 4-213 (a) or (b) or before the court pursuant to section
(a) of this Rule and was given the required advice.
(d) Waiver by Inaction—Circuit Court
If a defendant appears in circuit court without counsel on the date set for
hearing or trial, indicates a desire to have counsel, and the record shows
compliance with section (a) of this Rule, either in a previous appearance in the
circuit court or in an appearance in the District Court in a case in which the
defendant demanded a jury trial, the court shall permit the defendant to
explain the appearance without counsel. If the court finds that there is a

56

RULE 4-215
meritorious reason for the defendant’s appearance without counsel, the court
shall continue the action to a later time and advise the defendant that if
counsel does not enter an appearance by that time, the action will proceed to
trial with the defendant unrepresented by counsel. If the court finds that there
is no meritorious reason for the defendant’s appearance without counsel, the
court may determine that the defendant has waived counsel by failing or
refusing to obtain counsel and may proceed with the hearing or trial.
(e) Discharge of Counsel—Waiver
If a defendant requests permission to discharge an attorney whose
appearance has been entered, the court shall permit the defendant to explain
the reasons for the request. If the court finds that there is a meritorious
reason for the defendant’s request, the court shall permit the discharge of
counsel; continue the action if necessary; and advise the defendant that if new
counsel does not enter an appearance by the next scheduled trial date, the
action will proceed to trial with the defendant unrepresented by counsel.
If the court finds no meritorious reason for the defendant’s request, the court
may not permit the discharge of counsel without first informing the defendant
that the trial will proceed as scheduled with the defendant unrepresented by
counsel if the defendant discharges counsel and does not have new counsel. If
the court permits the defendant to discharge counsel, it shall comply with
subsections (a)(1)-(4) (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this Rule if the docket or file does
not reflect prior compliance.
Cross reference: See Rule 4-213.1 with respect to waiver of the right to an
attorney at an initial appearance before a judge and Rule 4-216.2 (b) with
57

RULE 4-215
respect to waiver of the right to an attorney at a hearing to review a pretrial
release decision of a commissioner. See Dykes v. State, 444 Md. 642 (2015)
and State v. Westray, 444 Md. 672 (2015) pertaining to discharge of appointed
counsel. See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 16-213 with respect to
appointment of an attorney other than through the Office of the Public
Defender.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is derived from former Rule 723 b 1, 2, 3 and 7 and c 1.
Section (b) is derived from former Rule 723.
Section (c) is in part derived from former M.D.R. 726 and in part new.
Section (d) is derived from the first sentence of former M.D.R. 726 d.
Section (e) is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 4-215 expand the cross reference at the
end of the Rule to provide additional guidance to parties and the court when
the discharge of counsel analysis in section (e) is triggered.
Both Dykes v. State, 444 Md. 642 (2015) and State v. Westray, 442 Md.
672 (2015) address procedures and considerations when an indigent defendant
seeks to discharge appointed counsel. The Supreme Court – then the Court of
Appeals – held in Dykes that a request to discharge appointed counsel for a
reason deemed meritorious by the court is not the equivalent of a waiver of the
right to appointed counsel. The Court also determined that if the Office of the
Public Defender is unable or unwilling to provide new counsel, the trial court
may appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to its inherent authority. In
Westray, the Court provided additional guidance on when an unmeritorious
discharge of counsel can be treated as a waiver of counsel.
The Rules Committee, prompted by the opinions in Dykes and Westray,
recommended a series of Rules changes to clarify the procedures for evaluating
a request to discharge counsel. In Dykes, Justice Shirley M. Watts wrote a
concurring opinion suggesting that the Committee consider providing guidance
to trial judges upon a determination that a defendant has a meritorious reason
for appearing without counsel – particularly in the circumstances present in
Dykes where an indigent defendant discharges appointed counsel for a
meritorious reason. The Committee proposed in its 191st Report the deletion of
Rule 4-215 and the creation of new Rules 4-215 and 4-215.1 for the District
Court and circuit courts, respectively. Those proposals were remanded on
other grounds without discussion of the discharge issue. Rule 4-215 was

58

RULE 4-215
amended in the 192nd Report, but the discharge issue raised by Dykes was not
revisited at that time.
Recently, the Committee was informed that the issue raised in Dykes has
persisted, most recently in a case where an indigent defendant had conflicts
with his attorney appointed from the Office of the Public Defender and a
subsequently appointed panel attorney. The OPD declined to be reappointed in
the case, but the judge had not yet found that the discharge of appointed
counsel was not meritorious.
The Criminal Rules Subcommittee of the Rules Committee discussed
current issues faced by courts attempting to comply with Rule 4-215, agreeing
with Judge Charles E. Moylan’s characterization of the Rule – cited by Justice
Watts – as a “minefield” (see Dykes at 671, citing Garner v. State, 183 Md. App.
122, 127 (2008), aff'd, 414 Md. 372 (2010)). The Subcommittee considered
whether to expand section (e) to set forth a procedure upon a determination
that the reason for discharging an attorney was meritorious.
The Subcommittee concluded that the “meritorious” analysis is a
significant issue for trial judges and determined that it would be most helpful
to expand the cross reference at the end of the Rule to include references to
Dykes, Westray, and a statute addressing appointment of an attorney when the
Public Defender is unable or declines to provide representation. The
Committee approved the Subcommittee’s recommendation.
A stylistic change in section (e) is also proposed.

59

RULE 6-121
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 Register of Wills shall be
appropriately captioned as follows:
IN THE ORPHANS' COURT
(OR)
BEFORE THE REGISTER OF WILLS
FOR
______________________, MARYLAND
IN THE ESTATE
OF ___________

:
:
:

ESTATE NO. ________

(b) Legibility and Durability Requirements
(1) Legibility; Durability
60

RULE 6-121
A paper and the writing on it shall be of permanent quality and the
writing shall be legible.
(2) Size of Paper; Orientation
A paper filed shall be printed, typed, or handwritten on paper 8 ½ inches
wide and 11 inches long, in portrait orientation.
(3) Ink Color; Margins; One-sided Paper
A 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.
(4) Type; Font Size
A computer-generated paper prepared electronically and filed shall be
formatted in at least an eleven-point font size. A 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 any (1) a form approved by
the Registers of Wills and posted on the Register of Wills’ website and (2) a
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 a document prepared
as an exhibit.
Committee note: Rule 6-108 (a) 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

61

RULE 6-121
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.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes, at the request of the Orphans’ Court
judges, Registers of Wills, and the Estate and Trust Law Section of the
Maryland State Bar Association, 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” orientation.
New subsection (b)(1) requires that a filing be submitted on 8 ½ by 11
inch paper in “portrait” orientation.
New subsection (b)(2) specifies that a filing must be in blue or black ink
on one-sided paper with one-inch margins.
New subsection (b)(3) requires that a computer-generated paper must be
prepared using at least an 11-point font and type-written paper 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.
An explanatory Committee note referencing Rule 6-108 (a) is proposed
following section (c).
Conforming and stylistic amendments to the Rule also are proposed.

62

RULE 7-501
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” 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, § 12502. In all other jurisdictions, the appellant has the option of a direct appeal
to the Appellate Court or an appeal to the circuit court for the county.
Source: This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes, at the request of Orphans’ Court judges,
Registers of Wills, and the Estate and Trust Law Section of the Maryland State
Bar Association, that Rule 7-501 be revised to clarify that, in addition to
judgments, only appealable orders of an orphans’ court are eligible to be
appealed. This revision was requested because some litigants in Orphans’
Court matters were seeking to take appeals from unappealable judgments and
orders.

63

RULE 8-306
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE APPELLATE COURT
CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
ADD new Rule 8-306, as follows:
Rule 8-306. DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
(a) Generally
In a matter in which a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is authorized by
statute or other law, and upon the filing of such a notice of appeal, the
Supreme Court may direct the lower court promptly to transmit the record and
may take any of the following actions allowed by law:
(1) Dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 8-602;
(2) Affirm the judgment that is the source of the appeal;
(3) Vacate or reverse the judgment that is the source of the appeal; or
(4) Remand the appeal to the lower court to modify the judgment or for
proceedings as directed by order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
may elect to retain appellate jurisdiction over an appeal in an order directing a
remand.
(b) Briefing; Oral Argument
(1) Briefing
After a review of the record, the Supreme Court may direct the parties to
brief the issues on appeal pursuant to Rules 8-503 and 8-504. An order from
64

RULE 8-306
the Supreme Court requiring briefs to be filed shall establish a time that
transcripts must be ordered by the parties and submitted to the Court.
(2) Submission; Oral Argument
After briefing is completed pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this Rule, the
Supreme Court may decide the appeal based on the briefs submitted or may
schedule oral argument.
(c) Expedited Direct Appeals
The Supreme Court, as authorized by statute, other law, or on its own
initiative, may expedite the briefing, oral argument, and consideration of a
direct appeal considered under this Rule.
Cross reference: For examples of Code provisions governing direct appeal to
the Supreme Court of Maryland, see Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-201
(Petition for DNA Testing and Preservation of Scientific Identification Evidence);
Code, Election Law Article, § 5-305 (Petitions Challenging Residency of
Candidate); Code, Election Law Article, § 6-209 (Judicial Review); Code,
Election Law Article, § 6-210 (Schedule of Process); Code, Election Law Article,
§ 9-209 (Judicial Review of Ballot); Code, Election Law Article, § 12-203 (Appeal
Proceedings); Code, Election Law Article, § 16-1004 (Injunction to Prohibit
Violation of § 16-201 of Election Law Title); Code, Financial Institutions Article,
§ 9-712 (Pledge, Transfer, or Sale of Assets); and Code, Public Utilities Article,
§ 7-528 (Effective Date of Qualified Rate Orders).
Source: This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes new Rule 8-306 to clarify the procedures
that govern direct appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland.
Section (a) provides that the Supreme Court may take any of the
following actions after a direct appeal is filed: dismiss the appeal; affirm the
underlying judgment; vacate or reverse the underlying judgment; or remand
the appeal.
65

RULE 8-306

Section (b) is divided into two subsections. Subsection (b)(1) pertains to
briefing. Subsection (b)(2) provides that the Supreme Court may schedule an
oral argument or decide an appeal on the briefs submitted.
Section (c) indicates that the Supreme Court “as authorized by statute,
other law, or on its own initiative, may expedite the briefing, oral argument,
and consideration of a direct appeal.”
A non-exhaustive list of statutory authority providing for direct appeals
to the Supreme Court is included in a cross reference following section (c).

66

RULE 8-301

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE APPELLATE COURT
CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
AMEND Rule 8-301 by deleting certain citations in the cross reference
following section (a), by adding a reference to Rule 8-306 in section (b), and by
deleting certain language in section (b), as follows:
Rule 8-301. METHOD OF SECURING REVIEW – THE SUPREME COURT

(a) Generally
Appellate review by the Supreme Court may be obtained only:
(1) by direct appeal where allowed by law;
(2) pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act;
(3) by writ of certiorari upon petition filed pursuant to Rules 8-302 and 8303; or
(4) by writ of certiorari issued on the Court's own initiative.
Cross reference: For Code provisions governing direct appeals to the Supreme
Court, see Code, Election Law Article, § 12-203 concerning appeals from circuit
court decisions regarding contested elections; Code, Election Law Article, § 161004 concerning appeals from circuit court decisions regarding injunctive relief
sought for certain violations of election law; and Code, Financial Institutions
Article, § 9-712(d)(2) concerning appeals from circuit court decisions approving
transfer of assets of savings and loan associations. For the Maryland Uniform
Certification of Questions of Law Act, see Code, Courts Article, §§ 12-601
through 12-613. For the authority of the Court to issue a writ of certiorari on
its own initiative, see Code, Courts Article, § 12-201.
(b) Direct Appeals to Supreme Court

67

RULE 8-301
A direct appeal to the Supreme Court allowed by law is governed by the
other Rules of this Title applicable to appeals Rule 8-306, or by the law
authorizing the direct appeal. In the event of a conflict, the law authorizing the
direct appeal shall prevail. Except as otherwise required by necessary
implication, references in those Rules to the Appellate Court shall be regarded
as references to the Supreme Court.
(c) Certification of Questions of Law
Certification of questions of law to the Supreme Court pursuant to the
Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act is governed by Rule 8305.
Source: This Rule is in part derived from Rule 810 and in part new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes amendments to Rule 8-301 to conform
this Rule to the provisions of proposed new Rule 8-306.
A proposed amendment to the cross reference following section (a)
deletes the citations to Code provisions concerning direct appeals to the
Supreme Court because the information is now contained in proposed new
Rule 8-306 addressing direct appeals to the Supreme Court. Rule 8-306
contains a cross reference with citations to the three statutes in the current
language of Rule 8-301, as well as additional relevant Code provisions.
Proposed amendments to Rule 8-301 (b) conform the section to reflect
that provisions governing direct appeals to the Supreme Court are now
contained in new Rule 8-306.

68

RULE 8-504
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
APPELLATE COURT
CHAPTER 500 – RECORD EXTRACT, BRIEFS, AND ARGUMENT
AMEND Rule 8-504 by adding a reference to new Rule 8-306 in
subsection (a)(8), as follows:
Rule 8-504. CONTENTS OF BRIEF
(a) Contents
A brief shall comply with the requirements of Rule 8-112 and include the
following items in the order listed:
(1) A table of contents and a table of citations of cases, constitutional
provisions, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations, with cases
alphabetically arranged. When a reported Maryland case is cited, the citation
shall include a reference to the official Report.
Cross reference: Citation of unreported opinions is governed by Rule 1-104.
(2) A brief statement of the case, indicating the nature of the case, the
course of the proceedings, and the disposition in the lower court, except that
the appellee's brief shall not contain a statement of the case unless the
appellee disagrees with the statement in the appellant's brief.
(3) A statement of the questions presented, separately numbered, indicating
the legal propositions involved and the questions of fact at issue expressed in
the terms and circumstances of the case without unnecessary detail.
69

RULE 8-504
(4) A clear concise statement of the facts material to a determination of the
questions presented, except that the appellee's brief shall contain a statement
of only those additional facts necessary to correct or amplify the statement in
the appellant's brief. Reference shall be made to the pages of the record extract
or appendix supporting the assertions. If pursuant to these rules or by leave of
court a record extract is not filed, reference shall be made to the pages of the
record or to the transcript of testimony as contained in the record.
Cross reference: Rule 8-111 (b).
(5) A concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue,
which may appear in the discussion of the issue or under a separate heading
placed before the argument.
(6) Argument in support of the party's position on each issue.
(7) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(8) In the Appellate Court, or on direct appeal to the Supreme Court
pursuant to Rule 8-306, a statement as to whether the party filing the brief
requests oral argument.
(9) If the brief is prepared with proportionally spaced type, a Certification of
Word Count and Compliance with Rule 8-112 substantially in the form set
forth in subsection (a)(9)(A) of this Rule. The party or amicus curiae providing
the certification may rely on the word count of the word-processing system
used to prepare the brief.
(A) Form

70

RULE 8-504
A Certification of Word Count and Compliance with Rule 8-112 shall be
substantially in the following form:
CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT AND COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 8-112
1. This brief contains _______________ words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted from the word count by Rule 8-503.
2. This brief complies with the requirements stated in Rule 8-112.
(10) The citation and verbatim text of all pertinent constitutional provisions,
statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations except that the appellee’s brief
shall contain only those not included in the appellant's brief.
(11) Unless filed as a separate document, a certificate of service in
compliance with Rule 1-323.
Cross reference: For requirements concerning the form of a brief, see Rule 8112.
...

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes amendments to subsection (a)(8) of Rule
8-504 to conform this Rule to the addition of proposed new Rule 8-306
addressing direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

71

RULE 8-523
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
APPELLATE COURT
CHAPTER 500 – RECORD EXTRACT, BRIEFS, AND ARGUMENT
AMEND Rule 8-523 by adding a cross reference to new Rule 8-306
following subsection (a)(2), as follows:
Rule 8-523. CONSIDERATION ON BRIEF
(a) Submission on Brief by Party
(1) In the Appellate Court
In the Appellate Court, a party to a case the Court has scheduled for
argument may submit for consideration on brief by filing a notice with the
Clerk at least ten days prior to argument. Before filing a notice submitting on
brief, a party shall attempt to ascertain whether any other parties to the appeal
also will submit on brief and state the position of those other parties in the
notice. The Court may require oral argument from either side or both sides,
notwithstanding the submission on brief.
(2) In the Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court a party may not submit an appeal for
consideration on brief except with permission of the Court. A request to
submit on brief shall be made in writing at least 15 days before argument.
Cross reference: See Rule 8-306 (b)(2) governing submission on brief in direct
appeals to the Supreme Court.

72

RULE 8-523
(b) Directed by the Appellate Court
(1) When Directed
In the Appellate Court, if all the judges of the panel to which an appeal
has been assigned conclude, after the filing of the appellant's brief, that oral
argument would not be of assistance to the Court because of the nature of the
questions raised, the Court shall direct that the appeal be considered on brief
without oral argument. The Clerk shall promptly mail notice to all parties that
the Court has directed consideration of the appeal on brief.
(2) Request for Oral Argument
If pursuant to subsection (1) of this section the Court directs that an
appeal be considered on brief without oral argument, any party may file a
request for oral argument. The request shall be filed within ten days after the
later of (A) the date the Clerk mails the notice required by subsection (1) of this
section or (B) the date the appellee's brief is filed. If the Court grants the
request for oral argument, the appeal shall be assigned for argument pursuant
to Rule 8-521. Unless the Court specifies otherwise in its order granting the
request, oral argument shall be as provided in Rule 8-522.
Source: This Rule is derived from former Rules 846 d, 1047, and 1038.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes adding a cross reference to proposed new
Rule 8-306 concerning direct appeals to the Supreme Court following
subsection (a)(2) of this Rule.

73

RULE 16-406
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 400 – CIRCUIT COURTS – CLERKS’ OFFICES
AMEND Rule 16-406 by revising the title of the Rule, by adding new item
(4) pertaining to a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, by adding “or the
Clerk of the Supreme Court, as appropriate” to the end of the first sentence, by
adding “In the Appellate Court” to the second sentence, and by making stylistic
changes, as follows:
Rule 16-406. NOTICE TO THE APPELLATE COURT OR SUPREME COURT
Upon the filing of (1) a notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal to the
Appellate Court, (2) a timely motion pursuant to Rule 2-532, 2-533, or 2-534 if
filed after the filing of a notice of appeal, or (3) an order striking a notice of
appeal pursuant to Rule 8-203, or (4) a notice of appeal, where permitted by
law, to the Supreme Court, the clerk of the circuit court immediately shall send
via the MDEC system a copy of the paper filed to the Clerk of the Appellate
Court or the Clerk of the Supreme Court, as appropriate. If In the Appellate
Court, if a notice of appeal is accompanied by a Civil Appeal Information Report
required by Rule 8-205, the Information Report shall be transmitted in the
same manner as with the notice of appeal.
Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-309 (2016).

74

RULE 16-406
REPORTER’S NOTE
Amendments are proposed to conform Rule 16-406 to the provisions of
proposed new Rule 8-306, which pertains to direct appeals to the Supreme
Court of Maryland. New item (4) is proposed, which adds to the list notices of
appeal in direct appeals to the Supreme Court. In addition, the Clerk of the
Supreme Court is added to the portion of the first sentence that pertains to
recipients of circuit court transmissions required by the Rule. Because the
proposed revision expands the applicability of the Rule to direct appeals to the
Supreme Court, an amendment is made to the second sentence of the Rule to
clarify that the provision pertaining to Information Reports remains applicable
only to appeals in the Appellate Court.
In the last sentence, an amendment replacing “in the same manner as”
with the word “with” is stylistic, only.

75

RULE 8-111
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE APPELLATE COURT
CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
AMEND Rule 8-111 by moving the reference to Code, Criminal Procedure
Article § 11-103 from the end of subsection (c)(1) to the beginning of the
subsection, by deleting and adding certain language to subsection (c)(1)
regarding a victim’s right to appeal a final order, and by deleting a reference to
Rule 8-204 in subsection (c)(1), as follows:
Rule 8-111. DESIGNATION OF PARTIES; REFERENCES
(a) Formal Designation
(1) No Prior Appellate Decision
When no prior appellate decision has been rendered, the party first
appealing the decision of the trial court shall be designated the appellant and
the adverse party shall be designated the appellee. Unless the Court orders
otherwise, the opposing parties to a subsequently filed appeal shall be
designated the cross-appellant and cross-appellee.
(2) Prior Appellate Decision
In an appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision by the Appellate Court
or by a circuit court exercising appellate jurisdiction, the party seeking review
of the most recent decision shall be designated the petitioner and the adverse
party shall be designated the respondent. Except as otherwise specifically

76

RULE 8-111
provided or necessarily implied, the term “appellant” as used in the Rules in
this Title shall include a petitioner and the term “appellee” shall include a
respondent.
Cross reference: See Rule 8-305 for designation of parties in cases certified
pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act.
(b) Alternative References
In the interest of clarity, the parties are encouraged to use the
designations used in the trial court, the actual names of the parties, or
descriptive terms such as “employer,” “insured,” “seller,” “husband,” and “wife”
in papers filed with the Court and in oral argument.
(c) Victims and Victims’ Representatives
Although not a party to a criminal or juvenile proceeding, a victim of a
crime or a delinquent act or a victim’s representative may: (1) under Code,
Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-103, file an application for leave to appeal to
the Appellate Court from an interlocutory or a final order or appeal to the
Appellate Court from a final order; under Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §
11-103 and Rule 8-204; or (2) participate in the same manner as a party
regarding the rights of the victim or victim’s representative.
Cross reference: See Rule 1-326 for service and notice to attorneys for victims
and victims’ representatives regarding the rights of victims and representatives.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is derived in part from former Rule 827 and in part new.
Section (b) is derived from Fed. R. App. P. 28 (d).
Section (c) is new.

77

RULE 8-111
REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee proposes a housekeeping amendment to conform
section (c) of Rule 8-111 to the current version of Code, Criminal Procedure
Article, § 11-103(b), which was amended by the General Assembly in 2013 to
add a provision to permit a victim to appeal a final order to the Appellate Court
without filing a request for leave of court to do so. Before this amendment, a
victim was required to file a request for leave of court to appeal both an
interlocutory order and a final order. This housekeeping amendment will bring
section (c) of this Rule into conformity with the provisions of Code, Criminal
Procedure Article, § 11-103.
It is also proposed to delete the reference to Rule 8-204 from subsection
(c)(1). This is because its placement near the citation to the Criminal
Procedure Article was viewed as potentially confusing and perhaps misleading
to an individual reading this Rule in that it may be construed to require a
victim to request leave of court to appeal an order in which it may not be
required to do so.

78

RULE 8-305
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE APPELLATE COURT
CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
AMEND Rule 8-305 by replacing the word “original” with the word
“certification” in subsection (b)(3), by deleting the provision pertaining to the
filing fee for docketing regular appeals from subsection (b)(3), by adding a
provision to subsection (b)(3) permitting the electronic forwarding of a
certification order under certain circumstances, by adding new subsection
(c)(1) pertaining to actions to be taken by the Supreme Court, by adding new
subsection (c)(2) pertaining to

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A2a23724278783c3a. Public record. Not legal advice.