Part F
Courts and Civil Proceedings

Judges and Court Administration

Business and Technology Division

House Bill 15 (passed) establishes a 19-member Business and Technology Division Task Force to study the feasibility of the establishment of a business and technology division in appropriate circuit courts in the State. The task force is to be chaired by the President of the Maryland State Bar Association, or a designee, and must issue a final report by December 1, 2000.

The legislation states the intent of the General Assembly that the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals consider the feasibility of the establishment of a business and technology court division in Maryland, based on the study to be completed by the task force, in order to enable the circuit courts to handle business and technology matters in the most coordinated, efficient, and responsive manner, and to afford convenient access to lawyers and litigants involved in business and technology matters.

The legislation recognizes the growing role of electronic commerce in Maryland and the rest of the country and the increasingly complex and technical issues involved. Delaware has demonstrated the advantage of having a designated court structure for business issues in attracting corporate headquarters to that state, and California has developed guidelines for handling complex legal issues in its courts. However, no state has set up a forum especially for the litigation of technology disputes.

Circuit Courts - Funding of Masters and Juror Per Diems

Following the failure of legislation introduced during the 1999 session (Senate Bill 133/House Bill 181) that would have required the State to fund the first $15 of juror per diem reimbursements as well as the salaries of standing masters and additional circuit court personnel, language in the 1999 Joint Chairmen's Report required the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals to submit a plan for increasing the State's role in circuit court funding. The Chief Judge submitted the "Circuit Courts Action Plan" in November 1999, which set forth an incremental partial cost assumption plan under which the State would contribute an additional $50 million per year to the circuit courts by fiscal 2004.

House Bill 913 (passed) requires the State to appropriate funds to the circuit courts to pay the salaries and fringe benefits of standing masters and to increase the State contribution for juror per diems from $5 to $15, beginning July 1, 2001. Current masters will be given the option of becoming State employees as of July 1, 2002, or remaining county employees whose salaries will be funded by the State. All masters hired on or after July 1, 2002, will be State employees. All local fiscal savings resulting from the bill must be used by the local jurisdictions solely for the circuit courts or related public safety purposes.

The cost of the legislation to the State is estimated at $6.9 million in fiscal 2001. Out-year costs reflect regular increases in masters' salaries.

Judicial Compensation Commission Report

The Judicial Compensation Commission issued a report in January 2000 recommending an across-the-board increase in annual judicial salaries of $10,000. Senate Joint Resolution 3/House Joint Resolution 5 (both passed) as initially introduced, reflected the commission's recommendation. However, the General Assembly amended the joint resolutions to leave judicial salaries at their current levels. The joint resolutions also specifically endorse a statutory provision that requires that judges automatically receive the same general salary increase as may be provided to State employees, effective on the same date. Judges are therefore entitled to receive the same 4 percent general salary increase, beginning November 15, 2000, as is currently scheduled for State employees in the fiscal 2001 budget. Exhibit 1 shows the current judicial salaries, the salaries proposed by the Judicial Compensation Commission, and the salaries after the fiscal 2001 COLA and the 4 percent COLA projected for fiscal 2002.

Exhibit 1
Judicial Salaries

Source: Department of Legislative Services

Prospective Jurors - Motor Vehicle Administration Lists

Senate Bill 355/House Bill 944 (both passed) expand the sources from which all circuit courts are required to select prospective jurors to include individuals at least 18 years of age who have been issued a driver's license or identification card by the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). The MVA must provide lists to the circuit courts without cost.

Under existing statutory authorization, circuit courts are required to select jurors from voter registration lists and may also use other sources in accordance with a juror selection plan maintained by a court. Several counties (Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Charles, Dorchester, Howard, Somerset, and Worcester counties) already use MVA lists to help create their jury pools.

These bills reflect one of the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Maryland Courts. The use of MVA lists spreads jury duty among a broader group of individuals, makes juries more representative, and removes a disincentive for individuals who hesitate to register to vote in order to avoid jury duty.

Circuit Court Real Property Records Improvement Fund

Senate Bill 214/House Bill 641 (both passed) extend the termination date for the Circuit Court Real Property Records Improvement Fund from June 30, 2001, to June 30, 2006.

The Circuit Court Real Property Records Improvement Fund is a nonlapsing revolving fund managed and supervised by the State Court Administrator, with advice from a five-member oversight committee. The fund consists of surcharges assessed on instruments recorded in the land records and the financing statement records, and revenues from copies made on equipment bought through the fund. The fund is used to repair, replace, improve, modernize, and update office equipment and equipment-related services in the land records office of the clerk of the circuit court for each county. The fiscal 2001 budget assumes $5 million in special fund revenues for the fund.

Extension of the fund will allow continued improvements to be made in the 24 land records offices, including the completion of two major automation initiatives, ELROI and PLATO, as well as the eventual provision of Internet access to land record information.

Baltimore City Criminal Justice System

In an effort to substantially change the way the Baltimore City court system operates, and to further the progress of recently implemented criminal justice system reforms, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for Baltimore City, in consultation with Baltimore City criminal justice system stakeholders, devised a plan for unclogging the beleaguered court system. This plan entails expanding the use of the courtroom at the Central Booking and Intake Facility (CBIF) to include a full-time schedule five days a week as a mechanism for expediting the case processing of less serious criminal cases. This in turn is expected to free up resources for the processing of more serious criminal cases.

The fiscal 2001 budget includes an additional $6.7 million and 85 new permanent positions to support the planned increased utilization of the courtroom at the CBIF and to assist State agency operations in the Baltimore City criminal justice system. The appropriations and personnel will be used to: (1) provide a full-time District Court judge, court commissioners, and court clerks at the CBIF and Eastside District Court location; (2) enhance public defender staffing at the CBIF and Eastside District Court location; (3) provide a grant to the Office of the State's Attorney for Baltimore City to expand the prosecutorial review of charges; (4) support the activities of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for Baltimore City, including the cost of implementing an information technology infrastructure for the various Baltimore City criminal justice system agencies; (5) make improvements to the court space within the CBIF; (6) expand the number of correctional officer positions used to escort inmates to and from the courtroom, and provide case management and scheduling services to the court; and (7) continue the construction of four additional Baltimore City Circuit Court courtrooms. These funds and new positions are in addition to the $4.0 million and 51 new permanent positions made available during the 1999 legislative session.

The General Assembly adopted budget language and committee narrative requiring reports documenting the progress of reform initiatives and expanded use of the CBIF courtroom. These include: (1) language withholding a total of $1.0 million from the Judiciary and Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) pending receipt of a formal plan for the utilization of the CBIF courtroom; (2) language directing the Judiciary to report on the utilization of a full-time judge at the CBIF courtroom; (3) language directing that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for Baltimore City submit a report on the development of a fiber optic information system for the Baltimore City criminal justice system; (4) narrative directing that the Office of the State's Attorney for Baltimore City submit quarterly statistical reports on its prosecutorial review of charges; and (5) narrative directing DPSCS to submit quarterly reports on the impact of increased utilization of the CBIF courtroom.

Judgeships

In 1979, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals began an annual procedure of formally certifying to the General Assembly the need for additional judges in the State. This certification process was suggested by the Legislative Policy Committee prior to the 1979 session. The annual certification is prepared after a statistical analysis of the workload and performance of the circuit courts and the District Court of Maryland and consideration of the comments of the circuit administrative judges and the Chief Judge of the District Court.

For fiscal 2001, the Judiciary certified the need for one additional circuit court judge in each of the following counties: Calvert, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Washington, and Worcester. However, the Judiciary only requested the creation of a new circuit court judgeship for Worcester County in Senate Bill 69/House Bill 577 (both failed). In addition, these bills sought to create five other new circuit court judgeships -- one each in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Montgomery, and Prince George's counties and Baltimore City. These particular judgeships were requested, for each jurisdiction which operates a family division, as a result of a policy decision to limit the role of domestic relations masters in light of a decision of the Court of Appeals that held that a domestic relations master does not have authority to order an arrest pending entry of a judicial order in accordance with the master's recommendation of contempt, State v. Wiegmann, 350 Md. 585 (1998). As introduced, the bills also sought to create an additional District Court judgeship in District 4 (Charles, St. Mary's, and Calvert counties), which was not certified by the Judiciary.

Civil Actions and Procedures

Service of Process - Resident Agents of Governmental Entities

Senate Bill 215/House Bill 481 (both passed) authorize local governmental entities and State agencies not represented by the Attorney General to file resident agent designations with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT).

These bills permit a local entity to designate a Maryland citizen who resides in this State, a Maryland corporation, or an officer of the local entity as a resident agent for acceptance of service of process on behalf of the local entity. The bills provide that a local entity may designate a resident agent by filing with SDAT a certification identifying the person designated by the charter of the local entity to accept service of process. If the charter of a local entity does not designate a person to accept service of process, the bills allow a certified copy of a resolution of the local entity's governing body authorizing the designation to be filed with SDAT.

The bills also permit a State agency not represented by the Attorney General to designate a Maryland citizen who resides in this State, a Maryland corporation, or an officer of the State agency as a resident agent by filing with SDAT a certified copy of a resolution by the agency's governing body authorizing the designation.

Immunity and Liability

Drug Dealer Liability Act

Senate Bill 484/House Bill 178 (both passed) make a person who is convicted under Article 27, § 286 or § 286A of knowingly and willfully manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, transporting, or bringing into the State a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) liable for damages in a civil action brought by certain family members for the death of an individual proximately caused by the deceased individual's unlawful use of the CDS.

The bills create a cause of action only for a: (1) parent; (2) legal guardian; (3) child; (4) spouse; or (5) sibling of the individual CDS user.

The bills allow for recovery of the following damages sustained by a plaintiff that were proximately caused by the unlawful use of a CDS: (1) economic damages and other pecuniary losses; and (2) noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment, companionship, services or consortium, and other nonpecuniary losses.

Local Governments

Actions Against Gun Manufacturers: Recently a number of cities and counties across the country have filed lawsuits against the gun industry, invoking legal theories ranging from products liability to consumer protection. In 1999, 15 states enacted legislation to prohibit local governments from suing gun manufacturers. In 2000, similar legislation was introduced in at least 15 states.

Senate Bill 493 (failed) would have prohibited a political subdivision or local government from suing a gun manufacturer or dealer for damages, abatement, or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, marketing, or sale of a gun to the public. The bill would have specified that the authority to sue a gun manufacturer or dealer is reserved exclusively to the State, but that the State may not exercise this authority without an act of the General Assembly.

The bill would have applied retroactively to any action brought by a political subdivision or local government against a gun manufacturer or dealer before the effective date of the bill.

Lexington Market: Senate Bill 715/House Bill 725 (both passed) expand the definition of "local government" in the Local Government Tort Claims Act to include Lexington Market, Inc., in Baltimore City.

Market Share Liability for Lead-Based Paint Damages

Senate Bill 806/House Bill 1079 (both failed) would have created a cause of action against manufacturers of lead-based paint for certain damages under a market share theory of liability.

The bills would have required a person seeking damages to prove that:

• lead-based paint caused the damages alleged;

• the manufacturer of lead-based paint manufactured lead-based paint and sold lead-based paint in the market at the time the lead-based paint was applied to the residential, public, or commercial building; and

• the manufacturer of lead-based paint breached a legally recognized duty in the marketing of the lead-based paint.

The bills would have apportioned damages based on the manufacturer's share of the market at the time the manufacturer sold and manufactured lead-based paint in the market.

Managed Care Entities - Liability

Senate Bill 9/House Bill 943 (both failed) would have established that a carrier or managed care entity for a health benefit plan has the duty to exercise ordinary care when making health care treatment decisions and is liable for damages for harm to an insured or enrollee proximately caused by its failure to exercise ordinary care.

Disclosures by Insurers

Disclosure of Business Address

House Bill 85 (passed) requires a defendant's insurer or a person who has a self-insurance plan, on written request of a party to the action, to provide to the party the last known business address of the defendant. Existing law already requires a defendant's insurer or a person who has a self-insurance plan to provide the defendant's last known home address.

Disclosure of Insurance Limits

Tracking language contained in Rule 2-402 of the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure, which defines the scope of discovery with regard to insurance agreements in a civil proceeding, House Bill 1220 (failed) would have allowed an insured or claimant who has filed a written claim with a property and casualty insurer to obtain documentation from the insurer of the applicable limits of coverage in any insurance agreement under which an insurer may be liable to satisfy part or all of the claim or indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the claim.

Administrative Orders

In a measure to provide a mechanism for enforcement of an administrative order if no appeal has been filed, House Bill 439 (passed) authorizes a circuit court to order civil enforcement on the timely petition of a party to a contested case if another party is in violation of the administrative order. The bill specifies the following relief that the court may grant: (1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief; (3) mandamus; or (4) any other civil remedy provided by law.

Baltimore City - Abandoned Property

During the 1999 session the General Assembly enacted legislation granting Baltimore City the authority to use an expedited form of condemnation for a defined category of abandoned property. Senate Bill 532/House Bill 701 (both passed) establish a three-year statute of limitations for an action against Baltimore City for the improper taking of abandoned property and limits the damages that may be awarded to the fair market value of the abandoned property at the time of the taking. The bills are intended to encourage title insurers to issue title insurance for abandoned property acquired by Baltimore City through condemnation.

Evidence - Health Care Records and Writings

House Bill 497 (passed) expands the definition of "health care provider" to include persons who are regulated by another State or the District of Columbia to provide health care services and who are substantially similar to health care providers in this State for the purpose of a current statute that allows the admissibility of health care records and writings without the oral testimony of the health care provider in specified civil trials.

District Court Jurisdiction - Dishonored Checks

House Bill 356 (passed) clarifies that the District Court of Maryland has exclusive original civil jurisdiction in an action for damages for a dishonored check or other negotiable instrument regardless of the amount in controversy.

Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

House Bill 357 (passed) establishes that a direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights is not effective unless a person applies for and obtains a court order authorizing the transfer. A "structured settlement" is an arrangement for periodic payment of damages for personal injury established by a settlement or judgment resolving a tort claim.

This bill prohibits a structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer from making any payment directly or indirectly to any transferee of structured settlement payment rights unless the transfer has been authorized in an order of a court based on a finding that:

• the transfer is necessary, reasonable, or appropriate;

• the transfer is not expected to subject the payee, the payee's dependents, or both, to undue or unreasonable financial hardship in the future;

• the payee received independent professional advice regarding the legal, tax, and financial implications of the transfer; and

• the transferee disclosed to the payee the discounted present value.

Health Care Malpractice

House Bill 27 (failed) would have altered the time at which the statute of repose begins on filing a health care malpractice claim for a child who was under the age of 11 at the time the injury was committed. The bill would have established that time limitations on filing a malpractice claim begin when the child reaches the age of 16. Beginning at that time, an action for damages for an injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services by a health care provider would have been required to be filed within the earlier of: (1) five years from the time the injury was committed; or (2) three years from the date the injury was discovered.

Comparative Negligence

For the past several sessions, attempts to change Maryland from a contributory negligence State to a comparative negligence State have been unsuccessful.

Senate Bill 779 (failed) would have established comparative negligence as the ethod for awarding damages in negligence actions.

Specifically, the bill would have provided that in an action for damages based on negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not bar recovery if the contributory negligence was less than:

• the negligence of the defendant; or

• the combined negligence of all defendants against whom recovery is sought.

Damages would have been diminished in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

Family Law

Child Support

Child Support Guidelines

Under existing law, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support which would result from the application of the Maryland Child Support Guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. The presumption that the guidelines are correct may be rebutted by evidence that applying the guidelines would render an unjust or inappropriate result in an individual case. In determining whether the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, the court is permitted to consider, among other factors, the presence in the household of either parent of other children to whom that parent owes a duty of support and the expenses for whom that parent is directly contributing.

A recent Court of Special Appeals decision, Dunlap v. Fiorenza, 128 Md. App. 357 (1999), held that a departure from the guidelines was appropriate because the child's father had two subsequent children who lived in his household and to whom he owed a duty of support. In upholding the trial court's decision, the Court of Special Appeals stated, "[t]he departure from the Guidelines was fully explained. The addition of two half-siblings on the father's side of the family is per se a significant part of the departure rationale."

In the concurring/dissenting opinion in the Dunlap case, Judge Hollander disagreed with the majority opinion that mere proof that a parent has additional children, standing alone, could justify a departure from the guidelines. Judge Hollander stated that a parent's additional children "may in the appropriate case, justify a downward departure from the child support guidelines. But it is not an automatic entitlement."

House Bill 396 (passed) reflects the concurring/dissenting opinion in the Dunlap case by providing that the presumption that the guidelines will yield a correct child support award may not be rebutted solely on the basis of evidence of the presence in the household of either parent of other children to whom that parent owes a duty of support and the expenses for whom that parent is directly contributing.

Child Support Orders from a Decedent Father's Estate - Repeal

House Bill 976 (passed) repeals a provision of law enacted in 1912 authorizing a court to order child support to be paid out of a deceased father's estate on behalf of a child born out of wedlock if the father was declared by a court to be the father of the child or was ordered to pay child support under the paternity statutes.

House Bill 976 is consistent with a suggestion made in a Revisor's Note to the Family Law Article, which stated in part:

The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code recommends that the General Assembly consider repealing this section, which provides that a father's duty to support a child born out of wedlock continues after the father's death. In situations where a child is born in wedlock, the common law applies and a parent's duty to support the child normally terminates with the parent's death. The common law rule also appears to apply to the obligation of a mother to support her child born out of wedlock. The essentially unique treatment of the father of a child born out of wedlock may raise constitutional questions.

Additionally, the Office of the Attorney General has advised that the statute repealed by House Bill 976 violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which prohibits sex-based classifications in the law "absent substantial justification." Griffin v. Crane, 351 Md. 133 (1998). According to the Office of the Attorney General, the statute contained an unconstitutional sex-based classification because, without substantial justification, it authorized a child support award out of the estate of a father but not out of the estate of a mother.

In addition, changes in the law of inheritance since this statute was adopted in 1912 allow an illegitimate child to inherit from the father's estate if paternity has been established, thereby rendering the statute obsolete.

Child Support Enforcement Conciliation Conferences

In order to encourage the settlement of child support disputes and reduce court dockets, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 38 (passed). Senate Bill 38 grants specific authority to the circuit courts in which a Child Support Enforcement Privatization Pilot Program is located (Baltimore City and Queen Anne's County) and in which a child support enforcement demonstration site is located (Washington, Montgomery, Howard, and Calvert Counties) to order parties filing a complaint to modify or enforce a duty of support to appear and produce documents at a conciliation conference. A "conciliation conference" is a conference conducted at a site designated by the pilot program or at a demonstration site to provide an opportunity for the parties to resolve issues associated with an action to modify or enforce a duty of support prior to a court proceeding.

If a party fails to appear or produce the required documents at a conciliation conference, Senate Bill 38 authorizes the court to issue a body attachment or compel compliance in any other manner available to the court to enforce its own order. A body attachment is a written order issued by a court directing a sheriff or peace officer to take custody of and bring before the court a party in a civil action who fails to comply with an order of court.

Child Support Reinvestment Fund

When the State's child support enforcement efforts meet or exceed certain federal standards (e.g., the number of cases in which paternity is established), the State receives federal incentive payments. Senate Bill 108 (passed) requires all federal incentive payments received by the State to be deposited in the Child Support Reinvestment Fund and used to pay for child support enforcement efforts.

Senate Bill 108 also broadens the purposes for which the fund may be used to include: (1) developing programs and special projects; (2) establishing a performance incentive program to provide incentives for employees; (3) assisting in staff development and training; and (4) establishing community outreach programs and activities. A more extensive discussion of Senate Bill 108 may be found under the Social Services subpart of Part M of this 90 Day Report.

Children in Out-of-Home Placements - Criminal History Records Check of Parent

In accordance with Chapter 539, Acts of 1998 in a petition alleging that a child is in need of assistance, a local department of social services may request the juvenile court to find that the local department is not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the child's natural parent if the natural parent has been convicted of a crime of violence against the child, the other natural parent, another child of the natural parent, or any person residing in the household of the natural parent.

To assist local departments and the courts in obtaining knowledge of convictions for the purpose of implementing the reunification waiver statute in appropriate cases and assessing the risk of returning a child from foster care to a parent or guardian, Senate Bill 527/House Bill 937 (both passed) require the following individuals to obtain a national and State criminal history records check, if requested by a local department of social services:

• a parent or guardian of a child who is committed to the local department and is or has been placed in an out-of-home placement within the past year; and

• any adult known by the local department to be residing in the home of the parent or guardian.

Domestic Violence

Surrender of Firearms

Chapter 567, Acts of 1996 authorized a court in a protective order proceeding for relief from domestic abuse to order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent's possession for the duration of the protective order. Since 1996, the Family Violence Council and the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence have endorsed legislation to extend the court's authority to order the surrender of firearms to provisions of law concerning temporary ex parte orders.

Senate Bill 781/House Bill 595 (both failed) would have authorized a court, in a temporary ex parte proceeding for relief from domestic abuse, to order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities a particular firearm or firearms in the possession of the respondent or to refrain from possessing any firearms for the duration of the ex parte order. Senate Bill 675/House Bill 606 (both failed) would have altered several provisions of law concerning protective orders by: (1) authorizing the court to order the surrender of firearms only upon a finding of probable cause to believe that the respondent owns or possesses any firearms; (2) requiring that any surrender of firearms be immediate; and (3) increasing the responsibilities of law enforcement officers with regard to the enforcement of a court order requiring the surrender of firearms.

Maryland Domestic Violence Unit Pilot Program Fund

Prompted by the case of Richard Spicknall, who was charged with two counts of first degree murder after he allegedly shot his two children during the time that a civil protective order was in effect against him, the General Assembly passed emergency legislation to assist local law enforcement agencies in one or more counties in establishing a separate domestic violence unit dedicated to the service and data entry of domestic violence orders.

Under current law, sheriff's offices and certain police departments in the State are required to serve temporary ex parte and protective orders. Additionally, these law enforcement agencies are responsible for the entry, maintenance, and prompt validation of domestic violence orders into the Maryland Interagency Law Enforcement System (MILES), which is the law enforcement computer system used to store data on the status of domestic violence orders in the State. MILES is also used to conduct certain background checks on prospective purchasers of regulated firearms.

Under current law, an individual against whom a protective order has been issued may not possess or purchase a regulated firearm. However, in the Spicknall case, the record of the protective order issued against Richard Spicknall was removed from MILES because of a clerical error. The error allowed Richard Spicknall to purchase the gun that he is alleged to have used to kill his two young children.

The Spicknall case sparked news reports that as many as half of the individuals subject to protective orders in Maryland are not listed in MILES. The reports, which prompted legislative hearings, also indicated that many protective orders were not being logged into the computer system for several weeks or months. In addition, a State Police audit found that 86% of the protective orders entered into MILES had errors. Law enforcement agencies have contended that delays and errors are inevitable because MILES is outdated and the forms given law enforcement officers by the courts often are illegible or do not contain all of the required information.

House Bill 101 (passed) establishes a two-year Domestic Violence Unit Pilot Program Fund to provide grant money to the sheriff's department or police department in one or more counties for the creation of a separate domestic violence unit dedicated to the service and data entry of domestic violence orders.

Revision of the CINA Statute

In 1997, the Administrative Office of the Courts completed an assessment of the Judiciary's processing of child abuse and neglect cases. One of the findings of the assessment was that the Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) statute, which is combined with the delinquency and Children in Need of Supervision provisions, was interpreted and applied in many different ways throughout the State.

The differing policies and procedures among the various jurisdictions were found to cause disparate treatment of litigants and confusion for practitioners and agencies. Also, it was considered inappropriate to have CINA provisions intertwined with delinquency provisions in one statute. To correct these problems, members of the CINA subcommittee of the Foster Care Court Improvement Project of the Maryland Judicial Conference recommended that a separate statute be written.

Senate Bill 642/House Bill 849 (both failed) would have revised and reorganized the laws governing juvenile court proceedings to separate the laws pertaining to CINA proceedings from those pertaining to delinquency and Child in Need of Supervision proceedings. The bills also would have made the following significant substantive changes to the CINA provisions:

• expanding the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to include custody, visitation, child support, and paternity of a child for whom a CINA petition has been filed;

• requiring the assignment of at least one juvenile court judge in every county;

• divesting the Department of Juvenile Justice of its authority to file a CINA petition;

• expanding the scope of representation by the Office of the Public Defender in CINA proceedings;

• altering the methods under which a law enforcement officer may take a child into custody when the child is in danger in the home;

• altering a presumption regarding drug-addicted babies in CINA cases;

• expanding dispositional options available to the juvenile court in CINA proceedings;

• establishing procedures for emergency dispositional review hearings by the court;

• authorizing the court to issue restraining orders against nonparties in CINA proceedings; and

• broadening access to juvenile court records involving a CINA.

Marriage and Divorce

Removal of Religious Barriers to Remarriage

Senate Bill 374/House Bill 1099 (both failed) would have required a party who files a complaint or countercomplaint for absolute divorce or annulment to file, on the request of the other party, an affidavit stating that the affiant has taken all steps solely within the affiant's control to remove all religious barriers to remarriage by the other party. Under the bills, if an affidavit were requested, the court would have been prohibited from entering a decree for absolute divorce or annulment until the affidavit was filed.

The proposals were intended to address what has been described as the withholding of Jewish religious divorces, despite the entry of civil divorce decrees, by spouses acting out of vindictiveness or applying economic coercion. The problem is faced mainly by Orthodox Jewish women whose marriages have ended. Under traditional Jewish law, a civil divorce does not dissolve the marriage. Only a religious divorce, called a "get" is sufficient to do so. The husband has the power to grant or withhold the get. He cannot be compelled under Jewish law to grant it. A civilly divorced husband who is indifferent to the barrier of his own remarriage may refuse to grant the get. If his wife does want to remarry within the Orthodox tradition, her husband's recalcitrance about the get might well coerce her into making harmful concessions in settlement negotiations preceding the civil divorce. Senate Bill 374/House Bill 1099 were intended to induce parties to a divorce proceeding to seek religious relief on pain of being deprived of civil relief.

Prohibited Marriages - First Cousins

Existing law prohibits the marriage of individuals within certain degrees of familial relationship. A man, for example, may not marry his: (1) grandmother; (2) mother; (3) daughter, (4) sister; (5) granddaughter; (6)grandfather's wife; (7) wife's grandmother; (8) father's sister; (9) mother's sister; (10) stepmother; (11) wife's mother; (12) wife's daughter; (13) son's wife; (14) grandson's wife; (15) wife's granddaughter; (16) brother's daughter; or (17) sister's daughter. A woman similarly may not marry the same categories of persons listed above of the opposite gender.

House Bill 459 (failed) would have prohibited individuals who are first cousins from marrying in the State and would have made such marriages void and of no legal effect.

Human Relations

Impact of Slavery

The General Assembly enacted legislation in the 1998 session that established the Task Force to Study the History and Legacy of Slavery in Maryland (Chapter 718, Acts of 1998). In its December 1999 report to the Governor, the task force determined that there was a need to establish a State commission that is specifically mandated to coordinate the study, commemoration, and understanding of the history and legacy of slavery in Maryland for the benefit of all populations and all regions of Maryland as a whole, with a mandate to especially include the civilian casualties of slavery.

Senate Bill 854 (passed) is the result of the 1998 task force and creates an 11-member Commission to Coordinate the Study, Commemoration, and Impact of Slavery's History and Legacy in Maryland.

The purpose of the commission is to:

• network museums, cultural organizations, cultural parks and centers, and private collections to support the cataloging, preservation, and presentation of cultural resources relating to the history and legacy of slavery in Maryland;

• work with grass roots organizations, foundations, and government agencies in publicizing and seeking support for initiatives, with special attention to developing initiatives aimed at and benefitting youth;

• target funding for the identification and maintenance of relevant library and archival resources, in order to produce guides and maintain databases of holdings;

• identify relevant historical sites throughout the State and monitor the preservation and development of those sites;

• keep the State informed of how best to support relevant programs and initiatives;

• keep the State informed of the latest research on the lingering psychological, sociological, and economic impacts of slavery and its legacy, including the impact on crime and crime control; and

• work cooperatively with private and public tourist agencies and organizations to oversee and monitor the allocation of public resources to sites and undertakings relating to the history and legacy of slavery and to ensure that there is a fair allocation of resources for African American businesses and institutions.

Senate Joint Resolution 12 (passed) recognizes the contributions of Harriet Tubman and designates March 10 as Harriet Tubman Day in the State. Harriet Tubman was born around 1820 on a plantation in Dorchester County and escaped from slavery in 1849. In 1850, she began working as a conductor on the Underground Railroad. She returned to the South 19 times and brought 300 African American slaves to the North through the Underground Railroad, including the members of her own family in 1851. She became known as the "Black Moses of Her People."

Employment Discrimination

Remedies

House Bill 208 (failed) would have expanded the remedies available under the Maryland Human Relations Commission in employment discrimination cases. In addition to other damages, the commission would have been authorized to award compensatory damages in maximum amounts graduated according to the number of employees employed by the employer charged.

The bill also would have authorized a complaining party, a respondent, or an aggrieved person to elect to file a civil action in circuit court and would have authorized a complaining party to bring a civil action if at least 180 days had elapsed since filing a complaint with the commission. In any case, if a court found that a discriminatory employment practice had occurred, the bill would have authorized the court to award compensatory damages and punitive damages in graduated maximum amounts.

House Bill 208 also would have expanded the jurisdiction of the commission to cover employers who employ one or more employees. Currently, only employers with 15 or more employees are subject to the jurisdiction of the commission.

Genetic Information

House Bill 793 (failed) would have prohibited an employer from discriminating in employment against any individual because of the individual's genetic information or refusal to submit to a genetic test or make available the results of a genetic test. The bill also would have prohibited an employer from requesting or requiring genetic information as a condition for hiring or determining benefits.

Senate Bill 748 (failed), which included provisions similar to House Bill 793, also would have prohibited discrimination by labor organizations, employment agencies, and apprenticeship and training programs, and discrimination in employment advertising.

Other Discrimination

House Bill 875 (failed) would have made it a crime to harass or commit a crime upon an individual or damage the property of an individual because of the individual's gender or sexual orientation. At a minimum, a conviction would have carried a fine of not more than $5,000, imprisonment for not more than three years, or both.

House Bill 47 (failed) would have prohibited discrimination in public accommodations, housing, and employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

Real Property

Drug Nuisance Abatement

Senate Bill 717/House Bill 742 (both passed) make several changes to existing provisions of law governing an action by a State's Attorney, county attorney, or community association to abate a nuisance where the nuisance is the use of property for illegal drug activity.

Owner-Occupants

The bills clarify that the relief afforded by the law is available against owner-occupants, as well as against tenants and landlords.

Knowledge Standard

Under current law, in order for a court to order a tenant to vacate the property or an owner to submit a plan of correction to ensure that the property will not be used again for a nuisance, the court must find that the tenant or owner knew of the existence of a nuisance on the property. Senate Bill 717/House Bill 742 alter the legal standard applied by a court to include not only actual knowledge of the nuisance but also constructive knowledge of the nuisance.

Remedies

Senate Bill 717/House Bill 742 specify the relief that a court may order if an owner fails to comply with an order to abate a nuisance. Under the bills, the court may order that the property be demolished if the property is unfit for habitation and the estimated cost of rehabilitation significantly exceeds the estimated market value of the property after rehabilitation.

Plaintiffs

Senate Bill 451 (passed) authorizes a municipal corporation within whose boundaries a drug nuisance is located to bring an action to abate the nuisance.

Eviction - Extreme Weather Conditions

House Bill 790 (passed) requires a warrant of restitution of residential rental property that is stayed by an administrative judge because of extreme weather conditions to be executed within three days after the extreme weather conditions cease. Under current law, an administrative judge is authorized to stay the execution of a warrant of restitution of a residential property, from day to day, in the event of extreme weather conditions. The bill is intended to expedite the execution of a warrant of restitution after the extreme weather conditions cease.

Property Line Surveyors

Under current law, only a licensed professional land surveyor is authorized to participate in the land patent process. Similarly, the Commissioner of Land Patents has the discretion to accept a survey previously performed by a qualified professional land surveyor in lieu of a new survey performed under a warrant in certain cases. Senate Bill 411/House Bill 825 (both passed) authorize property line surveyors to perform surveys for use in the land patent process. Under the Maryland Professional Land Surveyors Act, a property line surveyor can do everything a land surveyor can do, except prepare and design plans for road and street grades, sediment and erosion control measures, and storm drainage and stormwater management systems, none of which are applicable to the land patent process.

Real Property "Flipping"

Real estate or property "flipping" is the practice in which distressed houses are bought very cheaply and then resold for inflated amounts by the use of an inflated appraisal and fraudulent loan documents to support a loan for a buyer. During the summer of 1999, investigations by local news media revealed that thousands of properties in Baltimore City had been turned over for quick profits using questionable practices designed to secure loans in excess of the property's value. The following legislation was introduced this session to address these predatory real estate practices.

Senate Bill 830/House Bill 727 (both passed) expand the investigative and enforcement powers of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation. Under the bills, when the commissioner determines that a person has engaged in an act that constitutes a violation of a law over which the commissioner has jurisdiction, and that immediate action is in the public interest, the commissioner may issue, without a prior hearing, a summary order directing the person to cease and desist from the act. The summary order must give notice of the opportunity for a hearing before the commissioner to determine whether the summary order should be vacated, modified, or entered as final. For a detailed discussion of this topic, see the Financial Institutions subpart of Part I - Financial Institutions, Commercial Law, and Corporations of this 90 Day Report.

Senate Bill 876/House Bill 786 (both failed) would have required that all appraisers who provide real estate appraisal services be licensed or certified by the State, regardless of whether the applicant provides appraisal services in connection with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). Under current law, only appraisers who perform real estate appraisals in connection with FIRREA are regulated in Maryland. Under FIRREA, mortgage lenders and financial institutions offering mortgages that will be insured by the Veteran's Administration or the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), for example, and secured by real property, must obtain an appraisal of the property. No such requirement exists for non-federal mortgages.

Senate Bill 877/House Bill 1216 (both failed) were intended to decrease the time it takes to make sales information on property in Baltimore City available to the public. Under the bills, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City would have been authorized to record an instrument that effects a change of ownership of property, prior to the transfer of the property on the assessment books or records, if the instrument were: (1) endorsed with the certificate of the collector of taxes of the county in which the property is assessed; and (2) accompanied by a complete intake sheet and a copy of the instrument, and any survey, for submission to the Department of Assessments and Taxation.

Estates and Trusts

Inheritance Tax

Senate Bill 1/House Bill 13 (both passed) repeal the inheritance tax on property that passes from a decedent to certain relatives, or, if all the stockholders are relatives, a corporation. The inheritance tax is repealed on property inherited by the children, stepchildren, grandchildren, spouse, parents, grandparents, siblings, spouses of children or lineal descendants, or the family corporation of a decedent who dies on or after July 1, 2000. For a more detailed discussion of Senate Bill 1/House Bill 13, see the Miscellaneous Taxes subpart of Part B - Taxes of this 90 Day Report.

Personal Representatives, Trustees, and Fiduciaries

Uniform Principal and Income Act

Trustees and personal representatives are required, in the course of their duties to those who benefit from their administration, to make proper allocations of assets either to principal or to income. The identification of principal and income, their allocation, and the apportionment of assets between income and principal are often unclear. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgated the first Uniform Principal and Income Act in 1931 to guide fiduciaries in making identification and allocation decisions. The second Uniform Principal and Income Act was promulgated in 1962. Maryland adopted the second Uniform Principal and Income Act in 1965.

Senate Bill 636/House Bill 939 (both passed) repeal the current law and replace it with the Uniform Principal and Income Act of 1997. The Uniform Principal and Income Act of 1997 refines old rules for identification and allocation of principal and income and provides new rules dealing with new investment opportunities not available in 1962 (e.g., derivatives, options, deferred payment obligations, and asset-based securities), disbursements made due to environmental laws, and adjustments between principal and income for tax purposes.

Donation of a Conservation Easement

House Bill 456 (passed) authorizes a personal representative, a trustee, or a guardian of a minor or disabled person to donate a conservation easement on real property. In order to obtain the benefit of the estate tax exclusion allowed under § 2031(c) of the Internal Revenue Code for the donation of a conservation easement, the will or governing instrument must direct the donation of the conservation easement or every interested person who has an interest in the real property subject to the easement must consent in writing to the donation. The bill applies retroactively to a donation of a conservation easement from the estate of a decedent who died on or after January 1, 1998.

Small Estates

Under current law, an estate that meets the qualifications of a "small estate" is subject to an expedited probate process that involves less paperwork and less time to administer. Probate for a small estate may take only 30 to 60 days, as compared to probate for a large estate, which may take eight to twelve months. In addition, small estates are exempt from the inheritance tax. House Bill 322 (passed) raises the maximum value of an estate which may be considered a "small estate" from $20,000 to $30,000. The bill also allows an estate with a value not exceeding $50,000 at the time of the decedent's death to be eligible for administration as a small estate if the surviving spouse is the sole heir.