Maryland Courts Ponder Preemption with Puzzling Results
By: Chris Mincher
Bonnie Campbell and her husband, Michael Campbell, got a divorce. As part of that, they executed an agreement in which Mr. Campbell expressly waived any right that he had to the proceeds of a “Federal Thrift Savings” retirement plan that was held by Ms. Campbell. The agreement further provided that if, for any reason, Ms. Campbell failed to change the plan’s beneficiary from Mr. Campbell to someone else, Mr. Campbell would either “disclaim … any entitlement to any benefits” from the Plan, “assign all rights” to receive Plan benefits to the Ms. Campbell’s estate, or directly pay the benefits to Ms. Campbell’s estate.
Ms. Campbell ultimately failed to change the beneficiary from Mr. Campbell to someone else. When she died, Mr. Campbell — rather than disclaiming entitlement to the proceeds, or assigning the rights to or directly paying the proceeds to the estate — applied for and received, without disclosing his previous agreement to the contrary, approximately $717,000 in proceeds from the plan.
Does that sound right? Might it be the correct result anyway?
Read More…June 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On Monday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in one criminal case and five civil cases.
Read More…“He or She” after HB 1397
Fear: Why on earth are you writing yet another post on the singular “they”? The people who want to hear you have heard you, and you’re annoying everyone else!
Joy: There are lawyers who are trans or have trans loved ones who may not feel comfortable speaking up! It’s Baltimore Pride!
Since I last advocated for the singular “they” in place of “he or she” on this blog in 2021, there have been 547 Maryland appellate opinions with the phrase “he or she.”
“He or she” phrase reflects the best of intentions, to include everyone, not just men, when legal opinions discuss the hypothetical person.
The unintentional effect, however, is to exclude people whose gender identity does not fit the “he or she” binary. If you or a loved one’s gender identity is nonbinary, “he or she” says “you don’t belong” or “your family doesn’t belong”
Perhaps it feels like “‘wokeness’ of the day,” to quote a Michigan Supreme Court Justice. Here in Maryland, however, “he or she” is legally inaccurate across the board as of October 1, 2024.
Read More…Maryland Certiorari Statistics, 2023 Term
The judiciary’s annual statistical reports give the overall grant rate for civil and criminal certiorari petitions. But, because unrepresented (pro se) parties file the majority of petitions each year, the overall statistics are not terribly helpful for lawyers in advising their clients regarding the odds of certiorari.
Below are the statistics for the Court’s 2023 Term (petitions docketed 3/1/2023 to 2/29/2024), alongside the statistics for the 2022 Term (3/1/2022 to 2/28/2023) and 2021 Term (3/1/2021 to 2/28/2022) for comparison.
Read More…May 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants
Last week was an unusually busy week for Maryland certiorari grants. On May 28 and 31, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in six civil cases and one criminal case. Two are among the four cases to be argued on September 10 regarding the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023.
Read More…Four Apply for Prince George’s County SCM Seat
Four judges have applied for the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Maryland created by the retirement of Justice Michele Hotten:
Honorable Krystal Quinn Alves
Honorable Tiffany Hanna Anderson
Honorable Peter Kevin Killough
Honorable William Antoine Snoddy
MSBA Annual Summit Programs Featuring Appellate Practice and Impact Decisions
The Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Legal Summit is just two weeks away. Here are several programs from the Event Agenda that will feature appellate practice or recent impact decisions:
Read More…Why Maryland Should Allow 28 Days for Post-Trial Motions
What attracts many lawyers to appellate practice—besides an unusual appetite for legal writing and a general distaste for contentious discovery—is the confidence that fire drills and surprises rarely occur. Appellate briefing deadlines and oral arguments are normally set months in advance, and extensions are liberally granted. Appellate lawyers often seem to be nicer (albeit nerdier) people. And everyone on appeal is bound by the trial-court record. No juries and no witnesses. Just the lawyers and a panel of judges applying the law to the settled facts on record.
This dynamic of unharried research and rules-driven deliberation often yields superior legal analysis, not because appellate lawyers are smarter than other litigators but because they usually have the time to reflect on an issue and get it right. They also know that opposing counsel and reviewing judges will have time to carefully consider whatever they write and say. Any missteps or misrepresentations will most likely be noticed and exposed.
Read More…Rules or Rulings: When Can an Agency Decide?
Regulatory agencies are often presented with the big issues of the day in different ways. A matter of policy — and controversy — may arise when an agency is requested to make a new regulation or rule, asked to award grants or funding, tasked with overseeing government projects, or resolving administrative complaints. Modern advocates see numerous potential paths to the desired outcome and employ multi-pronged strategies to try to get there.
Obviously, to those advocates, and the stakeholders and public affected, the policy that eventually results matters a lot. To the agencies — and the administrative lawyers who deal with them — how they consider the policy, and what procedures are used, also matter a lot. What power an agency has to pick the posture, forum, and mechanisms in which to consider disputed issues recently generated a split Appellate Court decision in In the Matter of Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, et al., that establishes some limitations on that discretion.
Read More…Denial of Right to Public Trial or De Minimis Violation?
In March 2024, the Supreme Court of Maryland (SCM) granted the State’s petition for certiorari in State v. Scarboro, ACM No. 1646 (Sept. Term 2022), SCM No. 4 (Sept. Term 2024), an unreported decision by Chief Judge Wells. The State’s petition presented the following question: when an appellant claims a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to a public trial based on the trial court’s ostensible denial of courtroom access, does the burden lie with appellant to establish preliminarily that the courtroom closure is significant enough (i.e. not “de minimis”) that it implicates the constitutional right and requires analysis under the four-part test articulated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)?
It is the first time in over 30 years that the Supreme Court will hear a case involving the right to a public trial, since its 1992 decision in Watters v. State, 328 Md. 38 (1992). In Watters, the SCM found a violation of the right to a public trial after a deputy sheriff, citing an overcrowded courtroom, prevented the public, the press, and members of the defendant’s family, from entering the courtroom for an entire morning during which voir dire and jury selection occurred. The SCM held that this was not a de minimis violation.
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 