Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Maryland State Categories







O’brien v Bank of America, N.A.

Case No. 0824 (MD Ct. App., Sep. 9, 2013)

This case arises from a garnishment of bank accounts jointly held by a married couple, Dorothy O’Brien (“Dorothy”) and appellant, Michael O’Brien (“Michael”), as well as another bank account held by Dorothy, Michael, and appellant, Lavelle O’Brien (“Lavelle”), who is Michael’s mother, to satisfy a judgment entered against Dorothy. Appellants filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against appellees, Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and the Attorney General of Maryland, Douglas Gansler (“Attorney General”), in his official capacity, alleging conversion and/or trespass to chattel, breach of contract, and a violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act. Appellants further requested a declaratory judgment that appellees violated Md. Code (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol.), § 11-603(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article [hereinafter Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. § 11-603(c)], the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Article 3, Section 43 of the Maryland Constitution. Appellees filed their respective motions for judgment, which the trial court granted. Appellants noted an appeal, and presents five issues for our consideration:

1. Did the trial court erroneously fail to give [ ] [a]ppellants a reasonable opportunity to introduce materials pertinent to whether Lavelle O’Brien’s account was a joint account?

2. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that subsection 11-603(c) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

3. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that subsection 11-603(c) does not violate Article [3], [S]ection 43 of the Maryland Constitution?

4. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that subsection 11-603(c) does not violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

[5]. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding that the seized accounts were “available for withdrawal” under the Expedited Funds Availability Act?


For the reasons that follow, we answer all of the above-mentioned questions in the negative. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.












 

 

Judge(s): Michelle D. Hotten
Jurisdiction: Maryland Court of Appeals
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies , Constitutional Law , Contracts
 
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Michelle Hotten
James Salmon
Alexander Wright, Jr.

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
(1984 replacement volume and 1988 supplement) to the judgment creditor or to any person named on the account for wrongful lesser of the amount of the judgment or the amount decided to maintain the assets in the account until the court entered an order, or there was “notice must be given to the judgment debtor.” id. at 241. the court noted that the statute owned, the debtor’s account could be garnished to satisfy the creditor’s judgment. id. at 608. joint accounts which were in trust form. the conference committee resolved unless all both owners of the property are is holding in said accounts the amounts of $241.87, $15.17, $10.01, and of america accounts, and the district court issued service on bank of america. of whether all”; in the same line, it struck “both”; and after the last line, it husband’s] actual notice, [the plaintiffs] did not object to the garnishment in a result, perceiving countless issues regarding enacting a safe harbor provision, the general (a) next business day availability for certain deposits that “the joint nature of th[e] [debtor’s] account preclude[d] garnishment for the satisfaction breach of contract, and a violation of the expedited funds availability act. appellants granted is one of law, which we review de novo in order to determine whether the trial court by either of the methods set forth in [another provision] or by publication. “proceedings via writ of garnishment permit the attachment of the property of the they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 55. the bill, as amended, was read for a third time and passed by the senate. omitted) (emphasis added). see also jackson v. dackman co., 181 md. app. 546, 566 by adding to article 19 of the maryland declaration of rights, and article 3, section 43 of the maryland dackman co.,422 md. 357, 377 (2011) (internal quotations omitted) (additional citations garnishment–jointly owned property property held jointly by article–courts and judicial proceedings (md. 1991). filed its motion to dismiss. on september 26, 2011, appellants filed their opposition to bank other takes the whole. (stating, “[t]here can be no doubt that in maryland, a conveyance to husband and wife, day after the business day on which such cash is deposited or such funds are 18 him concerning the garnishment. id. at 241. thereafter, hocking valley filed a motion for account agreements which authorized either party to withdraw money from the joint comm’rs v. johnson, 393 md. 248, 263 (2006) (quoting myers v. kayhoe, 391 md. 188, 203 agreement; and against dorothy in the district court of maryland for prince george’s county (“district not provide for notification to non-debtors. id. thus, the court considered its rules on civil debtors. while the issue is one of first impression in maryland, other jurisdictions have 34 garnishment to be served on the plaintiff’s bank, midwest bank (“midwest”), which was considered the issue. hence, we analyze their statutes and case law. on appeal, the plaintiff alleged that the court erred in treating the motion as one for presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one 13 4 such cash or funds shall be available for withdrawal not later than the business (1984 replacement volume and 1988 supplement) on appeal, the bank argued that the trial court erred in its findings because the debtor hands of property held jointly by husband and would deprive the legislative body contemplating such a statute “‘of any hotten, consideration: 1989 house journal, at 686–87. that committee reported two amendments savings and loan association or any of their affiliates or subsidiaries is md. at 455 . . .; bowie inn, 274 md. at 236 . . . . we have noted that “‘courts garnishee, usually a financial institution, the discretion to reply to the writ of garnishment. sister in purchasing ten acres of land. several years prior, the plaintiffs’ father (“father”), loan ass’n v. metcalf, 332 md. 107, 111 (1993) (stating, “application is hereby made for a who is michael’s mother, to satisfy a judgment entered against dorothy. appellants filed2 process clause of the u.s. constitution” or “due process clause”] states (emphasis added): § 11-603(c)’s legislative history and policy to determine whether the general assembly dorothy o’brien (“dorothy”) and appellant, michael o’brien (“michael”), as well as dismiss and a response to the attorney general’s motion. following a motions hearing, the a tenancy by the entirety was created. see kolker v. gorn, 193 md. 391, 396-97 (1949) finality concerning the garnishment proceeding. this change assisted in ensuring that a trust accounts if both holders are the debtors. if not, the general assembly has provided an article–courts and judicial proceedings 11-603, of maryland law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the showing the account ownership; (3) the plea of bank of america, n.a., all owners of the property are judgment debtors. the plaintiffs filed an exemption action regarding the joint account, and all the parties baltimore, md. in the names of the persons whose signatures . . . shown on this card, debtors, the garnishee may pay into the court from 26 such, courts should hesitate before invalidating an ordinance where doing so both statutes provide[d] for the issuance of writs ordering state agents to seize lavelle’s account. the bank statements were attached with bank of america’s reply in notification by the means of personal service or service by publication, appellants did have without restrictive or qualifying words, creates a tenancy by the entiret[y]”) (additional national notified the plaintiff of its responsibility pursuant to the “garnishment” laws, but did which the writ of garnishment has been issued the subtracted from the settlement check. id. our court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and 19 35 of trustees of md. retirement sys., 310 md. 406, 427 . . . (1987); bowie inn, 17 of 2 or more persons, 1 or more of whom but fewer than all of whom, are on appeal, the ohio court of appeals analyzed its statute, which provided that, by holding funds to satisfy a garnishment, tax levy, or court order restricting disbursements court treated bank of america’s and the attorney general’s motions to dismiss as motions appellants filed their respective oppositions to bank of america’s and the attorney general’s a result of the conference committee, and the current version, is the location of the monetary (ii) the amount held in the account at the time the writ of garnishment and his wife’s account was jointly owned by the spouses in trust, and thereby, no judgments property that was held in trust. as previously indicated, a garnishment is only lawful against (“american national”), filed a complaint regarding a promissory note against the complied with the requirements of md. rule 2-322(c). as an exercise of the legislature’s police power, bears a real and substantial support issues. and the attorney general’s motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. thus, in the court of special appeals no. 0824 standard of review motions. on january 31, 2012, bank of america filed a reply in support of its motion to creditor or to any person named on the account for bank was not responsible to notify [the plaintiff] of [a] garnishment.” in ingram, the judgment giving rise to the garnishment. at the same time[,] the conference interplay between minnesota’s garnishment statutes . . . and minnesota’s multiparty general to the action. appellants further requested a declaratory judgment that appellees statutes and joint accounts. id. stating “an additional hearing on [the fourth defendant’s] motion to dismiss . . . would have in an account at such institution, to a failure to afford a citizen his or her right to due process, stating: hrehorovich, 93 md. app. at 783. state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are demonstrating that its conduct was “fairly attributable” to the state. see lugar v. edmondson account funds in their entirety.” id. subsection 11-603(c) does not violate the due process clause of the might not have knowledge of whether the account holders were husband and wife. id. as assembly decided to permit the financial institutions to maintain the assets in the bank v. first nat. bank of omaha, 2011 wl 883642, at *3 (d. minn. 2011). presumption [was] not rebutted, all of the funds in a joint account [were] subject to 242. specifically, the deposit agreement included a clause regarding “joint accounts,” which between or among the persons, if property held in an account in the name of county, 276 md. 448, 454 . . . (1975); bowie inn, inc. v. city of bowie, 274 hands of a bank, trust company, savings bank, or which it may be supported. hargrove, 310 md. at 427 . . .; westchester, 276 wife and substituted “jointly held property, in the hands of”; in the fourth line, article–courts and judicial proceedings 11-603. md. code (1975, 2002 repl. vol.), § 9-204(b) of the commercial law article15 91. furthermore, the court of appeals has traditionally held that “[i]t is a basic tenet, a judgment on [the plaintiff’s] debt. courts have noted that, when balancing (1992), the defendants–employers terminated the plaintiff’s–employee’s position as a because a garnishment attached to her joint account, it then reduced to a “tenancy in any kind of prior hearing. in a joint account is garnished; and providing that under certain on appeal, our court surmised that the trial court converted the motion to dismiss10 held in the account. between or among the persons, if property held in an account in the name of id. (quotations omitted). in ingram v. hocking valley bank et al., 708 n.e.2d 232, 233 (ohio ct. app. 1997), hearing . . . nor did [the husband] seek to intervene . . . . instead, 32 to the senate. 1989 house journal, at 1940-41. when it was sent to the secured party gives value; or disclosures, which is a standard agreement for 27 states, including maryland, the court examined its statute regarding garnishment of joint accounts, but the statute did (b) a garnishment against property held in a bank, against the trucking company for personal injuries and loss of consortium, then it received 16 remaining account, which belonged to lavelle. in survivor[]”) (capitalization in original) (emphasis added); verzi v. goldburn, 26 md. [ ] [bore] the burden of establishing net contributions to the [joint] account during the initially, but rebuttably, presumed to own all of the funds in a joint account, and if the . . . . a second hearing would have been merely duplicative.” id. at 731-32 (citing ownership “gave the plaintiff, as his creditor, a coextensive right to execute against the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state in order to determine whether a given statute or ordinance satisfies the due salmon, james p. app. 409, 410 (1975) (“[b]oth women signed an agreement provided by the bank which by adding to opportunity to introduce materials pertinent to whether lavelle’s court of appeals discussed the origin of cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c), stating: 3. did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that the record does not include the district court’s writ of garnishment.6 jj. (retired, specially assigned), 336-37. bank of america, n.a., et al. or the amount in the account subject to an entry of a court order releasing the id. at 1069. the court indicated that their courts traditionally held that it was improper to a garnishment against a joint bank account held by spouses is only valid if the account was accordingly, we determine that the general assembly provided a thoughtful solution “hold” or “freeze” of an account was not a complete deprivation, but a minor inconvenience. that every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to the district of minnesota (“minnesota district court”) against first national, alleging a lavelle’s account had joint ownership because michael and dorothy were listed on the 1989 senate journal, at 2388. lavelle’s account was jointly owned. as a result, appellants maintain that the trial court did discussion indicated, bank of america properly complied with the law in holding appellants’ accounts maintained that if known, he would have contested the defendant’s position with his institutions is not valid until all both owners of the property are judgment appellants had the burden of proving that bank of america was a state actor by prejudgment attachment, “a party would be expected to enjoy greater rights md. code (1974, 2013 repl. vol.), § 11-603(c) of the courts and judicial3 “evidence, testimony and documents.” id. at 785-86 (internal quotations omitted). our another party or parties, is not valid unless all of on july 26, 2011, appellants filed a complaint in the circuit court for baltimore city legislature is attempting to solve a serious problem in a manner which has not that the trial court properly used its discretion in determining whether the defendant’s and on appeal, the defendant maintained that akin to a joint tenancy in real property, 23 had notice regarding bank of america’s contention, but did not possess any documentation constitution? unlike in fuentes, which involved sheriffs, bank of america was not a state actor because 30 3 2009, in federal district court against first national and [its collective agency]. (a) any cash is deposited in an account at a receiving depository institution report, sb 469, 1991 general assembly (1991 md.). additionally, the financial fleet bank, 691 a.2d at 1073, indicating that courts must tread lightly when applying the garnished, and fewer than all of the persons named on the account are the instead of filing the complaint in prince george’s county or their county of8 a garnishment against jointly held property, in the proceeding because of the notice that was sent to [his wife]. [the husband’s] states constitution, article 19 of the maryland declaration of rights, and article 3, section dorothy is not a party to this appeal and was not a party to the complaint.2 if the first condition is established, then the general assembly has provided the non-debtor and that “her co-ownership of the account shielded [the] proceeds.” id. despite plaintiff–husband. id. at 233. pursuant to the writ, hocking valley froze the accounts. see redeposited it. id. this time, he amended the book entries, denoting a division of the funds annotated code of maryland (1984 replacement volume and 1988 proceedings adequate notice regarding potential exemptions), beyond pearce, we have not iii. whether the trial court committed a legal error by finding and 154 (2003); sadler v. dimensions healthcare corp., 378 md. 509, 533 (2003); southland in hrekorovich v. harbor hospital center, inc., et al., 93 md. app. 772, 777-78 violated cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c), the due process clause of the u.s. constitution, income derived from the property and cannot encumber or dispose of it maryland declaration of rights. vol.), § 9-204(a) of the commercial law article provides: 28 property are judgment debtors; permitting certain financial institutions to contest the legal process. we may, but are not required to, send notice to you years later, the creditor filed a request for a writ of garnishment regarding the debtor’s bank account no. 0960126100 with a balance of $8,636.45, pending further order of it did not act on behalf of the state. furthermore, because bank of america was complying fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution? proc. § 11-603(c). instead of providing the financial institutions with the option of removing property, in the hands of property held jointly by the question of whether summary judgment under maryland rule 2-501 was properly if the legal process requests information about one or more, but not all, (1) cash deposits; wire transfers the conflict between the two versions exempting from garnishment those joint by the entireties or “husband and wife.” as indicated by baker, a court could presume that inserted “(b) this section does not apply to property designated as owned by the defendant’s bank, first national bank and trust company (“first national”). id. at 343. hospital director when an advisory committee determined that the plaintiff was no longer maryland, that the laws of maryland read as follows: violation of due process, id., and that midwest unlawfully garnished the husband’s funds. debtors, see reigh v. schleigh, 595 f.supp. 1535 (d. md. 1984), rev’d, 784 f.2d 1191 (4th (...continued)9 result, in november 2006, the plaintiff filed an action against three defendants, alleging substituted “regardless of whether all”; in the same line, it struck “both”; and strike outs indicate matter stricken from the originally introduced bill by house amendments. fair opportunity to present his arguments with respect to the law at the [first] motions hearing 276 md. at 460 . . . (noting that “[p]rice control, like any other form of name on it, his affidavit makes clear that he was well aware of the garnishment or more persons, one (1) or more of whom but fewer than all of whom, are (2) paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply enactment furnish evidence of the legislative intent. under the house version, on appeal, the eighth circuit stated: who was the defendant’s husband, deposited money into a savings account. id. at 34. “[h]e law. this has been particularly true where an account is titled in the name of on december 6, 2011, appellants filed an amended complaint, adding the attorney monetary property of any joint account into the court. id. senate bill 469 removed the “pay for the reasons that follow, we answer all of the above-mentioned questions in the the [plaintiffs] cite no authority for the proposition that post-judgment to determine whether the parties properly generated a dispute of material fact and, if not, savings bank, or savings and loan association or appellants. person who claim[ed] a right to them and post[ed] a security bond. neither to be heard.’” id. at 694. consequently, the court did not order judgment against valley 9 unless all both owners of the property are judgment with the defendant–wife, collinsville savings did not comply. id. when the plaintiff filed furthermore, as stated by the eighth circuit, “postponing notice and hearing until venue . . . because bank of america’s resident agent [was] located in baltimore city.” section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the u.s. constitution [hereinafter “due4 property, regardless of whether the account is jointly owned, and may not be held liable for on appeal, the court of appeals determined that despite the lack of “tenancy by the was served on the garnishee. financial, bank of america, and dorothy to enter into an agreement. as a result, the7 id. md. rule 5-201(c) provides that, “when discretionary. a court may take judicial11 recede from its amendments, and the bill was sent to a conference committee. not provide them with a reasonable opportunity to submit material to counter bank of appellants’ support is misplaced because fuentes differs from the instant case. properties, including kitchen appliances, electronics, furniture, clothing, and children’s toys, section 1. be it enacted by the general assembly of deposit agreement’s language created a tenancy by the entirety, the general assembly’s legal process – subpoena and levy u.s. constitution, “the person initiating the seizure [must be] a government official.” id. at injury to appellants’ property pursuant to article 19 of the maryland declaration. md. 230, 236 . . . (1975). in applying this test, courts perform a very limited declaring that cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c) did not violate article neither statute [gave] the possessor an opportunity to challenge the seizure at account on january 2, 2009, the [plaintiffs] filed a complaint on january 20, id. at 96. subsection, a garnishment against jointly held solicitations that encompassed commercial content. id. at 715. in january 2007, the plaintiff declaratory judgment, and order, granting the motions for summary judgment and holding house [b]ill 1027. that bill provided: (continued...) which the trial court granted. appellants noted an appeal, and presents five issues for our result, the business’s insurance company issued a settlement check. id. at 27. during the directed by the legal process, subject to our right of setoff and any security “[o]ne of the loyola signature cards stated that there was a “conclusive before “a”, it inserted “(a) except as provided in subsection (b) of this 4. did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that company, credit union, savings bank, or savings and savings bank, or savings and loan association[,] or any of their affiliates or the agreement. we perceive that both were filed after bank of america’s plea. relation to the public health, morals, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the by the entirety, and affirmed. id. at 32. bank or first national that they had objections . . . nor did they request a ruling. id. at 1074. of the maryland constitution, which reads, “[t]he property of the wife shall be protected from (i) that the property is held in an account at the garnishee in the name in the case at bar, the deposit agreement stated that, “[a]ll joint accounts are valley”), indicated that the wife owned two accounts that she shared with the deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of dismiss and a reply in support of its motion. in the reply, bank of america explained that in savig v. first nat. bank of omaha, 781 n.w.2d 335, 336 (minn. 2010), the husband and wife (c) disposition. . . . if, on a motion to dismiss for failure of the pleading to not send notice to the wife. id. thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained legal assistance concerning notice, whether requested or not.” thereafter, the plaintiff and her husband filed an action in the u.s. district court for regarding the plaintiffs’ “due process” argument, the minnesota supreme court the right of survivorship . . . .”) (emphasis added). in reviewing the grant of summary judgment, “‘we independently review the record [a] hearing,” their due process was violated. appellants support their contentions with h.b. 1027, as amended, was read for the first time in the senate and referred by the entireties, but the trial court disagreed, and ordered that the unpaid balance be financial filed a request for a writ of garnishment, seeking garnishment of dorothy’s bank or the amount in the account subject to an entry of a court order releasing the attachment by a judgment creditor of either. the senate version, on the other in worsham v. ehrlich, et al., 181 md. app. 711, 716 (2008), the defendants accounts are considered “joint accounts” for purposes of the “safe harbor” appellants “knew of the extraneous materials, had an opportunity to respond to them, and had regardless of whose money is deposited in the account. the record is unclear regarding the amount that dorothy owed to citi financial.5 unless the property is held in an account that was 705-06 (1978)). thereby, a creditor cannot offer a claim on property subject to a tenancy by that customer’s obligations,” however, the court erred because lavelle’s account was not court issued a monetary judgment for approximately $58,000 against the defendant’s signers on the account, even though some of the other co-owners or signers are entireties” or “right of survivorship” language, the initial deposit still created a tenancy by any of their affiliates or subsidiaries is not valid (a)(1) except as provided in paragraph (2) of this in mervyn’s, inc. v. superior court in and for maricopa county, 697 p.2d 690,691 only be and must be husband and wife; that each spouse is seized of the entire the joint account. in spite of the formal notice to [the wife] and [the judgment debtor in the possession of third parties and, when the writ has been issued and when h.b. 1027 was returned to the house, the house refused to accept the to claim any interest in the funds.” id. at 337. we do acknowledge that in diamond, 298 md. at 32, the court of appeals did in may 2007, on the same day that the hearing occurred, another defendant (hereinafter pursuant to [md.] rule 5-201(b) of: (1) the boa deposit agreement and[11] [12] 7 three of the abovementioned bank accounts, and in 2000 or 2001, pursuant to a power of (...continued)10 accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding and declaring that cts. & garnishment–jointly owned property property held jointly by wife, in a bank, trust company, credit union, april 30, 1991. id. was held because three defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss. id. at 716-17. had sole ownership in the account because the father’s redeposit was invalid because the bank of america further attached the signature card, which was signed when cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c) currently reads: garnishment proceedings that allow a garnishee to initially retain funds a similar case, the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked the intent to create a tenancy is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and . . . the party [in whose favor judgment is subsidiaries[,] is garnished, and [less] fewer than all of the persons named 801. existed by establishing a bank account. traditionally, specific language has been utilized in common” account. id. at 1070. furthermore, the defendant averred that “the trial court automatically “state actors.” we believe that this train of thought is detrimental to our justice if the garnishee does exercise its discretion in answering the writ, it must “hold” the debtor’s stated that “all sums now on deposit or hereafter deposited in our account with the said bank, dorothy’s bank of america accounts. on july 26, 2010, the district court issued service (c) all accounts in the name of 2 or more persons. – (1) notwithstanding in existence before the court entered a judgment regarding the garnishment. therefore, if the a writ to turnover funds. id. at 234. the wife’s bank, hocking valley bank (“hocking garnishment to be issued to the debtor’s bank, valley national bank (“valley national”). been pointless as the court had already heard and considered legal argument on [the defendant–hospital obtained a judgment against the plaintiff’s wife (“wife”), and requested against the defendant–mother to enjoin her from using bank account funds to assist their it confesses that it holds assets of the [debtor] in an account owned by two (2) after considering the principal questions, the minnesota supreme court concluded january 2, 2009, to complain to the law firm that they had seized his funds in 12 u.s.c. § 4002(a) provides, in pertinent part:17 garnishee may not be held liable to the judgment 2. did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that appellants maintain that cts. & jud. proc. § 11-603(c) violates article 3, section 43 the due process interests of a creditor and a debtor, the creditor’s interest valid and bank of america properly complied. accordingly, we conclude that the trial court provided in this section or by law. stating: the plaintiffs averred that because the settlement check concerned their lawsuit id. valley national indicated that the debtor owned an account that she shared with her established as a joint account prior to the date of “an act concerning tenancy by the entirety. this type of concurrent ownership interest is described as the goal when it enacted cts. & jud. proc. § 11-603(c) would be totally undermined. as on appeal, the plaintiff averred that the trial court erred because it did not grant his 21 thoughtful enactment of the garnishment statute. as a result, the writ of garnishment was tenancies enjoy a “right of survivorship,” which means that when a co-owner dies, the “‘service by publication [was] insufficient to give [the husband] notice and an opportunity as it occurs quite often in family law cases, specifically those involving alimony and child to the judgment creditor or to any person named on the account for wrongful actual notice of the procedure and logistics regarding bank of america’s compliance with remainder interest passes to the surviving owners. cooper v. bikle, 334 md. 608, 621-22 the common-law incidents of estates by the entireties are that the tenants can 11 upon review and consideration of the judgment debtor’s motion for id. at 407. the eighth circuit determined that although the defendant only sent notice to the from secured transactions regarding after-acquired property, as md. code (1975, 2002 repl. actual notice of the garnishment proceeding is further evidenced by the fact * * * a hearing, the plaintiffs alleged that the settlement check constituted property held in tenancy 40 did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and affirmed. id. at process requirement . . ., we ask rhetorically whether the legislative enactment, assigned the judgment to the defendant–corporation, who requested a writ of garnishment certain financial institutions is not valid unless all both the owners of the granted. id. at 337. pursuant to minnesota laws, midwest answered the writ and indicated payable at our death to above children.” id. at 34-35. after the father died, the defendant dismiss. id. in august 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for a second hearing, 2. pursuant to md. code ann., cts. & jud. proc. art., § 11-603, garnishee are under a special duty to respect the legislative judgment where the for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in [md.] rule 2-501, and them with a deposit agreement, which provided, in pertinent part: added); hartlove v. maryland school for the blind, 111 md. app. 310, 322 (1996) (stating, consider the defendant’s supplementary materials. id. at 785. the plaintiff further nat. bank, 343 md. 412, 419 (1996); fico, inc. v. ghinger, 287 md. 150, 162 (1980)). first, statute provide[d] for notice to be given to the possessor of the property, and plaintiffs and against a trucking business for approximately $30,000. id. at 26-27. as a postdeprivation hearing.” id. accordingly, the eighth circuit affirmed, concluding that the ii. whether the trial court committed a legal error by finding and america did not release the funds, despite notification that the garnishment neither applied committee distinguished between joint accounts and those which were created declaring that cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c) did not violate the jointly owned and dorothy and michael’s accounts were marital property. as we previously (continued...) amended, was then read for the second time. 1989 house journal, at 1790-91. for partial summary judgment, and argued his position in support of that motion” at the first garnishee filed in the district court . . .; and (4) the order of court entered by any of their affiliates or subsidiaries is not valid stated: accounts, both [the plaintiff] and his wife had a present possessory interest in the entire did not indicate that a bank must or may provide the non-debtor notification of the the property of the wife shall be protected from the debts of her husband. filed: september 9, 2013 quotation omitted) (o’connor v. baltimore county, 382 md. 102, 111 (2004)). (c) (1) [if] notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this minnesota district court determined that there was no violation of due process, and granted to the parties by first name. judgment of the circuit 1367 (1976). we agree with the eighth circuit, as we perceive that once spouses, family in the fifth line of the purposes clause after “debtors”, it inserted “and adopted in the house. the strike outs indicate the matter stricken from h.b. 1027 by the and loan association, or any of their affiliates or article–courts and judicial proceedings section 11-603 process rights. providing for a certain exception.” in the first line of the body of the bill, into the court” language, and replaced it with “answer,” providing: and/or transferring the debtor’s monetary property to the court, the general assembly favor of the defendant, first national bank (“first national”), and against the in trust form. subsection, the garnishee shall hold the lesser of the amount of the judgment section and regardless of the relationship between or provides: one party in trust for that party and another party or parties, unless all the contentions, then any person or institution that abides by a statute or ordinance are 15 cir. 1986) (determining whether creditors should provide judgment debtors of garnishment “an act concerning from the account . . . .” 12 c.f.r. part 229, appendix e (commentary on § 229.2(d)). that if she should die first[,] it would belong to him, and the deposit was entered in the books maryland rule 2-322(c) provides the following:9 appellants acknowledge that to establish a violation of the due process clause of the senate, the bill was in the following form: (1994) (citing roger a. cunningham et al., the law of property § 5.3, at 202 (1984)). acquired property clause to: be decided by the court. whitehead v. safway steel prods, inc., 304 md. 67, 73-74 (1985). subsidiaries, by one party in trust for that party and “the underlining indicates the amendments to h.b. 1027 as originally introduced.14 factual and procedural background & jud. proc. § 11-603(b), the court determined that the jointly owned account was “property (2) if the garnishee makes payment into the court as staffed by individuals employed by such institution; or $900.00, respectively, pending further order of the [c]ourt. husband and wife. some have questioned whether “husband and wife” court determined that the plaintiff was aware that the trial court could consider ancillary 37 in a joint account to satisfy the debt of an account holder, even though not all of the account for good cause demonstrated, it is this 14[th] day of sept., ,2010 (continued...) senate judicial proceedings committee, floor report, sb 469, 1991 (2) if the garnishee answers as described in paragraph (1) of this of the judgment entered . . . .” id. a year later, the bank filed an amended answer and stated: with her husband. id. at 409. additionally, the wife had “an opportunity for a 38 we note that the paramount change between the older version, which was drafted as 1989 senate journal, at 2775-76. the conference committee made several property in the hands of property held jointly by husband and wife in reported 8 at the outset, [bank of america] requests that the [c]ourt take judicial notice subsections (a) and (b) of this section and regardless of the relationship trust company, credit union, savings bank, or savings acknowledged that the plaintiff “attached extraneous material, i.e., the affidavit, to his motion “fourth defendant”) filed his motion to dismiss. two weeks later, the plaintiff filed his the attachment in this case occurred after the defendant[] had already secured proceeding. subsection 11-603(c) does not violate article [3], [s]ection 43 of the maryland would remove not only their monetary property, but possibly the debtor’s assets as well. unconstitutional state action should have a remedy to redress the wrong.”[]). jackson v. heard the action. id. proc. § 11-603(c) violates article 3, section 43 of the maryland constitution. tenancy are generally the same, except the joint tenancy does not require marriage. id. both an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty”) (quoting this case arises from a garnishment of bank accounts jointly held by a married couple, garnishment–jointly owned property as joint tenants, with the right of survivorship . . . .”) (capitalization in original) (emphasis in the hands of property held jointly by husband and wife in certain financial in am. nat’l bank & trust co. of michigan v. b.c. modderman, 195 n.w.2d 342, attachment has occurred[,] generally serves a creditor’s interest in preventing the waste or husband’s monetary property. id. however, because the husband had a joint bank account connecticut appellate court decided the issue, the connecticut supreme court intervened. the plaintiff later remarried, and thereafter, first national requested a writ of (3) if the garnishee answers and holds property as provided under concealment of a debtor’s assets.” lind, 688 f.3d at 407-08 (citing mitchell v. w.t. grant on november 12, 2009, citi financial, inc. (“citi financial”) obtained a judgment an amended complaint in the circuit court for baltimore city against appellees, bank of hearing. id. at 717. several days later, the court granted the initial defendants’ motions to 6 rights with a creditor’s interest. this is evidenced in the change in language of cts. & jud. or materials to refute bank of america’s argument that lavelle’s account was jointly owned. could exercise its option to “pay into the court from which the writ of garnishment ha[d] been issued.” see pearce, 329 md. at 624 (emphasis added). currently, however, the members, and/or significant others are pre-notified of the possibility of an attachment, they whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” charles county (b) funds are received by a depository institution by wire transfer for deposit a motion for a turnover order, the defendant contested the motion, averring that she was a contentions with ohio case law. id. accordingly, the court determined that the trial court (...continued)3 common.”) (emphasis added); tyler v. suburban trust co., 247 md. 461, 463-64 (1967) thereafter, dorothy filed a motion for release of garnished funds, prompting citi rule 2-501.” md. rule 2-322(c). if more than one persons’s name appears in the title of an account without a procedure, which stated: appellants allege that bank of america first argued during the motions hearing that (2012) (citing messing v. bank of am., n.a., 373 md. 672, 684 (2003); anderson v. council md. rule 2-322(c) was triggered, and the trial court had to provide appellants with a jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein thereafter, the defendant’s wife (“wife”) averred that the first national accounts were jointly 39 approximately 18 days after midwest bank had retained the funds in the violation of the expedited funds availability act. appellants contended that bank of 5 property held by the garnishee or a final judgment in the garnishment judgment debtors, the garnishee may answer the writ of garnishment by attorney, dorothy and michael were authorized to use and withdraw funds from the mandatory accounting was proposed. id. accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the garnishee may not be held liable agents. the case at bar concerns postjudgment deprivation of intangible personal property. jointly owned accounts before giving the non-debtor owners notice and an opportunity for constitution, article 19 of the maryland declaration of rights, or article 3, section 43 of it could not, so it provided service by publication. id. the trial court determined that supplement) all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made the manner provided in the garnishment statutes; they did not notify midwest should have performed an equitable accounting of the funds . . . .” id. before the [5]. did the trial court commit a legal error by finding that the seized accounts (the signature cards and agreement indicated that “all sums not on deposit or hereafter pearce, 329 md. at 620-25. affiliates or subsidiaries is not valid unless all unconstitutional. id. at 405. the minnesota district court held that the wife “had received america, n.a. (“bank of america”) and the attorney general of maryland, douglas gansler and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without as of june 19, 2010, bank of america used its standard deposit agreement in twenty- “the underlining above indicates the amendments to h.b. 1027[,] which were13 to the joint marital accounts nor lavelle’s account. on september 9, 2011, bank of america among the persons, if property held [jointly] in an account in the to enjoin her. id. at 36-37. the trial court ruled that upon the father’s death, the defendant further requested a declaratory judgment that appellees violated md. code (1974, 2013 repl. laws. garnished, and fewer than all of the persons named on the account are the we have no liability to you if we accept and comply with legal process as omitted). the writ. id. proceedings article provides: 31 account . . . ,” the plaintiff attempted to deliver notification to the husband. id. however, for the purpose of providing that a garnishment against jointly held property bold script denotes the conference committee amendments.” pearce, 329 md. at 624. contemplated in enacting this statute, which relates to the garnishment of joint accounts. in support of the motion to strike the jury demand and its reply in support of the motion to maryland v. davis, 389 md. 95, 101-02 (2005) (citing parkville fed. sav. bank v. maryland minnesota supreme court resolved three specific questions relating to the garnishment presumed to be joint accounts with the right of survivorship . . . .” (emphasis added). no that cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c) did not violate the due process clause of the u.s. opinion by hotten, j. husband (“husband”). the company assigned the judgment to the plaintiff, who requested 12 committee made several amendments. it amended the title of the bill by 2 or more persons at a bank, trust company, credit union, savings bank, or discussed the standard of review for determining whether statutes are unconstitutional due could attach to the account. id. at 608-09. after researching the legislative history of cts. america’s contention. proceeded to settlement. id. at 404-05. mediation was unsuccessful, so the plaintiffs filed ordered, that judgment debtor’s motion for release of garnished interest we have in the funds or other property. accorded in a prejudgment attachment. see reigh v. schleigh, 784 f.2d 1191, create or provide for a security interest in after-acquired collateral.[15] was served on the garnishee. security, unless the debtor acquires rights in them within 10 days after the the amount of $113,500 against the debtor regarding legal malpractice. approximately ten the debts of her husband” because it permits the seizure of bank accounts that are held in a article 3, section 43 of the maryland constitution reads: id. at 348, n.16. interim, and in a separate action, the husband’s former wife obtained a judgment against the and the district of columbia; (2) a statement on lavelle o’brien’s account fuentes v. shevin, 407 u.s. 67 (1972). in fuentes, deputy sheriffs seized the plaintiffs’ judgment debtors, the garnishee may answer the writ of garnishment by negative. we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. held in trust,” and because only one spouse was a debtor, the judgment was void. id. at 626. cruickshank-wallace v. county banking and trust co., 165 md. app. 300, 311 (2005) accounts act . . . .” in savig, the trial court entered a judgment of approximately $8,100 in maryland, that the laws of maryland read as follows: citi financial obtained a judgment against dorothy in the district court. thereafter, citi summary judgment, maintaining that “because [the plaintiff] and his wife signed consumer subsidiaries, is garnished, and less than all of the pertinent to such a motion by [md.] rule 2-501. a garnishment against jointly held property, in the title, in any case in which – pay a certain amount into court under certain circumstances if property demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt, and hence “jointly owned property”; in the second and third lines of the purpose clause, major contributions to the accounts, the defendant only “asserted ownership of the accounts availability act “permits a bank to hold a customer’s funds if they are being held to satisfy husband and wife, in a bank, trust company, credit 1198 (4th cir. 1986) (noting that “it is important to emphasize” the difference indifferent in its results.’” id. at 237-38 . . . . response to the fourth defendant’s motion, and in june 2007, the plaintiff requested a second (“debtor”) for approximately $340.00. id. at 692. the plaintiff requested a writ of subsection, the garnishee shall hold the lesser of the amount of the judgment subsections (a) and (b) of this section and regardless of the relationship provided under paragraph (1) of the subsection, the * * * debtors. (i) that the property is held in an account at the garnishee in the name this type of conveyance, in an attempt to defraud the debtor’s creditors, is not uncommon co., 416 u.s. 600, 608-09 (1974); brown v. liberty loan corp. of duval, 539 f.2d 1355, ordered, that any monies being held by the garnishee other than amongst his children, grandchildren, and kinship, stating “mr. and mrs. george baker, agreement”), signature cards, and bank statements, dorothy and michael jointly owned defendants filed a motion to dismiss, submitted other sections of the bylaws and manual, and to the institutions’ concerns, and we refrain from interfering to conclude that cts. & jud. the trial court held a hearing, and found that although the wife testified regarding her account. id. at 607. in response to the writ, the plaintiff–bank (“bank”) originally indicated proc. art. § 11-603(c)], the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the united 274 md. at 236 . . . . the wisdom or expediency of a statute duly adopted by property (which can be real or personal); that each spouse is entitled to the wrongful dishonor or for any other claim relating “the words “in trust” were not employed, [ ] the intention to create a trust [was] clearly dismiss the amended complaint. moreover, in support of the attorney general’s motion to u.s. district court for the district of maryland has considered adequate notice to judgment proceeding. that it possessed two of the plaintiff’s accounts, which she shared with her second husband regarding a settlement check. in diamond, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the residence, baltimore county, appellants explained that “baltimore city [was] an appropriate summary judgment because the court did not provide him with sufficient notice that it would lavelle’s account, he also attached the bank of america deposit agreement. not refuted their accuracy.” hrehorovich, 93 md. app. at 787. accordingly, the trial court id. accordingly, the u.s. supreme court concluded that the statutes were unconstitutional. of america’s motion, to which bank of america filed a reply on october 14, 2011. (b) a security interest does not attach under a term constituting an after- property held by the garnishee or a final judgment in the garnishment defendant had no knowledge of the amendment. id. at 37-38. such evidence. id. at 788. accordingly, our court affirmed the trial court’s decision. id. at [e]xhibits 1-4, respectively. following a trial, the court concluded that although the bank account was jointly amended complaint. on january 4, 2012, the attorney general filed his motion to dismiss opportunity to introduce materials pertinent to whether lavelle o’brien’s before the plaintiffs “had even received a summons to answer [the] complaint[s].” id. at 70- expressed in article 19 of the maryland declaration of rights, that a plaintiff injured by declaring that cts. & jud. proc. art. § 11-603(c) did not violate the opportunity to discover whether the chosen method will be good, bad or his wife’s testimonies were credible. accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. dismiss, or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment regarding joint ownership of funds other than wages be, and the same hereby is, granted; by documents, id. at 786, and that he failed to provide further information because he lacked account. additionally, in support of its contention, bank of america stated: 541-42 (2007) (quoting standard fire ins. co. v. berrett, 395 md. 439, 451 (2006)). “so general assembly (1991 md.). as a result of the financial institutions’ apprehension, senate institutions were concerned about any protection because they, at the time of garnishment, annotated code of maryland ch. 818 of the acts of 1989 began its legislative life with the introduction of section 1. be it enacted by the general assembly of “jointly held property in the hands of”; in the third line of the purpose clause, did not commit a legal error by finding and declaring that cts. & jud. proc. § 11-603(c) did 1991 general assembly, were jointly owned and was not protected by a “marital property” exception. furthermore, facsimile transmission, or by other means; or served at locations other than the the parties are judgment debtors. property in the hands of certain financial institutions is not valid unless judgment debrtors. ”[13] (citing arbesman v. winer, 298 md. 282, 288-90 (1983); state v. friedman, 283 md. 701, accounts held by husband and wife which were opened prior to the date of the from which answer the writ of garnishment has been issued by stating: according to the bank of america deposit agreement and disclosures (“deposit michael robert o’brien, sr., et al. writ and indicted that the plaintiff’s assets were located in two bank accounts, a savings required bank of america to hold the garnished funds, and because it complied, its actions indicate that courts could presume that the intent to create a tenancy by the entirety may have in controversy when it was to his advantage to do so[.]” id. at 344. hence, the court ordered the deposit agreements and/or the signature cards for this to occur. see leeds fed. sav. and plaintiff’s] opposition to the motions to dismiss at the [initial] hearing . . . .” id. at 718. the maryland constitution. declaration of rights. expedited funds availability act.17 a writ of garnishment by the means of the deposit agreement. (“attorney general”), in his official capacity, alleging conversion and/or trespass to chattel, id. at 693 (quotation omitted). accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court erred maintained that neither established an employment contract. id. at 779-80. the trial court the court found in favor of the creditor, and against the bank for approximately $34,000. accounts.” id. at 235. the trial court granted hocking valley’s motion. id. at 236. owners of the property are judgment debtors.” right to pay money into court based on various interpretation of the current provisions. also, as a practical matter, the financial institution may not know s.b. 469, 401st gen. assem., reg. sess. (md. 1991). the amendments were approved on “legal process” includes a writ of attachment, execution, garnishment . . . . process of law required by the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment.”) (additional citations omitted). savings deposit account in the leeds federal savings and loan association, was legally correct. david a. bramble, inc. v. thomas, 396 md. 443, 453 (2007) (citing accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling. id. deposited by either . . . with said bank . . . shall be owned by them jointly and severally with instigated pre-recorded telephone communications regarding political candidates. as a “boa” refers to “bank of america.”12 id. the bank appealed to our court, but the court of appeals granted certiorari before we 27 exercised its power properly or arbitrarily, and whether the public’s welfare was husband’s assets were insufficient in paying the former wife’s judgment. id. at 27. during creditor obtains a judgment against the debtor, and several months later, the debtor opens a national. id. at 692. dishonor or for any other claim relating to the garnishment. of unit owners of the gables on tuckerman condo., 404 md. 560, 571 (2008)) “claim[ed] any exemptions, did not request a hearing, and [the husband] did not intervene art. § 11-603(c), stating that they concurred with the trial court that the expedited funds we may hold and turn over funds or other property to the court or creditor as september term, 2012 the court of appeals granted certiorari. id. analyzed to grant the motion for summary judgment. d’aoust v. diamond, 424 md. 549, 575 corp. v. griffith, 332 md. 704, 712 (1993)). summary judgment is appropriate where “there see id. at 338. first national then filed a motion for summary judgment. id. because this was a case of first impression, the minnesota district court stayed the action until the of 2 or more persons, 1 or more of whom but fewer than all of whom, are ii. whether the trial court committed a legal error by finding and (1) consumer goods, other than an accession when given as additional 72. the u.s. supreme court examined florida’s and pennsylvania’s prejudgment replevin minnesota garnishment laws did not violate the due process clause of the u.s. constitution. subsection 11-603(c) does not violate article 19 of the maryland declaration the defendant’s arguments, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion because the co- to its judicial proceedings committee. 1989 senate journal, at 1754. that “safe harbor” provision. senate judicial proceedings committee, floor 342-43 (mich. ct. app. 1972), the plaintiff, american national bank & trust company in the case at bar, appellants aver that “by directing financial institutions to seize because due process did not require personal service. id. at 694. second request for a hearing. id. at 715. our court examined md. rule 2-322(c), and9 4(e)(3) summons: service by publication. where by law personal service is release of all garnished funds, other than wages, any opposition thereto, and vinogradova v. suntrust bank, inc., 162 md. app. 495, 511 (2005)). fuentes involves (1) prejudgment deprivation, (2) tangible personal property, and (3) state maryland, that the laws of maryland read as follows: id. (internal quotations omitted). a few years later, the father withdrew the money, then of whom but fewer than all of whom, are judgment debtors. proc. § 11-603(c) (emphasis added). 3, section 43 of the maryland constitution. in baker v. baker, 123 md. 32, 36-37 (1914), the plaintiffs–children filed a complaint account as opposed to placing them into the court. s.b. 469, 401st gen. assem., reg. sess. maryland nat. bank v. pearce, 329 md. 602, 620-25 (1993) [hereainfter “pearce”], the although bank of america may not have provided postjudgment deprivation “reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by [md.] as the trial court indicated, “[a] bank does not violate its obligations under [12 u.s.c. § 4002] wages pursuant to the garnishment in the name of the judgment debtor be served, require the garnishee, the third party possessor, to keep safe the property in his [or court”). citi financial filed a request for a writ of garnishment, seeking garnishment of5 for the purpose of providing that a garnishment against jointly held judgment debtors. garnishee is holding assets consisting of money market the bill was passed by both the senate and house in that form. not violate the due process clause of the u.s. constitution or article 19 of the maryland owned, and thereby, they were exempt from garnishment. id. or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. on january 17 and january 23, 2012, a complaint in the minnesota district court. id. at 405. the plaintiffs alleged that the 2 between prejudgment and postjudgment attachment, and that in the case of the entirety. id. at 312 (additional citations omitted). a tenancy by the entirety and a joint 11-603. husband for approximately $29,000. id. at 26. the trial court held a hearing because the except as provided in subsection (e) of this section and in section 4003 of this debtors. the general assembly did not exercise its police power arbitrarily, but presented a the ohio court of appeals determined whether “[t]he trial court erred in holding that the fiduciary, beneficiary or other designation, then the account is a joint account. system, as persons and institutions may become reluctant to act in accordance with the law. without the other spouse’s consent; and, upon the death of one spouse, the previously denoted, in 1991, when the general assembly was amending the statute, financial it struck “property held jointly by husband and wife in” and substituted stating (strike-outs omitted) (signatures omitted): 2 or more persons at a bank, trust company, credit union, savings bank, or via a special action, the arizona supreme court decided to rule on the issue. see id. another bank account held by dorothy, michael, and appellant, lavelle o’brien (“lavelle”),1 (ii) the amount held in the account at the time the writ of garnishment as explained in a floor report of the senate judicial proceedings committee of the granted the defendant’s motion, but without a memorandum opinion. id. at 778.10 accounts were not opened at bank of america to be held in trust by each other. while the to be served upon first national bank (“first national”). id. first national answered the article–courts and judicial proceedings section 11-603 pearce is distinguishable from the instant case because the pearce plaintiffs possessed garnishment proceeding.” id. lastly, the court determined that “a judgment debtor [was] in accordance with the abovementioned standard, we review cts. & jud. proc. art. of the legal process. we do not send a notice if we believe the law prohibits that the husband’s bank, collinsville savings bank (“collinsville savings”), release the (parenthetical phrase omitted); see also river walk apartments, llc v. twigg, 396 md. 527, provisions of the hospital’s bylaws and the employment manual. id. at 778-79. the dishonor or for any other claim relating to the garnishment. constitution. on december 27, 2011, bank of america filed its motion to dismiss the in pearce, 329 md. at 605, a defendant–creditor (“creditor”) obtained a judgment in wright, walk v. hartford cas., 382 md. 1, 14 (2004); todd v. mass transit admin., 373 md. 149, ordered, that the garnishment directed to the garnishee be, and the dorothy’s property that was in the bank’s possession.” on august 20, 2010, bank of6 plaintiff–debtor and her former husband for defaulting on their credit card payments. id. at a person’s possessions, simply upon the ex parte application of any other vol.), § 11-603(c) of the courts and judicial proceedings article [hereinafter cts. & jud.3 its police power arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably. westchester west, 22 competent in performing his duties. the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants, judgment debtors; and xxxxxxxx9382 and checking account no. xxxxxxxx7801 all after its first reading, the bill was referred to the committee on judiciary. controversy as a matter of law, and it is shown that the movant is entitled to judgment, the affirmed. costs to be paid by that the accounts be garnished. id. at 343. on appeal, the michigan court of appeals stated * * * court for baltimore city is shall be owned by us jointly with the right of survivorship and not as tenants in of a writ of garnishment on bank of america, which directed it “to seize and hold all of savings account no. xxxxxxxx9379, savings account no. we may accept and comply with legal process: served in person, by mail, by in diamond v. diamond, 298 md. 24, 32 (1983), the court of appeals determined for summary judgment. on may 24, 2012, the court issued a memorandum opinion, final it struck “not”; in the fifth line, it struck “unless” and substituted “regardless i. whether the trial court provided appellants a reasonable stating: received for deposit. joint bank account with his or her spouse, the court judgment does not “attach.” this differs us from doing so. persons named on the account are the judgment claims.” id. section”; in the second line, it struck “property held jointly by husband and (2006)). our examination is limited to the same record and legal reasoning that the trial court account was a joint account? regulation, is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or entry of summary judgment is proper.” appiah v. hall, 416 md. 533, 547 (2010) (internal holders [were] judgment debtors.” id. at 341. the court further stated that “account holders id. at 234. the plaintiff filed an action, averring that hocking valley should have notified following the statute’s requirements. defendant–husband. the plaintiff requested the trial court to issue a writ of garnishment to had an opportunity to prove its worth.’” bowie inn, 274 md. at 237 . . . . as “an act concerning judgment creditor of any one of the joint owners except that it exempted those favorably, and it was read for the second time. 1989 senate journal, at 2254- presumption of creating a joint tenancy & to vest title to funds constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and noting also that the 33 bill 469 was recommended, which sought to clarify whether the garnishee may place the as a means to avoid confusion, because the parties share the same surname, we refer1 released forthwith to the judgment debtor. with judicial process, there was no wrongdoing on its part that would create a remedy for an entry of judgment giving rise to the garnishment. that “a judgment creditor may serve a garnishment summons on a garnishee, attaching funds the record is devoid of dorothy’s motion for release of garnished funds, as well as7 29 property after the garnishee answers the writ of garnishment. in the former, the garnishee all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the nine states and the district of columbia. if maryland courts were to presume that the . . . [a]lthough [the husband] did not receive a garnishment summons with his (c)(1) if property held jointly in a bank, trust we perceive that this explains why no exhibits were attached in explanation. as a result, (ariz. 1985), the plaintiff–company filed an action against the defendant–trial court when it were “available for withdrawal” under the expedited funds availability act? following: due process clause of the u.s. constitution or article 19 of the (a) except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), a security agreement may (2) a commercial tort claim. oil co., 457 u.s. 922, 937 (1982). appellants argue that cts. & jud. proc. § 11-603(c) after a third reading[,] the bill, as amended, was passed by the house and sent violations of consumer protection laws that shielded consumers against unwanted telephone the district court . . . . these documents are attached to this [r]eply as protection pursuant to the rule regarding tenancy by the entireties. id. at 28. predicated on article–courts and judicial proceedings section 11-603 minnesota courts were “require[d] [ ] to answer certified questions of law concerning the in the amount of approximately $11,500 against the plaintiff–debtor. bank of america state or municipality. westchester west no. 2 ltd. p’ship v. montgomery language in the “account ownership” section of the deposit agreement mentioned tenancy union, savings bank, or savings and loan association or belonging to a non-debtor joint account holder violate the non-debtor’s due all joint accounts of a husband and wife would have been exempt from annotated code of maryland not required, and a person is subject to service . . ., such service may be made 20 district court issued an order on september 14, 2010, which granted dorothy’s motion, article 19 of the maryland declaration of rights provides: garnishment statutes violated the wife’s due process rights, and were thereby were clearly chargeable to the state and constituted state action. if we agree with appellants’ paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the garnishee may not be held liable first national’s motion for summary judgment.16 shown by the evidence in the case.” id. at 42. ultimately, the court affirmed. id. at 43. 14 function, resisting interference unless it is shown that the legislature exercised or any person named on a joint account that is subject to garnishment. hand, would have rendered all joint accounts subject to garnishment by a to the bill and, as amended, gave the bill a favorable report. the bill, as striking “property held jointly by husband and wife” and substituting entered] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” md. rule 2-501(f). upon any given savings and loan association or any of their on the account are the judgment debtors, the garnishee may pay into the court loan association, or any of their affiliates or account and a joint account that the plaintiff shared with the plaintiff–wife (“wife”). id. first the [c]ourt. 1. did the trial court erroneously fail to give [ ] [a]ppellants a reasonable have remedy by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice plaintiff, the wife still had “actual notice,” as evidenced that she sought legal advice along be held void if there are any considerations relating to the public welfare by exemption, indicating that the garnishment is then invalid. in the case at bar, appellants’ appellants’ arguments were predicated on the constitutionality of cts. & jud. proc. delay, according to the law of the land. not covered by the legal process. account owners or signers, we may release information about all co-owners or 10 garnishment. id. furthermore, the court stated that the plaintiff did not support his funding, l.l.c., 688 f.3d 402, 404 (8th cir. 2012), bank of america obtained a judgment hearing. id. at 723. hence, our court affirmed, concluding that the plaintiff “had a full and (c) all accounts in the name of 2 or more persons. – (1) notwithstanding 1. garnishee holds property in a checking account no. xxxxxxxx6220, wanted it deposited so that if he should die before his wife[,] the money would be hers, and against appellees, alleging conversion and/or trespass to chattel, breach of contract, and a8 institutions pondered whether accounts that spouses shared were protected pursuant to any section 1. be it enacted by the general assembly of we surmise that the general assembly examined and balanced a citizen’s due process whether the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, intended to establish a tenancy by the entirety judgment debtors; and nebbia v. new york, 291 u.s. 502, 539 . . . (1934)); see also hargrove v. bd. v. than one who has already been adjudged judicially liable”) (additional citations garnishment.” id. at 348 (footnote omitted). predicated on these determinations, the according to testimony, financial institutions have hesitated to exercise the 36 it struck “not”; in the fourth line of the purpose clause, it struck “unless” and court stated that trial courts would sustain evidentiary and administrative hardships if a [plaintiff and his wife] failed to allege any state action, as required by their due process denied its motion for judgment. the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the debtor–wife amendments[,] which were adopted in the house.” pearce, 329 md. at 621. savings and loan association or any of their affiliates or subsidiaries is after appellants filed their initial complaint, bank of america filed a motion to husband (“husband”). id. to “join all persons who appear[ed] to have an interest in the bank senate amendments. 1989 house journal, at 2549-50. the senate refused to should be accorded more weight in a postjudgment context than it should be statement of facts, or upon clear facts, the legal relation that existed between the parties must america filed a plea, stating: 43 of the maryland constitution. appellees filed their respective motions for judgment,4 submitted “call trace” phone records and an affidavit when he added two defendants to the 24 as stated previously in the instant case, the trial court converted bank of america’s jud. proc. art. § 11-603 did not violate the expedited funds availability act. employ the rules of property to the law of joint accounts. id. at 1073. furthermore, the (3) if the garnishee answers and holds property as provided under to a motion for summary judgment because it considered matters beyond the pleadings. by adding to parties are judgment debtors.” as amended, the committee reported the bill at the time of garnishment whether the account holders are husband and wife. of the bank, and the deposit book given him, to the credit of mr. and mrs. george baker.” alleging several causes of action, including wrongful termination, and attached certain considered the issue in an effort to guide the minnesota district court, stating: circumstances a garnishee may not be held liable to the judgment creditor (2008), rev’d, 422 md. 357 (2011) (“‘the ‘law of the land’ in article 19 is the same due all persons whose names appear on the account are co-owners of the account, when appellants applied and were accepted for an account, bank of america provided account was a joint account. the minnesota district court ruled on the issue in an unpublished case. see savig16 in tyler v. city of college park, 415 md. 475, 500-01 (2010), the court of appeals appellants and dorothy applied for the bank account, as well as bank statements from to the garnishment. ”[14] 25 of rights? the amendments to h.b. 1027 from the time it passed the house until its final name of 2 or more persons at a bank, trust company, credit union, the legislative body is not subject to judicial scrutiny, and the statute will not we also examine federal cases that have ruled on a similar issue. in lind v. midland laws of property to the rules of joint accounts. for the purpose of providing that a garnishment against certain jointly held provisions regarding the lack of due process. id. at 69-70. location where the account, property or records are held. you direct us not to citation omitted). however, we agree with the connecticut supreme court’s reasoning in id. at 344. same hereby is, quashed; and it is further unlike the plaintiff in worsham, but akin to the plaintiff in hrehorovich, appellants accounts are in the name of two (2) or more persons, one (1) or more in fleet bank connecticut, n.a. v. carillo, 691 a.2d 1068, 1069 (conn. 1997), a trial (2) if the garnishee answers as described in paragraph (1) of this long as the record reveals no genuine dispute of any material fact necessary to resolve the the entirety. id. at 40. however, upon the defendant’s death, the court noted that although her] possession or that may come into possession.” med. mut. liability ins. soc. of amendments, and following these amendments, h.b. 1027 provided: husband and wife found any maryland cases concerning garnishment of joint bank accounts pertaining to non- that after midwest bank initially retained the funds in the joint account on (“husband”). id. midwest held the funds, and neither the plaintiff nor her husband garnishee “freezes” the monetary property while it remains in the account. see cts. & jud. attempted to assist one of her children in purchasing land, but the plaintiffs filed a complaint action and filed a motion for partial summary judgment. id. at 716. thereafter, a hearing


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise