11 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1920–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Benjamin v. Erkgreen1 sentence2025The “Separate Property” Issue As we have related, the circuit court declined to grant summary judgment as to all aspects of the case in order to permit the parties to present evidence as to “what property is included within the definition of ‘Separate Property’ under the Mar[it]al Property Agreement.” 23 In her brief, and citing Benjamin v. Erk, 138 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Washington Mutual Bank v. Homangreen2 sentences2013Bank v. Homan, 186 Md.App. 372, 395 , 974 A.2d 376, 390 (2009) (internal citations omitted)), the court concluded that, due to the execution of the Street note and deed of trust after the Estate filed suit against Street, Petitioners had constructive notice, through lis pendens, of the Estate’s claim to the Pasadena property. 8 Id. at 298, 52 A.3d at 140. 2013Bank v. Homan, 186 Md.App. 372, 395 , 974 A.2d 376, 390 (2009) (internal citations omitted)), the court concluded that, due to the execution of the Street note and deed of trust after the Estate filed suit against Street, Petitioners had constructive notice, through lis pendens, of the Estate’s claim to the Pasadena property. 8 Id. at 298, 52 A.3d at 140. | 1 | 1 |
Milholland v. Tiffanygreen2 sentences2013See Milholland, 64 Md. at 455 , 2 A. at 835 (“Where money has been loaned upon a defective mortgage for the purpose of discharging a prior valid incumbrance, and has actually been so applied, the mortgagee may be subrogated to the rights of the prior incumbrancer who he has thus satisfied....”) Had Petitioners not retired the existing Urban loan, the Estate would have been required to pay-off that loan encumbering the Pasadena property. 2013See Milholland, 64 Md. at 455 , 2 A. at 835 (“Where money has been loaned upon a defective mortgage for the purpose of discharging a prior valid incumbrance, and has actually been so applied, the mortgagee may be subrogated to the rights of the prior incumbrancer who he has thus satisfied....”) Had Petitioners not retired the existing Urban loan, the Estate would have been required to pay-off that loan encumbering the Pasadena property. | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc.green2 sentences2012See also Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc., 302 Md. 540, 545, 489 A.2d 1114 (1985) (The purpose of the real estate exception “is to permit those, who believe that a handgun is necessary to defend their lives or property at home or in their place of business, to carry one on such premises.”) (Emphasis added); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1, 30 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994) (“The applicability of [the real estate] exception to the carrying of a handgun by the appellant in his own home seems clear.”) (Emphasis added). 2012See also Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc., 302 Md. 540, 545, 489 A.2d 1114 (1985) (The purpose of the real estate exception “is to permit those, who believe that a handgun is necessary to defend their lives or property at home or in their place of business, to carry one on such premises.”) (Emphasis added); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1, 30 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994) (“The applicability of [the real estate] exception to the carrying of a handgun by the appellant in his own home seems clear.”) (Emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Wieland v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc., 302 Md. 540, 545, 489 A.2d 1114 (1985) (The purpose of the real estate exception “is to permit those, who believe that a handgun is necessary to defend their lives or property at home or in their place of business, to carry one on such premises.”) (Emphasis added); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1, 30 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994) (“The applicability of [the real estate] exception to the carrying of a handgun by the appellant in his own home seems clear.”) (Emphasis added). 2012See also Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc., 302 Md. 540, 545, 489 A.2d 1114 (1985) (The purpose of the real estate exception “is to permit those, who believe that a handgun is necessary to defend their lives or property at home or in their place of business, to carry one on such premises.”) (Emphasis added); Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1, 30 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994) (“The applicability of [the real estate] exception to the carrying of a handgun by the appellant in his own home seems clear.”) (Emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Pierce v. Moletgreen2 sentences2005See Gordon, 87 P.3d at 92 (rejecting those cases that hold that “benefit to the estate” is a requirement because “none explains how or why the benefit to the estate requirement became part of their statutory reimbursement formula, other than to cite to similarly unenlightening precedents, some of which predate that jurisdiction’s adoption of the Uniform Probate Code”). 2005In In re Estate of Gordon, 207 Ariz. 401 , 87 P.3d 89 (2004), the court discussed the significance of the benefit to the estate concept. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Piper Rudnick LLP v. Hartz
green
2 sentences2020ET § 7-603, which was enacted after Mudge, contains only two conditions: “(1) the defense or prosecution must be ‘in good faith and with just cause,’ and (2) the expenses and disbursements must be ‘necessary.’” Piper Rudnick LLC v. Hartz, 386 Md. at 218 . “[W]hile § 7-603 does not contain an independent ‘benefit to the estate’ requirement, that concept is a factor to be considered in the objective inquiry into whether the personal representative acted in good faith and with just cause.” Id. at 232. 2005App. at 636 ; Annotated Code of Maryland, Courts Judicial Proceedings Article, § 3-901 et seq. (wrongful death actions). 2 The Court of Appeals recently interpreted this provision, holding that "while § 7-603 does not contain an independent `benefit to the estate' requirement, that concept is a factor to be considered in the objective inquiry into whether the personal representative acted in good faith and with just cause." Piper Rudnick LLP v. Hartz, 386 Md. 201 , 232 , 872 A.2d 58 (2005). 3 An attorney has a lien for attorney's fees on a client's cause of action, settlement, judgment or awar | 2 | 2005–2020 |
Downes v. Downes
green
1 sentence2025Code, Est. & Trusts § 3-407 states in pertinent part: (a)(1) The election by a surviving spouse to take an elective share shall be made within the later of: (i) 9 months after the date of the decedent’s death; or (ii) 6 months after the first appointment of a personal representative. (2)(i) Within the period for making an election, the surviving spouse may file with the court a petition for an extension of time, with a copy given to the personal representative. (ii) For good cause shown, the court may extend the time for election for a period not to exceed 3 months at a time. * * * 4 The Estat | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Boland v. Boland
green
2 sentences2017Indeed, in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit court “proceeded ... on the assumption ... that the separate sheets of the Will were not mechanically affixed by a staple or other device and were not so affixed when deposited with the Register of Wills for safekeeping on November 17, 2010.” Therefore, the dispute about whether the 2010 Will was stapled at the time of signing “relate[d] to grounds upon which the [circuit court’s] decision [was] not rested.” Boland, 423 Md. at 366 , 31 A.3d 529 . 2017Indeed, in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit court “proceeded ... on the assumption ... that the separate sheets of the Will were not mechanically affixed by a staple or other device and were not so affixed when deposited with the Register of Wills for safekeeping on November 17, 2010.” Therefore, the dispute about whether the 2010 Will was stapled at the time of signing “relate[d] to grounds upon which the [circuit court’s] decision [was] not rested.” Boland, 423 Md. at 366 , 31 A.3d 529 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
cluster 770531
green
1 sentence2006The Estate moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the defects in the original QDRO rendered it a “nullity.” In the alternative, the Estate requested that the District Court amend the terms of the original QDRO to reflect the terms of the Consent Order, which “manifested] the ‘clear intent of the parties.’ ” In the event the court declined to do so, the Estate requested that the District Court stay or dismiss the action so that “the parties [could] ‘fight it out in state court.’ ” Finding that it had “ ‘jurisdiction over an action for inter-pleader to determine the proper beneficiary of | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mary S. Riethmann Trust v. DIRECTOR OF REV.
green
1 sentence2005The Comptroller then assessed the estate state estate tax. *603 In Riethmann Trust v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 46 (2001) (en banc), the Missouri Supreme Court applied a statute with similar wording to the Maryland statute 15 and reached the same result as we do. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Gradman v. Brown
green
1 sentence2005In Gradman v. Brown, 188 Md. 634 , 39 A.2d 808 (1944), a guardian and next friend of the legatees sought attorneys’ fees from the estate to pay for the lawyers he employed to except to the executor’s administration account and to appeal the denial of the exception. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Dalton v. Real Estate & Improvement Co.
green
2 sentences1996Dalton, 201 Md. at 44 , 92 A.2d 585 . 1996Dalton, 201 Md. at 44 , 92 A.2d 585 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Dalrymple v. Gamble
green
1 sentence1920In Dalrymple v. Gamble, 68 Md. 156 , Edwin A. Dalrymple died in Baltimore City, intestate, and leaving a large estate to which his two brothers and two sisters became entitled. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.