Maryland courts need to follow Rule 3-307

Listen to this article

Maryland District Court Rule 3–307, Notice of Intention to Defend, is very clear. It reads that a defendant shall file with the district court, a notice of intention to defend.

The rule is also very clear as to when the notice of intention to defend must be filed; that is, generally 15 days after service of a complaint or a counterclaim.

The problem is that some of the district courts do not follow this rule. Recently, a court clerk told a plaintiff that a defendant had 40 days to file a notice of intention to defend. That’s a case of making up the rules on the fly and it’s wrong for many reasons.

Many lawyers who practice in the district court believe that this sort of conduct coming from the clerk’s office is more the norm than the exception. Or that some of the administrative judges are changing the rules. The problem is that changing or making up the rules on the fly or deviating intentionally from 3–307 creates waste and a loss of effort. Plaintiffs can appear for trial months after serving a defendant, only if the defendant has walked into court and told the court that they have a defense, notorious or not. The case will then get bumped if the plaintiff has to appear a second time, often taking time from work and often at great inconvenience. This sort of practice discourages people from using the courts.

We are told that Washington and Frederick counties are strictly following rule 3–307 and after 15 days from service, are marking those files where no defense is entered; a notice of intention to defend it is filed late is stamped as untimely. Then, a defendant must show up at the time of trial and establish to the court that they have a defense. Not just tell the court they have a defense, but establish that they have a defense. The plaintiff can elect to proceed or can reschedule trial.

This is how it should work. As it is, the rules are the rules. They were established for a reason and should be followed, so that everyone knows what to expect.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Gary E. Bair

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Liebmann

George Nilson

Steven I. Platt

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.