 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bozman v. Bozman9/4/2002
This appeal asks that we examine the "aged, if not antiquated," doctrine of inter-spousal immunity. Despite its antiquity, the doctrine remains a part of Maryland's common law.
Appellant, William E. Bozman, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County dismissing his two-count second amended complaint against appellee, Nancie L. Bozman, on the ground that it was barred by inter-spousal immunity. Appellant presents the following questions for our review, which we have rephrased:
I. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Count I of the second amended complaint on the ground of inter-spousal immunity because malicious prosecution is an outrageous intentional tort, to which the defense of inter-spousal immunity does not apply?
III. Did the circuit court err in dismissing Count II of the second amended complaint on the ground of inter-spousal immunity because the parties were not married when the cause of action arose?
We hold that the tort of malicious prosecution is not so outrageous as to bring it within the narrow exception to the doctrine of inter-spousal immunity, and thus we affirm the decision of the circuit court dismissing Count I of the second amended complaint on this basis. But, because appellee failed to demonstrate that the parties were married when the cause of action in Count II arose, we vacate the court's dismissal of that count and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Appellant and appellee were married in a civil ceremony in Baltimore County, Maryland on August 16, 1968. As of late, a tenuous relationship has existed between the parties.
In January 2001, appellant filed a one-count complaint for malicious prosecution against appellee. The complaint alleged that on three separate occasions appellee filed false criminal charges against him, causing the State's Attorney for Baltimore County to file a criminal information. The charges included stalking, harassment, and multiple violations of a protective order. The complaint further alleged that some of the charges were dismissed before trial and the remainder resulted in appellant's acquittal.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss appellant's complaint on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the doctrine of inter-spousal tort immunity barred the suit. Attached to the motion was a memorandum of law and an affidavit, signed by appellee and dated February 16, 2001, stating " hat she is still married to [appellant]."
On March 12, 2001, after the filing of appellee's motion to dismiss but before the court ruled on it, the parties were divorced. Thereafter, the court dismissed appellant's complaint with fifteen days leave to amend it.
Appellant filed an amended complaint, curing a factual deficiency in the original complaint. Appellee responded with a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, again asserting inter-spousal immunity. Appellee attached to the motion a memorandum of law and an affidavit, signed by her and dated April 23, 2001, again stating " hat at all times alleged in the Amended Complaint," the parties were husband and wife.
On July 30, 2001, the court held a hearing on appellee's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. At the outset, appellant informed the court of his intention to file a second amended complaint that same day, incorporating by reference the allegations contained in his amended complaint and adding a second count for malicious prosecution. Count II of the second amended complaint alleged that appellee maliciously and falsely filed new charges against him for vi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|