 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tyrone W. v. Danielle R.12/3/1999
by the court of its revisory power).
A circuit court's decision about whether to grant a party relief from a judgment (except from a judgment that is void as having been entered without jurisdiction, see Eisenhardt v. Papa, 46 Md. App. 375, 384-85 (1980); Miles v. Hamilton, 269 Md. 708, 713 (1973)) on one of the grounds available for doing so is an equitable consideration within its sound discretion. Kemp v. Cook, 18 Md. at 139. " he decision involves taking account of several incommensurable factors, some relating to the particular case and others to the larger system of administered Justice." Restatement of Judgments, Second, § 74, cmt. g. Consistent with equitable principles, the party seeking relief from an enrolled judgment must show that he exercised ordinary diligence in discovering the ground for relief and in requesting relief, that he acted in good faith, and that he has a meritorious claim or defense. J.T. Masonry Co., Inc. v. Oxford Construction Services, Inc., 314 Md. 498, 506 (1989).
A court's discretionary exercise of its revisory power to afford a party relief from an enrolled judgment is thus in the nature of an equitable remedy. By amending F.L. § 5-1038(a) to add a new basis on which the court may exercise its power to grant relief from an enrolled judgment of paternity, the General Assembly affected a remedy by broadening it. So long as by doing so it did not create a new substantive right or disturb a pre-existing substantive right, the statutory amendment is remedial and is presumed to apply retrospectively. We will return to that topic shortly.
An enactment also may be regarded as "remedial in nature" if its object is to correct existing law, "to redress existing grievances[,] and to introduce regulations conducive to the public good." State v. Barnes, 273 Md. 195, 208 (1974)(holding "remedial in nature" the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act of 1965). As such, remedial statutes "are to be liberally construed in order to advance the remedy and obviate the mischief." Id.; Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 256 (1995); see also Janda, 237 Md. at 171 (holding that statute would be applied retroactively when to do so would better effect the remedial intentions of the Legislature in enacting it.).
At their inception, the Maryland civil paternity laws, of which F.L. § 5-1038 is a part, were remedial in nature. Civil paternity laws first were enacted in Maryland effective June 1, 1963, as part of Laws of Maryland (1963), chapter 722. They replaced the existing criminal bastardy and fornication laws, which were repealed by the same Act. As the Court of Appeals discussed at some length in Gill v. Ripley, 352 Md. 754 (1999), the 1963 changes in the law to a large extent implemented recommendations made by the Commission to Study Problems of Illegitimacy. See Gill, 352 Md. at 778. In its 1961 Final Report to the Maryland General Assembly, the Commission concluded that under the bastardy and fornication laws then in effect, any concern for the support and maintenance of "illegitimate children" merely was derivative of the legislative goals of punishment and of keeping "bastards" from becoming public charges. Final Report of the Commission to Study Problems of Illegitimacy at 12-13 (December, 1961)("Final Report"). "The child's welfare, custody and proper maintenance ha received generally little or no consideration." Id. at 13. The determination of paternity was incidental to the criminal charge of fornication brought against the putative father. See Final Report at 22.
The paternity laws enacted in 1963 contained an explicit statement of purpose: "The General Assembly declares its conviction that the State has a duty to ameliorate the deprived
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|