Gen. 75] 75 DIS TRICT COURT J UDICIAL A DMINI STRATI ON

) D ISTRICT C OURT N EED N OT O BTAIN A PPROVAL OF B OARD OF P UBLIC W ORKS FOR F EE S CHEDULE
November 4, 1998

The Ho norable Christopher Van H ollen, Jr. Chairman, AELR Com mittee

You have request ed an opini on con cer ning the process by which the D istrict Co urt of M aryland m ay increa se its f ees. M ore sp ec ifi ca lly, you not e that other s tate co urts must obtain the approva l of the Boa rd of Public Works to set fees and ask if the D istrict Court is ex em pt fr om this r equ irem ent. In our o pinion , the D is tri ct Co urt is no t require d to o btain app rov al of

the B oar d of

Pu blic W ork s to s et fe es.

I Background Your request

was prompted by

inquiries r eceivedbythe AELR Comm itt ee a fter t

he promulgat ion of revi sed fee schedul es for Maryland

state courts. The C hief Judg e of the D istrict Court recen tlyamended Distri ct Court Admini strative Regul ationXIX to revise the fee s chedule for the Dist rict Court. At t

he same ti me, the State Court Administ

rator issued a revis ed schedule of fees for t he circuit courts that ha d been approvedby the Board of Public Works. At the dir ecti on of the Chief Judge o f the Co urt of A ppea ls, the Sta te Cou rt Administr ator publ ished bot h revis ions i n the Maryland Registe r . See Administr ative Memorandum 98-3, 25-14 Maryland Registe r1111, 11 14-16 (Ju ly 2, 1998).76 [83 O p. Att’y

1 Th is provision

was adde d in 1975 to r

eplace a list of st

atutorily prescribed

fees. Chapter 548, §1, Lawsof Maryland 1975. A t that time, clerks’ off

ic es of the circuit courts were funded by fees. This provision was ap parentl

y a dded to pe

rmit gre ater fle

xibility in incre asing f

ees to offset the effects of inflation. Following a 1986 ame

ndment of

the State Constitution, the cl erks’ o ffices were fu nded t hrough the State budget and the fees co llected by the clerks became State re venues,unless otherwise specified by law. Chapter

722 , La ws of Maryla

nd 1986; Maryland Constitution, Article IV, §10. II

Determination of

Court Fees A. Statut

es The process f

or deter mining the fees char ged by t he s tate cour ts is set forth in Title 7 of the Cou rts and Judicial Pro ceed ings Articl e, M arylan d C ode (“C J”). The statutes c harg e the S tate Cou rt Administr ator

with the resp onsib ili ty to set fees for bot

h the appe llate cour ts and the circ uit courts , subj ect t o the approva l of the Board of P ublic W orks. W ith resp ect to th e circu it c o urts, CJ §7- 202(a)(1) provides:

The State Court

Administr ator s hall de termine the amo unt o f all co urt costs and charges for the circuit court s of the counties w ith t he approval of the Board of Publi c Works . The fees a nd ch arges shall be uniform throughout the Stat e. (emp hasis added ). 1 Similarly , with r espect to the Court of Ap peals and Court of Special Ap peals, CJ §7-102 provides:

The State Court

Administr ator s hall de termine the amo unt o f fee s to be charged by the Clerk of the Court of

Appea ls andthe Cler

k of the Cou rt of SpecialAp pea ls, with theapproval of the Board of Public Works

.Gen. 75] 77

2 This provision was added in 1976 to repl ac e a list of statutorily prescribed

fees. Chapter

523, L aws of Ma

ry land 1976 . As with

the circ uit courts,the purpose appeared to be to allow gr eater flexibility in setting fees to offset inflation.

3 Chapter 5 28 of the L

aws of Maryland, 1970 (then codified at Maryland Code, Article 26, §143(b)) authorized the Chief Judge to issue rules for the ad

minist ration of the court. Chapter 423, §9, La ws of Ma ryl and19 71 specified that the court’s fees “shall be those now prescribed by law, subject to modification by law or by Rule”(then codified at Article 26, §150A(c)). In1975, both provisions were amended to include the term “administrative regulations.” Chapter 10 , §1, Law s of Maryland 1975. This cha nge in nomenclature helps diff erentiate between rules ad opted by the Court o f Appea

ls and a dministrative regulations issued by

a chief judge. (emp hasis added) 2 . Thus, t he fee schedul es in both t he appell ate and circuit cour ts are su bject to approval by the Board of

Public Works. Bycontras t, t

he stat ute gov ernin g fees for civil ca ses in t he Distri ctCourt does not refer t o the Bo ard of P ublic W orks. In particular , CJ §7-301(c)(1) states :

The filing fees a nd c osts in civil cases are those pre sc ri be d byla w subje ct t o modificatio n by l aw, rule, or adminis trative reg ulati on. The Chief Judge of t

he Distric t Cou rt, wh o has respo nsibility for the ma intenance, administ rati on, and operation of t he cour t, i s authori zed to promulgate administ rati ve regulations for the Dis tri ct Cou rt “subject

to and not inconsist ent with the r ules of the Court of Ap pea ls.” CJ §1- 605 (b). In a simil ar vein, the Maryl and Constit utiondecla res tha t t his p ower to adopt a dminist rati ve rules “sha ll be subject

to the rules and regulations adopt ed by t he Court of Ap peals orothe rwi se by law. ” Mar

y land C ons ti tuti on, Art . I V, §18(a). The Chief Judge of t

he Distri ct Court ha s had th e auth ority to issue re gu lat io ns an d s et fee s s in ce sh or tly afte r the cr eati on of the Distri ctCo urt alm ost thirty year s ago 3

. The first regulation setting a fe e sc hed ule w as iss ued in 1 971

. That schedul e has been revis ed period ically witho ut Bo ard o f Pu blic W orks a ppro val.78 [83 O p. Att’y Thu s, costs for civil c ases in the D istrict Co urt may be amended by st atute , rul e, or admi nistrati ve regulation. While the Cou rt of A ppea ls has not adopte d any r ules t hat modify

the amount of the fees applic able t o civilcases i n the Dist rict Court, t he General Ass emb lyhas enact ed le gisl ation a ffecti ng the Dist rict Court fee schedule. Indeed, so me of t he recent amendments to t

he fee sche dule of the D istrict Court were designed t o include a surchar ge imposed by r ecent l egisl ation f or the bene fit of

the Maryl and Legal Services Co rpo ratio n. See Cha pt er 765, Laws of Mary land 1998 (amen ding C J §7-301(c) (2)). Of course, t he administ

rati ve re gulati ons setting fees, like any cou rt rule or r egula tion, m ust n o t offend the S tate o r fed eral c ons titutio ns. See Whitaker v. Pri nce Geo rge’s Co unty , 307 Md. 368, 375- 77, 514 A.2d 4 (1986); Kohr v. State , 40 M d. A pp. 9 2, 96 -97 , 388 A.2 d 12 42 ( 197 8). B. Process The stat utes gover

ning court

fees do not s pecify

anyparti cular pr o cedures for se tting the fee sc hedu les. Th e Jud icial Br anch is exempt from the portion of the Administr ative Procedur e Ac t that sets forth t

he pr oc edures for

promulgati on of administ rati ve regulations by Exe cutive Bran ch ag encie s. M aryland C ode, S tate Go ver nm ent A rticle (“S G” ), §1 0-1 02( b)(2 ). In practi ce, t

he Chief Judge of

the D istrict Co urt and the S tate Cou rt Administr at or follow si milar processes. Both rely on recommendations from the cle rks of cour t to ass ess how the revenues from fees relat e to the expenses of r endering t he services. Th eyalso cons ider s uggesti ons by j udges, bar associ ations , and othe r organizations inter ested i n the fee s. Pursuan t to statutory authori zati on, the fee s che dule s are publ ished i n the Maryland Registe r . See SG §§7- 206( a)( 2)( v), (vi i) , 7- 222. Th e onl y si gnific ant differe nce is that the State Cou rt Administr ator obt ains appr oval of the Bo ard of Publi c Works, while the Chief Judge of the Dist rict Co urt do es no t.

III Conclusion In our o pinion , the C hief Ju dge o f th e D istric t Cou rt is authori zed to revi se the s chedule of fee s appli cable t o civilcases inGen. 75] 79 the Distri ct Cou rt by admini strative r egulat ion without seeking t

he approval of the Bo ard o f Pu blic Works. However, the fee sc hedu le mu st be co nsisten t with any appl icabl e rules issued by the Court of Ap peals or legi slat ion passe d by t he General Assembly . The law does not curr ently

mandate any

specifi c process for the issuanc e of suc h re gul ation s. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Julia M . Freit Assi stant Att orney General Ro bert N . Mc Do nald Chief Counsel Opinions and Advic e