Boer v. University Specialty Hospital
27 A.3d 175
| Md. | 2011Background
- Dorothy Faya lived in Catonsville, Baltimore County, with their home at 606 Stoney Lane for most of her life.
- She was hospitalized in Baltimore City hospitals from Nov 2002 to Nov 2003 and died there, while remaining physically in City facilities for most of the period.
- Her hospital bills were largely covered by Medicare; after payments by her daughter, a balance of $206,343 remained.
- US Health facility University Specialty Hospital filed a claim with the Baltimore City register before any estate was opened; a separate Baltimore County claim was later filed by USH.
- The decedent's estate was opened in Baltimore County in February 2004 with a personal representative; the estate denied the City claim as untimely and not in the proper county, leading to litigation that ultimately challenged what it means to “reside” under Md. Est. & Trusts Act § 8-104(c).
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court and concluded that “resided” could include a decedent who was physically present in a hospital in a county different from the domicile; the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, upholding the City filing as proper under § 8-104(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'resided' under § 8-104(c) | USH argued that bodily presence in a hospital (City) can establish 'resided' for filing. | Personal representative argued 'resided' is an objective, non-domiciliary concept, not simply bodily presence. | Residency under § 8-104(c) is determined by objective facts; hospital residence can qualify, not limited to domicile. |
| Whether Faya resided in Baltimore City at death | The record shows long hospital stay in City and absence of Catonsville occupancy; City filing should stand. | The decedent's home remained Catonsville; residency did not transfer to City. | The decedent resided in Baltimore City under § 8-104(c) at death for purposes of filing. |
| Timeliness and venue of filing | City filing pre-death was timely under § 8-104(c)’s three-venue option. | County filing was timely/proper; City filing was improper for pre-appointment claim. | City filing was timely; County filing was untimely and barred; City filing valid under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blount v. Boston, 351 Md. 360 (1998) (residence and domicile distinguished; domicile controls in constitutional contexts)
- Stevenson v. Steele, 352 Md. 60 (1998) (residence and domicile conceptions; actual living location matters)
- Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490 (1974) (residence/domicile distinctions; indicators of actual residence)
- Oglesby v. Williams, 372 Md. 360 (2002) (non-domiciliary residence concepts; dwelling/home analysis)
- Roberts v. Lakin, 340 Md. 147 (1995) (residence/reside and domicile distinctions; multiple abodes)
- Tulsa Professional Collection Servs. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (due process; limitations on state statutes of repose/limitations)