Comptroller of the Treasury v. Immanuel
85 A.3d 878
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Abandoned Property Act makes the Comptroller the legal custodian of unclaimed property and requires public disclosure of certain owner information.
- Henry Immanuel, a tracer, sought a top 5,000 unclaimed-property accounts sorted by value (excluding exact values) under the Public Information Act.
- Comptroller denied, arguing the request would require creating a new public record and would disclose private financial information.
- Circuit Court granted relief, ordering production in the requested format; Comptroller appealed.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the request seeks information the Act requires to be disclosed, but sorting by value overbroadly discloses incremental financial information and the top-5,000 scope may violate thresholds; remand to define precise production boundaries.
- The Abandoned Property Act requires annual publication of owners with claims >$100; Public Information Act exemptions must be reconciled with this statutory disclosure mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the request require the Comptroller to create a new public record? | Immanuel argues it is a data extraction from existing records, not a new record. | Comptroller contends formatting would create a new record. | No new record creation required; mechanical extraction/sorting from existing data. |
| Is the requested disclosure of owner data protected as personal financial information? | Disclosures align with statutory publication requirements and public interest. | Disclosing financial information falls under §10-617(f)(2) privacy exemptions. | Not entirely; statutory Abandoned Property Act disclosure overrides, with limitations. |
| May the data be sorted by dollar value or limited to top 5,000? | Sorting by value should be produced as requested. | Sorting would reveal incremental financial information and may exceed statutory scope. | List cannot be sorted by dollar value; proceed with boundaries to avoid overreach. |
| How should the conflict between the Abandoned Property Act and the Public Information Act be resolved? | Public information should be disclosed consistent with the Act. | Public Information Act privacy protections limit disclosure. | Reversed in part and remanded to define precise production consistent with Abandoned Property Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Md. Dep’t of State Police v. Md. State Conference of NAACP Branches, 190 Md. App. 359 (2010) (public record definition and permissive severability; inspection priority)
- Haigley v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 128 Md. App. 194 (1999) (adequate factual basis and de novo review on statutory interpretation)
- Governor v. Washington Post Co., 360 Md. 520 (2000) (production of redacted records; public disclosure balancing)
- Prince George’s County v. Washington Post Co., 149 Md. App. 289 (2003) (severability and disclosure of reasonably separable portions)
- Suter v. Stuckey, 402 Md. 211 (2007) (reconciliation of statutes with preference for disclosure)