Green v. Nassif
426 Md. 258
Md.2012Background
- Decedent Walter L. Green died in 1993 leaving a $28+ million estate to his wife Nassif and his children, including Carlton Green as personal representative and legatee.
- Nassif elected to take a statutory share under ET § 3-206, nullifying her will bequest under § 3-208(a).
- Green, as PR and heir, pursued enforcement of substantial enforceable claims against the estate and sought to deduct them from Nassif’s elective share.
- Orphans’ Court issued findings favoring Green on several issues, including that enforceable claims are payable at distribution and Nassif earns no income on net estate; later rulings differed.
- Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals issued rulings narrowing Nassif’s rights, with Green prevailing on some points and Nassif on others, prompting petitions for certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
- Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed some holdings, reversed others, vacated part, and remanded for calculation consistent with its opinion, including a rejection of a 13-year cash-out time limit and a ruling that enforceable claims mean those that reduce the estate or are court‑allowed.
- The decision also addresses valuation dates for elective share assets and whether income and the Maryland Uniform Principal and Income Act apply to elective shares.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of enforceable claims for net estate | Nassif argues enforceable claims = paid or allowed; Green argues = any claim capable of enforcement. | Green argues enforceable claims are broader than paid/allowed, reducing the net estate. | Enforceable claims = claims that actually reduce the estate or are allowed by the court. |
| Elective share income entitlement | Nassif argues she shares in income on assets in net estate during administration. | Green contends no income entitlement existed prior to 2003 amendment; later law only prospectively changes rule. | Elective spouse has income entitlement on net estate during administration; decision to include pre‑existing income is limited by prospective amendments. |
| Application of MD Uniform Principal and Income Act | Nassif contends Act applies to distributions and income in this context; Green contests. | Green argues lack of justiciable controversy and non-application to elective share. | Ruling vacated to determine applicability; no justiciable controversy present at this stage; remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
| Timeliness of cash-out election under ET 3-208(b) | Nassif argues no time limit; legatees timely attempted cash-out. | Green argues 13-year delay is unreasonable and prejudicial to Nassif. | 13-year delay in cash-out is unreasonable; cash-out cannot be allowed under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crystal v. West Callahan, Inc., 328 Md. 318 (Md. 1992) (implied reasonable time limits to preserve fairness when statute silent)
- Parker v. Bd. of Election Supervisors, 230 Md. 126 (Md. 1962) (implied reasonable time in absence of a deadline)
- D & Y, Inc. v. Winston, 320 Md. 534 (Md. 1990) (absurd/result avoidance by implying time limits)
- Hatt v. Anderson, 297 Md. 42 (Md. 1983) (declaratory judgments require concrete controversy and applicable facts)