241 Md. App. 56
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- Decedent Robert M. Watkins, Jr. died domiciled in Maryland in 2014, survived by third wife Emeline (married in Florida 2012) and daughter Shannon (personal representative).
- Shannon admitted the Will to probate in Prince George’s County and opened ancillary probate in Florida for Florida real property. Emeline sought to revoke Maryland probate claiming Florida domicile.
- Orphans’ Court found Decedent remained domiciled in Maryland, and that Emeline procured the marriage by undue influence (findings not challenged on appeal).
- The Orphans’ Court applied Fla. Stat. § 732.805(1)(a) and concluded Emeline was barred from any elective share; Emeline appealed only the relief (not the undue‑influence or domicile findings).
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals held the Florida statute was inapplicable because Decedent was domiciled in Maryland, but affirmed the Orphans’ Court judgment on the alternative ground that the doctrine of unclean hands bars Emeline from claiming the elective share.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Emeline) | Defendant's Argument (Shannon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Decedent was domiciled in Maryland at death | Decedent domiciled in Florida; Maryland probate should be closed | Decedent domiciled in Maryland; Maryland courts may administer estate | Orphans’ Court found Maryland domicile; Emeline abandoned challenge on appeal; finding affirmed |
| Whether Orphans’ Court could deny Emeline an elective share based on undue influence | Orphans’ Court lacked authority; Florida statute inapplicable because Decedent was domiciled in Maryland; Maryland law governs elective share | Florida law could apply to marriage-related issues; alternatively Maryland’s unclean‑hands doctrine bars relief | Fla. statute inapplicable (applies only to Florida domiciliaries); but court correctly barred Emeline from elective share under Maryland common‑law unclean hands doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Wamsley v. Wamsley, 333 Md. 454 (definition of domicile and settled connection test)
- Blount v. Boston, 351 Md. 360 (importance of residence and voter registration; other factors relevant)
- Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490 (list of factors for domicile analysis)
- Adams v. Manown, 328 Md. 463 (unclean‑hands doctrine requires nexus between misconduct and claim)
- Green v. McClintock, 218 Md. App. 336 (will set aside for undue influence)
- Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435 (lex loci celebrationis governs validity of foreign marriages)