John R. BOER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy C. Faya v. UNIVERSITY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL.
No. 67, Sept. Term, 2008.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Aug. 19, 2011.
27 A.3d 175
Allan B. Rabineau, Baltimore, MD, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, BARBERA, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned) and ALAN M. WILNER (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
ALAN M. WILNER (Retired, Specially Assigned), J.
This case presents a very narrow legal issue, but one of first impression.
The relevant facts are undisputed. The decedent in this case, Dorothy Faya, lived for most of her 82 years at her home in Catonsville, in Baltimore County. On November 29, 2002, when she was 81 and had been living alone for some time, she suffered a fall and was taken by ambulance to St. Agnes Hospital. She remained at St. Agnes, which is located in Baltimore City, for about three weeks, until December 21, 2002. Upon her discharge, the intent was to take Ms. Faya to a nursing home in Catonsville, but, while en route, she became unable to breathe on her own, so she was taken instead to University Specialty Hospital (USH), a licensed chronic care
With the exception of five emergency admissions to two nearby acute care hospitals, both located in Baltimore City, for brief periods—three of them for a day or less—Ms. Faya remained at USH for the next eleven months, until November 21, 2003, when she died. During her stay at USH, she remained on the ventilator and feeding tube. She was mentally competent but unable to talk.
During the first few months of her hospitalizations, Ms. Faya‘s hospital and medical bills were covered by Medicare. That insurance was exhausted on March 29, 2003, however. Her daughter, Deborah Boer, was advised, and, either from Ms. Faya‘s accounts or joint accounts of mother and daughter, Ms. Boer made three payments between May and November 2003, totaling $35,896. Counsel to USH attempted to work with Ms. Boer to have her mother qualify for Medicaid benefits, but, unfortunately, Ms. Faya died before that could be arranged. The outstanding balance due USH at the time of Ms. Faya‘s death was $206,343.
On December 10, 2003, prior to the opening of an estate and the appointment of a personal representative, USH filed a claim with the register of wills in Baltimore City.2 On February 18, 2004, Ms. Faya‘s will was admitted to probate in Baltimore County and her son-in-law, John Boer, was appointed as personal representative. On October 1, 2004, USH filed a claim for $206,343—the actual amount owed—with the register of wills in Baltimore County. The personal representative denied the claim on the ground that it was not filed timely—within six months after the decedent‘s death—and that the claim filed in Baltimore City, which was timely, was invalid because, in his view, Ms. Faya did not “reside” in the City at the time of her death.
“Although she was hospitalized for approximately nine months, she never changed her mailing address to have her mail sent to the University Specialty Hospital nor did she have her clothes or personal possessions moved to the [hospital]. In fact, each time Decedent required emergency treatment or laboratory tests she was transferred to another hospital and discharged from [USH].3 Throughout her stay at the [USH], Decedent maintained her home at the [Catonsville property] and it was her intent to return to [the Catonsville property] if possible. As a result, this Court finds that Decedent did not ‘reside’ in Baltimore City.”
USH filed an appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which affirmed the judgment, largely for the reasons stated by the Orphans’ Court. The Circuit Court also recognized that “resided” was not synonymous with domicile but, citing Black‘s Law Dictionary, required “only bodily presence as an inhabitant of a place.” It too found, however, that “the facts of this case do not support the conclusion that the
USH appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which, in an unreported opinion, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court. The intermediate appellate court resolved the issue by applying traditional rules of statutory construction. By permitting a creditor, prior to the appointment of a personal representative, to file a claim in the county where the decedent “resided” at the time of her death, the Court concluded that the Legislature obviously intended that the claim could be filed in a place other than the decedent‘s domicile and that residence “simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place.” (quoting from T.P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Huge, 197 F.Supp. 860, 863 (D.Md.1961)). In the case at bar, the Court held, Ms. Faya‘s “bodily presence as an inhabitant of a Baltimore City health facility at the time of her death” qualified her as a resident of the City when she died.
We granted the personal representative‘s petition for certiorari to review the Court of Special Appeals decision and, for the reasons that follow, shall affirm it.
As a preface, we are not in accord with any implication from the Court of Special Appeals opinion that the mere fact that a person is bodily present in a particular county at the time of his or her death means, for purposes of
There was, however, a specific time range within which the claim had to be filed. It could not be filed prior to the appointment of the personal representative, nor, with limited exceptions, could it validly be filed more than six months after that appointment. See
That remained the law until 1989. The 1989 law that made the change was enacted as an emergency bill in order to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988), which invalidated, on due process grounds, the statutes of limitations or repose, like that in Maryland, which cut off claims after a period commencing with the opening of a judicial proceeding. The Title to the bill (1989 Md. Laws, ch. 496) made clear that the principal purpose of the bill was to “alter[ ] certain time limitations on the presentation of creditor‘s claims against a decedent‘s
The amendment to
This Court‘s cases dealing with domicile look principally to the person‘s subjective belief as to where his or her true home is located. If the person is physically somewhere else, the Court has given overwhelming weight to evidence that the person hopes, intends, or expects to return. See Blount v. Boston, 351 Md. 360, 368, 718 A.2d 1111, 1115 (1998) (“This Court has held on numerous occasions that the ‘controlling factor in determining a person‘s domicile is his intent. One‘s domicile, generally, is that place where he intends it to be.‘“). The objective indicia usually considered by the Court—where the person is registered to vote, the address on the person‘s driver‘s license, where the person receives mail or keeps furniture or other belongings, for example—seem to be examined less for any direct bearing on domicile and more in determining what the person‘s subjective belief really is and whether it is reasonable under the circumstances. See Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490, 499, 325 A.2d 392, 397 (1974); Stevenson v. Steele, 352 Md. 60, 70, n. 3, 720 A.2d 1176, 1180, n.3 (1998).
That kind of deference to the person‘s subjective hope or intent, which both the Orphans’ Court and the Circuit Court stressed in reaching their respective conclusions, has
This was not a situation of Ms. Faya‘s being in a Baltimore City facility for acute care or even for a several-week or several-month period of longer-term therapy or care that, one day, would no longer require her presence there. Of critical importance in looking at the reality of her situation, the undisputed evidence was that, during the entire period of eleven months left to her, Ms. Faya was unable to be weaned off a ventilator and had to be fed through a feeding tube. The only times she left University Specialty Hospital were when she needed more acute care at other hospitals, all in Baltimore City. The fact that, because of Medicare requirements, the hospital was required to formally discharge and readmit her if she were away for more than 24 hours has no significance whatever because she was, in fact, returned to USH each time.
Here, notwithstanding what turned out to be unduly optimistic progress notes made within a few months after her arrival at USH indicating some improvement in her condition and some prospect of her returning home, the evidence at the more critical times nearer to her death eight months later was clear that, due to her unfortunate medical condition, it remained unlikely that she ever would have been able to return
As an element of domicile, this Court has defined “residence” as the place where one “actually lives.” Stevenson v. Steele, 352 Md. 60, 69, 720 A.2d 1176, 1180 (1998). The plain simple fact, given insufficient attention by the Orphans’ Court and the Circuit Court, is that, in light of Ms. Faya‘s situation, USH was where she “actually live[d]” when she died. That was her dwelling, her home, her abode for eleven months—the balance of her life—and likely would have remained so even if she had lived months or perhaps even years longer. She did not die prematurely while in the course of recovery. The two trial courts effectively, and erroneously, grafted on to the concept of actual residency subjective elements of permanency that are more appropriate to determining domicile, and that is not the way the statute should be read.
Relying on the fact that
It is neither reasonable nor practical to base a determination of whether a decedent who was a patient in any of these long-term care facilities “resided” there, for purposes of
How is any particular creditor, who may have little knowledge about the decedent other than that he or she died while a patient in a facility, to know whether the decedent would have
A simple investigation by a creditor in this case would reveal that Ms. Faya died while in a long-term care facility, that she had lived there for eleven months and at the time of her death was in no condition to return to her Catonsville home, and that no estate had been opened in any other county. Under
“Upon appointment, a personal representative has an affirmative duty to search the claims dockets in each of the counties in which a claim could have been filed, to discover if any claim was filed prior to appointment. The sooner after death appointment is accomplished, the less likely it is for claims to have been filed elsewhere.”
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals is affirmed.6
BELL, C.J., BATTAGLIA and ELDRIDGE, JJ., dissent.
JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned), J., dissenting, in which BELL, C.J., and BATTAGLIA, J., join.
I dissent. While I agree with the majority‘s conclusion that the Court of Special Appeals erred by determining that a person‘s bodily presence in a particular county served as the main qualification for residency in that county, I believe that the majority opinion makes factual findings not supported by the record and fails to offer any instructive guidance regarding the criteria to determine what is a county of residence under
“If the claim is filed prior to the appointment of the personal representative, the claimant may file his claim with the register in the county in which the decedent was domiciled or in any county in which he resided on the date of his death ....”
Maryland Rule 6-413(a) contains essentially the same provision. The dispositive issue in this case concerns the meaning of the word “resided” in
The majority opinion states that the “relevant facts are undisputed” in this case, but then proceeds to make a variety
Each time Dorothy Faya was transferred to another hospital, she was officially discharged from University Specialty Hospital, and there was always the chance that she would not later have been re-admitted. In hindsight, the majority opinion argues that the fact that Ms. Faya was officially discharged “has no significance” because, in the end, she always returned to University Specialty Hospital. This position, however, overlooks the fact that her return to University Specialty Hospital was never guaranteed after her discharge.1 For every re-admission, she was assigned a new patient number. Her bed at the facility was not saved while she was away, but instead, her belongings were placed in a box and “put ... downstairs in the office ... [to] keep ... in case she came
The majority opinion also treats as a foregone conclusion that Dorothy Faya was never going to return to her home in Catonsville and advises lower courts to consider whether a “person actually might be able or expected to return to his or her former residence or place of domicile” (emphasis in original). In the present case, however, what was “actually” going to happen to Ms. Faya was unknown at time. Neither her physicians nor Ms. Faya herself ever concluded that she would be unable to leave University Specialty Hospital. The record before this Court clearly indicates that Dorothy Faya always intended to return home, and the hospital was well aware of this intent. She was competent during the period of hospitalizations, and the Circuit Court, reviewing the evidence first-hand, found that, for a variety of reasons, her only residence was her Catonsville house, which had remained unoccupied the entire time she was hospitalized.
Although Ms. Faya‘s ultimate discharge plan was uncertain,2 the physician progress notes tracking Dorothy Faya‘s health at University Specialty Hospital indicated that she had shown “great improvement since her admission” and that she was often “feeling really fine and she [did] not have any ... discomfort.”3 She could “move[] ... all four limbs fairly well” and “sit[ ] comfortably in the chair by the side of the
Ms. Faya‘s actual cause of death is another issue obscured in the majority opinion, which states that “[s]he did not die prematurely while in the course of recovery.” However, the record is actually silent on the ultimate cause and location of her death. Ms. Faya‘s hospital records show that staff at University Specialty Hospital commenced cardiopulmonary resuscitation on her and that she was then “sent out [to] 911 to the acute where she was unable to be resuscitated.” A separate report notes that she was “transferred via 911” to “UMMS.” However, where she was sent, what caused her death, and where she ultimately died is not disclosed in the record.
The doctors treating Ms. Faya never gave her the prognosis that the majority opinion now sees fit to pronounce, that Ms. Faya “obviously could not return home.” Ms. Faya was receiving treatment at University Specialty Hospital and, according to her physician‘s progress notes, was doing quite well. The simple fact is, at the time, no one knew what the outcome of Ms. Faya‘s care would be. It is unreasonable, as well as a violation of Maryland Rule 8-131(c),4 for this Court now to make findings of historical facts concerning matters which, at the time, no one knew the outcome and which the Circuit Court record does not reveal.
As a starting point, the majority opinion fails to point out that the Hospital was, at all times, aware that the decedent‘s home was in Baltimore County, as most of her hospital paperwork noted her residence as 606 Stoney Lane in Catonsville. Creditors did not need to conduct an extensive search for Ms. Faya‘s home address, as the majority opinion implies, and her home address was in no way obscured from possible creditors. The majority opinion espouses concern that creditors will be unable to locate the proper venue for filing their claims, but in this case, it could not have been clearer that the most appropriate venue was the county where her home was located and where the majority of hospital records indicated she resided, Baltimore County.
This case presents a simple matter of a creditor filing in the wrong county and not correcting its mistake until the time for filing expired. Rather than taking the optimal course of action and filing a claim in the county where the decedent‘s
At the conclusion of its proceedings, the Circuit Court denied University Specialty Hospital‘s claim, finding that the decedent did not reside in Baltimore City on the date of her death. The court, while acknowledging a legal distinction between a residence and domicile, nonetheless found that the decedent‘s only residence on the date she died was at 606 Stoney Lane, Catonsville, in Baltimore County, which was also her domicile. The court reviewed the facts that had been complied during the hearing and noted that it was “uncontro-
“This lady was there [Baltimore City] for medical treatment only. She intended to get medical treatment, but on a temporary basis. Unfortunately, she couldn‘t get out of the hospital and return to her home.”
As the majority opinion points out, the Circuit Court itself found that “the facts of this case do not support the conclusion that the Decedent ‘resided’ at University Specialty Hospital.” (Emphasis added). The Circuit Court also pointed out that no writings indicated that the decedent intended to change either her residence or her domicile and that the application for medical assistance, prepared for Dorothy Faya by an agent or employee of the hospital, listed her residence as 606 Stoney Lane, as did numerous other documents related to her stay at the Hospital. Even the University Specialty Hospital‘s computer system listed the decedent‘s residence as 606 Stoney Lane.
The majority asserts, and I agree, that “[r]esidence means something more than” “a person who dies while on vacation, or on a business trip, or during a short-term stay in a hospital.” Unfortunately, the majority fails to explain which indicia can or should be used to determine what that “something more” is. In resolving what it means to “reside” in a place, I believe this Court should consider its previous opinions on residency, which the majority opinion, in large part, ignores. Those opinions, however, indicate that an individual does not “reside” in a hospital room, especially when all of the objective criteria indicate that she “resided” elsewhere.
This Court‘s opinions construing and/or applying the words “reside” or “residence” in statutes and constitutional provisions generally have involved enactments where those words were construed to mean “domicile.”6 But
Nevertheless, this Court‘s opinions concerning the words “reside” or “residence” have often construed those words to mean “domicile.” The connection between the words “residence” and “domicile” is logical because a place where someone actually resides (in a non-domiciliary sense) is a major factor in determining whether the location is also that person‘s domicile. But even in opinions where this Court has construed “residence” to mean “domicile,” the decisions lend insight as to what “reside” or “residence” means when those words do not mean “domicile.”
Our opinions have treated the words “reside” or “residence,” in a non-domiciliary sense, as synonymous with “dwelling,” “habitation,” “abode,” “actual residence,” “place where one lives” and “home.” See, e.g., Oglesby v. Williams, 372 Md. 360, 373-379, 382, 812 A.2d 1061, 1068-1072, 1074 (2002) (repeatedly equating non-domiciliary “residence” with “dwelling,” “habitation,” “abode,” “home,” and place where one “actually lives“); Blount v. Boston, 351 Md. 360, 365-372, 379-386, 718 A.2d 1111, 1114-1117, 1121-1124 (1998) (same); Stevenson v. Steele, 352 Md. 60, 69-70, 720 A.2d 1176, 1180 (1998) (residence is where one “actually lives“); Roberts v. Lakin, 340 Md. 147, 153, 665 A.2d 1024, 1027 (1995) (“‘A person may have several places of abode or dwelling‘“); Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490, 497, 325 A.2d 392, 396 (1974) (same). Black‘s Law Dictionary, at 1335 (8th ed.2004), defines “residence” as “[t]he act or fact of living in a given place for some time .... The place where one actually lives, as distinguished from
The common understanding of the words “inhabitant,” “habitation,” “dwelling,” “home,” “abode,” and “place where one lives,” would not encompass a hospital where one is taken for medical treatment because of an accidental injury, and when the injured person intends to return to her “home” as soon as hospitalization is no longer necessary. This understanding is reflected in dictionary definitions. Thus, the word “inhabitant” is defined in Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary at 1163 (1981) as “a person who dwells or resides permanently in a place as distinguished from a transient lodger or visitor ....” “Habitation” is defined as “the act of inhabiting” and as “a dwelling place: HOUSE, HOME, RESIDENCE. ...” (Id. at 1017). Webster‘s defines “dwelling” as a “building ... used for residence: ABODE, HABITATION.” (Id. at 706). “Dwelling house” is defined as a “house ... that is occupied as a residence in distinction from a store, office, or other building ....” (Ibid.). Similarly, “abode” is defined as a “place where one ... dwells: HOME ....” (Id. at 4). Finally, the first definitions of “home” are “the house and grounds with their appurtenances habitually occupied by a family ...,” and “a private dwelling: HOUSE.” (Id. at 1082).
The majority opinion fails to consider these definitions in deciding that Dorothy Faya‘s residence was University Specialty Hospital, but even more troubling, it leaves open the question of which factors contribute to a determination of an individual‘s residency. In evaluating residency, this Court has always considered objective indicators that get to the heart of the question of where the individual lived. A reasonable person, viewing Ms. Faya‘s situation, would not objectively believe that she resided at University Specialty Hospital. No one would have described it as her home or her dwelling. The normal trappings of a residence were simply not present at the hospital. Her family members did not, and could not, reside with her; she did not furnish her room besides having a few personal belonging, and she never changed her mailing address.
Finally, the majority opinion bases its ultimate decision on information that it rightly acknowledges would not normally be available to creditors. The majority notes that, in this case, a “simple investigation” by a creditor would reveal that “at the time of [Ms. Faya‘s] death [she] was in no condition to return to her Catonsville home,” but then criticizes the notion that creditors should be “put to the burden of discovering who [a patient‘s] treating physicians [are] and asking their opinion as to whether [the patient] would be returning home soon—information that, due to health privacy laws, the physicians probably would be unable to supply.” The majority‘s decision relies on information that it knows an average creditor would not be able to obtain. Nevertheless, a “simple investigation by a creditor in this case” would have quickly yielded the address of Dorothy Faya‘s Catonsville home, where the estate was opened and where claims should have been filed.
University Specialty Hospital at all times knew the address of Dorothy Faya‘s home. The Hospital had it listed in their records, and knew that she intended to return there. On the facts of this case, the creditor was well-aware of the decedent‘s residency. It is sincerely unlikely that the Hospital filed in Baltimore City because it was confused as to where Ms. Faya resided. It filed in Baltimore City for its own ease and only now relies on that claim because the appropriately filed claim in Baltimore County was barred as untimely.
Under the facts of this case, the Circuit Court was justified in concluding that Dorothy Faya did not “reside” at the respondent Hospital within the meaning of
Chief Judge BELL and Judge BATTAGLIA join this dissent.
Notes
“The various admissions during the period of time were as follows: 11-29-02 through 12-21-02, St. Agnes Hospital; 12-21-02 through 2-4-03, University Specialty Hospital; 2-4-03 through 2-8-03, Maryland General Hospital; 2-8-03 through 3-25-03, University Specialty Hospital; 3-25-03 through 3-26-03, Maryland General Hospital; 3-26-03 through 3-26-03, one day that was, University Specialty Hospital, patient admitted and discharged the same day; 3-26-03 through 3-27-03, Maryland General Hospital; 3-27-03 through 4-1-03, University Specialty Hospital; 4-1-03 through 4-2-03, University of Maryland Medical Center; 4-2-03 through 4-10-03, University Specialty Hospital; 4-10-03 through 4-15-03, Maryland General Hospital; 4-15-03 through 11-21-03, University Specialty Hospital. All of the above hospitals are located in Baltimore City.”
“(c) Action tried without a jury. When an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
The State Health Plan defines “chronic hospital” as “a facility licensed as a special hospital-chronic disease in accordance with COMAR 10.07.01 that serves patients who do not need acute care or care in another kind of specialty hospital, whose needs for frequency of monitoring by a physician and for frequency and duration of nursing care exceeds the requirements of COMAR 10.07.02 for care in a comprehensive care or extended care facility, and whose expected length of stay, typically exceeds 25 days.” COMAR 10.24.08.16B(10). A “comprehensive care facility” is defined as “a facility licensed in accordance with COMAR 10.07.02 that admits patients suffering from disease or disabilities, or advanced age, requiring medical service and nursing service rendered by or under the supervision of a registered nurse.” COMAR 10.24.08.16.B(12).
Section 8-103(a) provides as follows:Ӥ 8-103. Limitation on presentation of claim.
(a) In general.—Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute with respect to claims of the United States and the State, all claims against an estate of a decedent, whether due or to become due, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, founded on contract, tort, or other legal basis, are forever barred against the estate, the personal representative, and the heirs and legatees, unless presented within the earlier of the following dates:
(1) 6 months after the date of the decedent‘s death; or
(2) 2 months after the personal representative mails or otherwise delivers to the creditor a copy of a notice in the form required by § 7-103 of this article or other written notice, notifying the creditor that his claim will be barred unless he presents the claim within 2 months from the mailing or other delivery of the notice.”