RULE 15-1403. RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO CONTEST PROPOSED LIEN; PROCEDURE; CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO ...
West's Annotated Code of MarylandMaryland Rules
MD Rules, Rule 15-1403
RULE 15-1403. RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO CONTEST PROPOSED LIEN; PROCEDURE; CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO CONTEST
(10) a statement that, within 10 days after service of the complaint, the employee may file (A) an answer to the complaint, (B) a motion to dismiss the complaint, or (C) a withdrawal of the Notice of Intent to Claim Unpaid Wages, and may request a hearing as part of a response or in a separate document; and
(d) Response by Employee. Within ten days after being served with the complaint, the employee may file (1) an answer to the complaint, (2) a motion to dismiss the complaint, or (3) a withdrawal of the Notice of Intent to Claim Lien for Unpaid Wages and may request a hearing as part of a response or in a separate document. A request for a hearing shall be made in bolded lettering at or near the caption of the response or document in which the hearing is requested. The court may not enter an order of default based upon an employee's failure to file a timely response to the complaint.
(f) Determination. Within 45 days after service of the complaint, the circuit court shall determine whether to issue an order establishing a lien for unpaid wages in accordance with LE § 3-1103. The employee has the burden of proof to establish the employee's right to the lien based a preponderance of the evidence. If there are any issues or claims raised by either party the resolution of which is not necessary to the determination of whether a lien should be established or the amount thereof, the court may defer determination of those issues.
Committee note: Rule 15-1403 (d) does not preclude an employee from asserting a counterclaim, including a wage claim under LE § 3-427 or § 3-507.2. Such a counterclaim is subject to Rules 15-1403 (f) and 15-1403 (g)(3).
Cross reference: See McCalls Ferry Power Co. v. Price, 108 Md. 96 (1908); Snyder v. Cearfoss, 186 Md. 360 (1946), and Tucker v. State, 89 Md. App. 295 (1991), holding that when a statute prescribes a time limit for court action but provides no sanction or remedy for exceeding that limit, the time limit is regarded as directory rather than mandatory, and the court does not lose its authority to act after the expiration of the prescribed time.
(1) In Favor of Employer. If the court determines that the employee is not entitled to a lien in any amount for unpaid wages, it shall enter an order so stating. If the court determines that the employee's effort to establish a lien for unpaid wages was frivolous or made in bad faith, the court may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the employer.
(2) In Favor of Employee. If the court determines that the employee is entitled to a lien in any amount, it shall enter an order (A) establishing the lien, (B) stating the amount of the lien and identifying each item of property that is subject to the lien, (C) awarding court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and (D) awarding such other relief as the court finds appropriate, including a stay of enforcement.
Cross reference: Rule 15-1403 (g)(2) is derived, in part, from LE § 3-1103 (d)(2).
[Adopted Oct. 10, 2017, eff. Jan. 1, 2018.]
MD Rules, Rule 15-1403, MD R SPEC P Rule 15-1403
Current with amendments received through October 1, 2023. Some sections may be more current, see credits for details.
|End of Document|