Bozman v. Bozman
2003 Md. LEXIS 473, 830 A.2d 450, 376 Md. 461 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity is fully abrogated in Maryland as to all intentional torts. Marital status may no longer be used as a defense to bar a civil suit by one spouse against the other for an intentional tort.
Facts:
- William E. Bozman and Nancie L. Bozman were a married couple.
- While married, Nancie Bozman filed criminal charges against William Bozman on February 17, May 3, and July 19, 2000, for stalking, harassment, and violation of a Protective Order.
- William Bozman initiated divorce proceedings against Nancie Bozman on February 24, 2000.
- As a result of Nancie Bozman's accusations, William Bozman was arrested and incarcerated on five separate occasions and was placed on home detention for approximately eight months.
- While the divorce was pending, on February 2, 2001, Nancie Bozman filed additional criminal charges against William Bozman.
- William Bozman alleged that all the criminal charges brought against him by Nancie Bozman were deliberately fabricated without probable cause and were in retaliation for the divorce proceedings.
- The couple's divorce was finalized on March 12, 2001.
Procedural Posture:
- William E. Bozman filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Nancie L. Bozman in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
- Nancie Bozman moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the suit was barred by the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity.
- The Circuit Court (trial court) granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the action was barred by the doctrine.
- William Bozman, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Special Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that malicious prosecution was not an 'outrageous' enough tort to fall under an existing exception to the immunity doctrine.
- William Bozman filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity remain a valid defense in Maryland to bar a lawsuit between spouses for an intentional tort?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, Chief Judge
No, the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity is no longer a valid defense in Maryland against claims for intentional torts. The court fully abrogates the doctrine, reasoning that it is an antiquated rule of law and a vestige of the past that is unsound in modern society. The doctrine's historical foundation—the legal fiction of the unity of husband and wife—is obsolete. The court rejected modern rationales for its retention, such as preserving domestic tranquility, noting that peace is already absent when one spouse commits a tort against another. Following partial abrogation of the doctrine for negligence in Boblitz v. Boblitz and for 'outrageous' intentional torts in Lusby v. Lusby, this decision eliminates the remaining illogical gap. In joining the overwhelming majority of states that have abolished the doctrine, the court exercised its authority to change a common law rule that is no longer suitable for the people of the state.
Analysis:
This decision completes the abrogation of interspousal tort immunity in Maryland, bringing the state in line with the vast majority of American jurisdictions. By eliminating the doctrine for all intentional torts, the court removes an anachronistic barrier to justice based on marital status, which it deemed a 'vestige of the past.' This ruling simplifies litigation between spouses by removing the need for courts to determine if an intentional tort meets the 'outrageous' standard established in Lusby. While potentially increasing litigation between spouses, the decision ensures that the law provides a remedy for intentional harm inflicted within a marriage, reflecting modern societal norms and the legal equality of spouses.
