Marvin Mandel, Governor 1975
The Chief Judge of the District Court of Maryland has re-
quested that I veto House Bill 993 because the notices, as set forth
in the bill, are defective. The Chief Judge has informed me that
the Court will administratively implement the objectives of House
Bill 993. For the reasons given in the attached copy of the Chief
Judge's letter, which is to be considered a part of this message,
I believe this measure must be vetoed.
Sincerely,
/s/ Marvin Mandel,
Governor.
Letter from District Court of Maryland
May 16,1972.
Mr. John C. Eldridge
Executive Department
State of Maryland
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Dear Mr. Eldridge:
House Bill 993, prepared by the Landlord Tenant Commission,
had a worthy objective, which was to provide a means of com-
municating with the tenant in simple language. However, Section
39S—Notice to Come to Court contemplates a legally insufficient
form in that, contrary to the stated language (line 29) it is not a
complaint.
The Put Out notice, provided for in the same bill, would be an
exercise in futility, because the landlord—tenant law, both present
and proposed, (House Bill 439), provides that:
(1) appeals are to be filed within two days after judgment is
rendered
(2) applications for warrant of ejectment are received by the
court two days after judgment is rendered, at which time,
if the warrant is issued, the "put out date" is established.
Thus, the tenant would not receive this notice until after the
time for an appeal had passed, and the date of "put out" would re-
main uncertain.
We have discussed this with Judge Silver, Chairman of the
Landlord-Tenant Commission, with Minor Carter who developed this
bill, and with Professor McElhaney, advisor to the Committee, and
all agree that it will be sufficient if we provide a simple statement
to the tenant of his rights and of possible court action to be included
in the original mailing. This we will do.
For this reason, I recommend that the Governor veto this bill.
Sincerely,
/s/ Robert F. Sweeney,
Chief Judge.
|
|