4068

VETOES

units of government or in any action of contract.

May 15, 1975.
Honorable John Hanson Briscoe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed House Bill
1672.

This bill provides that, unless otherwise
specifically exempted, the State, the counties, the
municipal corporations, and all of their officers and
agencies are liable in any action of contract, and may
not raise the defense of sovereign immunity with respect
to any written contract entered into by them. The
Governor is required to provide in the State budget
"adequate funds for the satisfaction of any judgment"
which has been rendered against the State or its officers
and agencies in any action of contract. There is no
provision in the bill, as indeed there could not be,
binding the General Assembly not to reduce or delete
those funds from the Budget. The governing bodies of the
counties and municipal corporations of the State are also
required to make available funds to pay such judgments
rendered against them or their officers and agencies.

Last year, I vetoed a generally similar bill (House
Bill 5) because of the uncertainty both as to its effect
in light of the decisions of the Court of Appeals in
University of Maryland v. Haas, 173 Md. 554 (1938) and to
its fiscal implications to State and local government.
The Court stated in Maas that,

"it is established that neither in contract nor tort
can a suit be maintained against a governmental
agency, first, where specific legislative authority
has not been given, second, even though such
authority is given, if there are no funds available
for the satisfaction of the judgment, or no power
reposed in the agency for the raising of funds
necessary to satisfy a recovery against it"
(emphasis supplied).

This bill attempts to overcome the problem of
providing funds to pay judgments by requiring the
Governor to include such funds in his budget; but, as
there is no assurance that the General Assembly will
approve such funds, it would seem that compliance with
the Maas test is, at best, uncertain. A final judgment