2176

LAWS OF MARYLAND

Ch. 296

AT ANY POINT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS TITLE, THE COURT MAY
ORDER EITHER PARTY TO PAY TO THE OTHER PARTY AN AMOUNT FOR THE
REASONABLE AND NECESSARY EXPENSE OF PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING THE
PROCEEDING.

(C)  REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS.

BEFORE ORDERING THE PAYMENT, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER:

(1)  THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND FINANCIAL NEEDS OF
BOTH PARTIES; AND

(2)  WHETHER THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR
PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING THE PROCEEDING.

(D)  EXPENSES PAID PREVIOUSLY.

THE COURT MAY AWARD REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY REASONABLE AND
NECESSARY EXPENSE THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN PAID.

(E)  COUNSEL FEES.

AS TO ANY AMOUNT AWARDED FOR COUNSEL FEES, THE COURT MAY:

(1)  ORDER THAT THE AMOUNT AWARDED BE PAID DIRECTLY TO
THE LAWYER; AND

(2)  ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LAWYER.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from former Article 16, §
3.

In subsection (b) of this section, the former
reference to "a divorce" is deleted. The deleted
former language suggested that former Article 16, § 3
was intended to apply to an award of expenses in any
divorce proceeding, rather than only in a divorce
proceeding in which alimony is prayed, and that the
word "title" in the language "under this title"
referred to former Article 16. This suggestion was
misleading for several reasons. The word "title"
appeared elsewhere in former Article 16, §§ 1 through
5, in contexts in which the word could only be
construed to refer to the provisions for alimony.
See, e.g., former Article 16, § 5(a), in which both
"article" and "title" were used, each mutually
exclusive of the other. Also, the title of Ch. 575,
Acts of 1980, the bill that enacted former Article 16,
§ 3, clearly limited the scope of that bill to
alimony. Because of the narrow title of the bill,
principles of statutory construction dictate against
an interpretation that "under this title" in former
Article 16, § 3 referred to former Article 16 in its
entirety. See, e.g., Williams and Fulwood v.