By: Byron E. Macfarlane*

1. Overview

When an individual dies without a Last Will and Testament, their estate passes under the laws of “intestacy.”[1] Intestate succession controls the disposition of the intestate’s probate property.[2] In the absence of an executed testamentary writing, the Maryland General Assembly, like its counterparts in every other jurisdiction in the United States, has enacted legislation to determine who has the privilege of inheriting.[3] As some say, if you do not write a will, the State has written one for you.[4]

1. Intestate Estates in Maryland

Intestacy is considered the state of dying without a will, and the law considers those who died without a will as having “died intestate.” [5] Intestacy laws are essential because of the sheer number of people who do not prepare a Last Will and Testament prior to death and whose heirs do not have the benefit of a testamentary writing to guide the administration of an estate.[6]

Between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023 – colloquially referred to in Maryland state government as Fiscal Year 2023 or FY2023 – the registers of wills across Maryland opened 28,556 probate estates in the state’s 24 jurisdictions, of which 13,954, or 48.9% of estates, were intestate.[7] Therefore, close to half of Maryland estates rely exclusively on the provisions of Maryland’s intestacy laws, as these estates do not have the benefit of an executed Last Will and Testament to determine who will inherit from the probate estate.[8] Additionally, 10,376 of the 13,954 intestate estates, or 74.4% of all intestate estates, were called “small estates,” which are estates valued at up to $50,000.[9] While 74.4% of intestate estates are small estates, small estates comprise just 60.5% of all estates.[10] To summarize, nearly half of all Maryland estates are opened intestate and intestate estates are disproportionately smaller estates, often indicating that the decedents were less likely to have the financial means to hire an attorney and create an estate plan.[11] This reality means that nearly half of Maryland estates rely on intestacy law, and estates for families of lesser means rely on intestacy laws more than others.[12]

1. Historical Context

In 1974, the Maryland General Assembly reorganized and compiled myriad provisions related to decedents’ estates into the Estates & Trusts Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.[13] Maryland law previously situated the bulk of probate law within Article 93 of the Code, and lawmakers, verbatim, copied much of intestacy law into the new scheme.[14] Since that time, there have been many legislative efforts to alter Maryland intestacy law, with limited success and without any comprehensive review of the intestacy laws’ provisions until quite recently.[15] This lack of progress has meant that in the limited instances when intestacy laws have changed, the changes have not been a component of any broad review, but rather a one-off remedy to a real or perceived shortcoming.[16]

Consider, for example, the spousal share in an intestate estate. Lawmakers have only been successfully amended the portion of intestacy law pertaining to spousal share four times in the last forty-nine years.[17] In 1974, the aforementioned Estates & Trusts Article entitled the surviving spouse to the decedent’s entire estate only if the decedent did not have issue (i.e., children, grandchildren, adopted children), parents, siblings, or issue of a sibling.[18] The spouse was entitled to one-third of the estate if there were surviving issue, one-half of the estate if there was a surviving parent, and $4,000 plus one-half of the estate if there was a surviving sibling or issue of sibling.[19]

In 1978, Maryland legislators amended the spousal share statute to entitle the surviving spouse to (1) one-half of the estate rather than one-third if there were surviving issue, or (2) the entire estate if the decedent had no surviving issue or parents.[20] This change established a more generous share for the surviving spouse even when there were surviving issue, and stopped the line of intestate succession at parents, thereby revoking the right of siblings or issue of siblings to inherit.[21] These changes, undoubtedly, would have made more sense to members of the public at that time than they do now.[22]

In 1982, Maryland legislators amended the spousal share statute once again to introduce a distinction between minor and adult children.[23] Accordingly, the surviving spouse would continue to have the right to inherit one-half of the estate, even if the decedent left a surviving minor child.[24] If, however, the decedent left no surviving minor child but a surviving issue, the surviving spouse would receive $15,000 plus one-half of the estate.[25] Similarly, if the decedent left no surviving issue but a surviving parent, the surviving spouse would still receive $15,000 plus one-half of the estate.[26] Like the 1978 measure, this amendment established more generous provisions for the surviving spouse and likely brought the law closer to public expectations.[27]

The next revision to the spousal share statute did not come until 2017.[28] The 2017 measure sought to increase the spousal share from $15,000 to $100,000 in the aforementioned instances – when the decedent left no surviving minor child but left a surviving issue — and when there were no surviving issue but a surviving parent.[29] In its deliberations, the General Assembly felt that a change from $15,000 to $100,000 in spousal share seemed too large, and arbitrarily settled on $40,000.[30] Much like previous revisions to the spousal share, this update entitles surviving spouses to a larger inheritance than under old law.[31]

Prior to 2023, the General Assembly most recent revised the spousal share statute in 2019.[32] The 2019 measure changed the spousal share apportionment when the decedent died without issue but with a surviving parent, from $40,000 plus one half of the estate, to the entire estate if the decedent and spouse had been married for at least five years.[33] The bill, as initially introduced, required a marriage of at least ten years.[34] However, legislators amended this marriage requirement to five years, because the ten-year requirement would disqualify same-sex couples who had only obtained the right to marry in Maryland in 2013.[35] This revision would also effectively remove parents from intestacy in estates when a decedent had been married for a reasonable period of time.[36]

Based on testimony brought before the Maryland General Assembly,  a widowed constituent of the sponsoring state senator prompted this spousal share revision, whose husband died in a car accident around the time of the deceased’s retirement.[37] The deceased spouse had virtually all of the couple’s marital assets titled solely in his own name, did not have a Last Will and Testament, and was survived by his spouse and parents.[38] As the bulk of the marital assets would pass through the decedent’s probate estate since the decedent did not have a will, the law previously only entitled a surviving spouse to $40,000 plus one half of the estate, while the other half of the estate passed to the intestate’s parents.[39] While the proposed legislation would enable the widow to inherit her husband’s entire estate, it also created – for the first time since at least 1974 – a distinction between spousal rights under Maryland probate law based on the duration of the marriage.[40] By creating this distinction, seemingly without reason, individuals who were married for less than five years are precluded from the same protections.[41]

1. Other Reform Efforts

In the quarter century preceding the 2023 session of the Maryland General Assembly, the legislature only considered twelve bills pertaining to intestacy.[42] Six of these bills failed,[43] but five bills became law.[44] No session of the General Assembly ever reintroduced the remaining bills any capacity.[45] The five successful measures include the 2017 and 2019 changes to the spousal share, various provisions regarding posthumously conceived children such as those precluding parents who have abandoned their children from inheriting from their children’s estates and measures precluding a parent from inheriting from the estate of a child born due to incest.[46] Of all these proposals, only the recent changes to the spousal share could be considered meaningful reforms to intestacy in Maryland because the others, while not without merit, do not fundamentally alter inheritance; rather, the other proposals are narrow provisions for very rare circumstances.[47] It was not until 2022 that legislators undertook the task of thoughtfully considering reform to intestacy in a comprehensive manner.[48]

• Workgroup Formation

In early 2022, this author, along with the Honorable Alexis Burrell-Rohde, members of the Estates & Trusts Section Council of the Maryland Bar Association, and other stakeholders, convened an Intestacy Reform Workgroup (the “Workgroup”) to study and make recommendations for alterations deemed in the public interest of Maryland’s intestacy laws.[49]

The Workgroup’s methodology scrutinized intestacy laws by (1) reviewing materials gathered by the Maryland State Bar Association’s Estates & Trusts Section Council during its investigation into Maryland intestacy laws in years prior, (2) comparing Maryland’s intestacy laws to that of other jurisdictions in the United States, (including states that follow the Uniform Probate Code (“UPC”)), (3) considering the changing nature and composition of modern families, (4) examining practical concerns over how the current law impacts estate administration, and (5)  analyzing how current laws may not meet the expectations of the average citizen in terms of who inherits and in what amount.[50] This final consideration was, perhaps, the most important component of the Workgroup’s effort. As expressed by the Supreme Court of Maryland, “the purpose of the statutes of descent and distribution is to make such a will for an intestate as he would have been most likely to make for himself.”[51] Accordingly, the Workgroup found that many of Maryland’s intestacy laws are currently out of sync with what the average citizen “would have been most likely to make for himself,” a schism it sought to remedy.[52]

This author chaired the Workgroup, which met nine times over nine months and had numerous internal follow-up conversations regarding presenting the group’s recommendations to the public, which included legislators who eventually sponsored the legislation embodying these recommendations in the 2023 Maryland General Assembly.[53] The Workgroup’s deliberations were guided by the principles of bringing Maryland intestacy law more in line with other states, considering the contemporary makeup of families, the desire to streamline probate distribution, and the importance of creating laws more in line with public expectations.[54] The Workgroup honed in on the following key areas of concern: (1) providing protection for the growing number of Marylanders living in domestic partnerships, (2) various circumstances implicating spousal share, (3) the rights of great-grandparents and their descendants as heirs, (4) the inheritance interest thereof, and (5) certain problematic and dated verbiage in Maryland’s probate law.[55]

1. Workgroup Topic 1: Domestic Partnerships

According to the 2021 Census, 8% of unmarried adults report cohabiting with a partner.[56] In fact, the number of unmarried, cohabitating partners has nearly tripled in the last two decades from six million adults to seventeen million adults.[57] Individuals choose not to legally marry for a myriad of reasons, including religious differences, financial considerations, and personal preference.[58] Individuals in a domestic partnership, often considered an alternative to traditional marriage, tend to form a single financial unit similar to that of a married couple.[59] However, a surviving domestic partner has no legal standing to serve as personal representative and does not have the right to share in the distribution of the intestate’s estate, regardless of whether the living partner’s contribution was integral to the intestate’s accumulation of assets.[60]

Until the passage of legislation in 2023, a limited exemption to the state inheritance tax was the only benefit Maryland gave  domestic partner after the death of their partner.[61] The inheritance tax is a tax on the clear value of property passing from a decedent to an individual not exempt from the tax.[62] The individuals exempt from inheritance taxes included spouses, lineal descendants (e.g., children or grandchildren), lineal ancestors (e.g., parents or grandparents), siblings and stepchildren.[63] Since domestic partners were not exempt from inheritance taxes, domestic partners used to be obligated to pay a 10% tax on all property inherited from their deceased partner.[64]

In 2009, the Maryland General Assembly enacted legislation that exempts a surviving domestic partner from paying this tax on the interest they inherit in their primary residence.[65] To claim the exemption, the property must be jointly titled with the right of survivorship, and the surviving partner must provide their county’s Register of Wills with either an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership, or two or more documented proofs of partnerships, like a shared bank account or shared home utility bill.[66] While this legislation allowed many partners to avoid paying the inheritance tax on the interest a partner inherits on their home, the surviving partner  would still owe tax on all other inheritance, including probate and non-probate assets. Furthermore, a domestic partner would still have no priority to serve as the decedent’s personal representative or inherit under the laws of intestacy.[67]

The Workgroup, therefore, considered whether domestic partners should have the same rights in intestacy as surviving spouses, in light of the financial partnership undertaken between domestic partners and the intestate, and the growing number of cohabitating adults in domestic partnerships.[68] The group also contrasted Maryland with many other states, including California, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia — all that have domestic partnership registries which provide for identical treatment of registered domestic partners and spouses in intestacy.[69] The Workgroup engaged in extensive deliberations on this issue, and gave consideration to recommending intestacy protections for domestic partners who could prove a partnership existed upon death – as is the case with the narrow inheritance tax exemption – or establishing a registration process that would need to be completed prior to death.[70]

Ultimately, the Workgroup was not comfortable with surviving domestic partners automatically receiving an intestate share from the deceased partner, as it could adversely impact the intestate’s wishes as expressed in their estate planning documents and potentially generate litigation over whether a partnership existed.[71] To avoid disturbing the estate plans of unmarried persons and to prevent the potential chaos of one-sided post-death assertions of a partnership, the Workgroup suggested that Maryland follow the example of other jurisdictions by establishing an “opt-in domestic partnership registry” that requires couples to affirmatively seek recognition of their domestic partnership by submitting an application and other required proof related to the existence of the partnership.[72] By registering as a domestic partner, the surviving domestic partner would be exempt from the inheritance tax on the receipt of all assets and would be treated the same as a surviving spouse in intestate succession, and would also receive the same priority for appointment as personal representative for a statutory family allowance.[73] This recommendation stops short of treating a registered domestic partner the same as a surviving spouse — by implicitly enumerating the benefits of registration and, conversely, explicitly stating that the right to an elective share of the decedent’s estate would not automatically exist.[74]The elective share is a statutory right of a surviving spouse to receive a certain fractional share of a deceased spouse’s estate in the event they are disinherited, not provided for, or are not sufficiently provided for in the decedent’s Last Will and Testament.[75]

The proposed domestic partnership registry would be maintained by the Registers of Wills in each of Maryland’s twenty-four jurisdictions.[76] Modeled largely after the District of Columbia’s longstanding domestic partnership registry, interested couples would be required to sign an application stating that they are both eighteen years or older, not in a partnership with anyone else, unmarried, and are in a committed relationship.[77] The Register would then provide a certificate memorializing the registration, similar in form to Letters of Administration,.[78] The Registers would collectively maintain a database of registered domestic partnerships, accessible to all the Register of Wills offices across the State.[79] To ensure that domestic partners understand the ramifications of registering, the Register of Wills would provide a standard form notice detailing what rights are being conferred and what rights are being curtailed for all couples registering their domestic partnership.[80]

Also modeled after the District of Columbia’s registry, the Workgroup suggested several methods for terminating a registered domestic partnership.[81] These methods include the mutual agreement of the parties, or the declaration by one party with notice given of the termination to the other, both of which would take effect six months after filing.[82] Another method of termination is the filing of a declaration of termination by one partner after six months without contact with the other partner, termed by the Workgroup as “abandonment[,]” which would take effect immediately upon filing.[83] Finally, the death of one partner or the marriage of either or both partners would terminate a partnership immediately.[84]

The Workgroup’s recommendation to establish a domestic partner registry represented a significant policy shift from treating domestic partners as legal strangers after the death of one partner, to treating them like married couples.[85] This registry would also recognize the growing number of adults living in various degrees of committed relationships, provide them with appropriate protections in intestacy, and – like spouses – exempt them from Maryland’s inheritance tax.[86]

• Workgroup Topic 2: Surviving Spouse

One of the most misunderstood provisions in Maryland’s intestacy laws among the public is that a surviving spouse does not always receive one-hundred percent of their deceased partner’s estate.[87] Particularly surprising is that a decedent’s parents are entitled to a share of the decedent’s estate even though the decedent has a surviving spouse.[88] Maryland is also the only state where the surviving spouse’s intestate share is dependent on the age of surviving children and the length of the marriage.[89]

Until the 2023 intestacy reform measure, Maryland spousal shares were structured in one of four ways: (1) If the decedent died, leaving a surviving spouse and any minor children, the surviving spouse received one half of the estate and the other half was distributed to issue (children and grandchildren) in equal shares, per stirpes.[90] (2) If the decedent died with a surviving spouse and any number of adult children, the spouse received $40,000 plus one half of the remainder estate, and the law distributed the other half to issue in equal shares, per stirpes.[91] (3) If the decedent died with a surviving spouse and no issue, but one or more surviving parents, the spouse received $40,000 plus one half of the remainder and the law distributed the other half to the decedent’s parents in equal shares.[92] If the decedent and the surviving spouse were married at least five years, the spouse received the whole estate.[93] (4) If the decedent died with a surviving spouse, no issue, and no surviving parents, only then would the spouse receive the whole estate.[94]

Given that Maryland is the only state that distinguishes between minor and adult children, the Workgroup was inclined to eliminate this distinction as a matter of uniformity.[95] However, in broader discussions with members of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Estates & Trusts Section Council, Registers of Wills throughout Maryland, judges, and state legislators, there were concerns over the ramifications of this proposal.[96] For example, if a decedent died with a surviving minor child and a surviving spouse who is not the parent of the minor child, the surviving spouse would receive an inheritance and have no obligation to support the minor child.[97] This Workgroup proposal, after scrutiny, came to light as inequitable, and so the first of the above-listed spousal share provisions was left alone.[98]

The Workgroup greatly scrutinized the second and third provisions listed above because legislators poorly aligned these provisions with assumptions made by members of the general public, and because the spousal benefit  was relatively minuscule when compared to other states.[99] In addition, these provisions did not reflect the growing number and variety of blended families, a growing trend which the law should adequately address.[100] For instance, many states, including those that have adopted the UPC, provide a different spousal share if the decedent died with issue.[101] Specifically, if the issue of the decedent is an issue of the surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse receives the whole estate.[102] However, if the decedent died leaving issue, and at least one of the issue is not also issue of the surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse receives $100,000 plus half the remainder.[103] In the latter scenario, some states like North Dakota are even more generous, providing that the surviving spouse receive $225,000 plus half of the remainder.[104]

An example better explains these differences. In this situation, A and Z were married, until Z passed away in a UPC state. If Z shared a child with another person (Y), B, then A only receives $100,000 and half of the rest of Z’s estate. However, if B’s parents were A and Z, then A receives the entire estate. Of course, states may amend this UPC language, such as in North Dakota where A receives $225,000 instead of $100,000, if the child is not A’s issue.

Efforts to reform the spousal share since 1974 show that there has been an ongoing theme to provide a greater share of a decedent’s estate to their surviving spouse, due to prevailing assumptions based on the societal value bestowed with marriage.[105] While states have developed diverse approaches to these different family dynamics, the Workgroup recommended adopting the UPC approach.[106] Adopting this approach would protect minor children; ensure that  the surviving spouse in a “traditional nuclear family “inherits the entire estate of the deceased spouse; and entitle issue of a decedent who has no legal or blood relationship with the surviving spouse to inherit subject to an increase of the spousal share.[107]

The fourth provision listed above is the final piece of the spousal share the Workgroup debated.[108] Just as the spousal share is more generous under the UPC and in most other states, Maryland has a unique approach to the spousal share when there is no surviving issue, but one or more surviving parents of the decedent exist.[109] Under the UPC, the surviving spouse receives $300,000 plus one half of the remainder of the estate, and the other half is distributed to the surviving parents in equal shares; however, many states like North Dakota and Colorado provide for an even greater share, where the surviving spouse receives $300,000 plus three-quarters of the remainder of the estate.[110] Notably, Oregon allows the surviving spouse to receive the entire estate.[111]

While generous bestowments to surviving spouses is the minority approach, the Workgroup finds the intestacy laws in many states are so favorable to a surviving spouse that the upfront monetary share is large enough to constitute the entire estate or close to it.[112] Therefore, in order to make the spousal share in these cases simple and straightforward, and to align Maryland law with public expectations, the Workgroup recommended the Oregon approach, which provides that when a decedent dies with a surviving spouse and no issue, the surviving spouse receives the entire estate – regardless of the length of their marriage and the existence of the decedent’s living parents.[113]

• Workgroup Topic 3: Great-Grandparents and Descendants

Until recently, Maryland was in the minority of states which provide for intestate estate distribution to great-grandparents and their descendants.[114] Few people have living great-grandparents at the time of their death who would stand to inherit, and few people have a close relationship, if any, with the descendants of their great-grandparents.[115] Because of the remote and tenuous relationship most people have with the descendants of their great-grandparents, these very distant relatives can be difficult and expensive to locate; these inheritors are sometimes referred to as “laughing heirs” due to their ability to inherit from those they may have never even met.[116] As a practical matter, the Maryland intestate estate distribution to laughing heirs provision is only applied in very rare circumstances in Maryland.^[117] Considering Maryland’s minority status, the policy concern over providing inheritance rights to individuals who are commonly strangers, the potential costs to an estate in locating these heirs, and how infrequently these provisions are applied, the Workgroup recommended that the General Assembly strike references to these distant relatives in Maryland intestacy laws.[118] This  solution adds the benefit of elevating stepchildren in the line of intestate succession.

• Workgroup Topic 4: Stepchildren

Under prior laws, stepchildren would only be entitled to inherit if the decedent had no blood relatives, as distant as great-grandparents and their descendants.[119] Historically, stepchildren were the last in line to inherit before the decedent’s estate would escheat, or revert back, to the local Board of Education.[120] The Workgroup found that it would be very difficult to craft a one size fits all intestacy provision for stepchildren, given the complexities of blended families which take into account the length of marriage, age of children at marriage, wealth, and personal preference.[121] The Workgroup concluded that, like intestate distribution for descendants of great-grandparents, these provisions are rarely applied in probate estates.[122] Thus, the Workgroup elected to support changing the intestate provisions dealing with stepchildren.[123] However, the removal of great-grandparents and their descendants from the line of intestate succession elevates stepchildren, who presumably share a closer relationship with a decedent than very distant blood relatives.[124]

• Workgroup Topic 5: Dated Terminology

            Lastly, Maryland Estates and Trusts Law has, for as long as traceable, differentiated between children conceived within and outside of a marriage.[125] Historic terms used to describe such children have ranged from as offensive as “bastard” children to the more common “illegitimate” children.[126] While this terminology does not have a practical impact on intestacy, or probate generally, the Workgroup found this kind of terminology outdated and stigmatizing.[127] The Workgroup recommended removing those terms and revising how “child” is defined in the Estates & Trusts Article.[128]

Similarly, intestate succession references to grandparents and great-grandparents were classified in terms of   “maternal” and “paternal” sets of relatives.[129] Of course, these terms ignore that a decedent may not have parents of the opposite sex, and so these needlessly gendered terms are both dated and insufficiently inclusive of how families are constituted in the modern world. The Workgroup recommended replacing gendered terms with gender-neutral references to each set of grandparents.[130]

• Legislative Consideration and Their Impact on Probate

Many of these reforms were introduced in both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly in the 2023 session, as Senate Bill 792 and House Bill 755.[131] Both measures were supported by this author, the Register of Wills for Baltimore County, and the Estates & Trusts Section Council of the Maryland State Bar Association.[132] The Senate bill received no opposition in the Judicial Proceedings Committee and was passed by the State Senate on March 10, 2023, by a vote of 46 to 0.[133] While the House bill received some skepticism from the House Judiciary Committee, House Bill 755 was ultimately approved by the House of Delegates on March 17, 2023, by a vote of 131 to 1.[134]  Governor Wes Moore signed these bills into law on May 16, 2023.[135]

The intestacy reform package will ensure that in nearly half of the probate estates opened in Maryland, the decedents’ estates will pass more in line with what the average citizen would expect.[136] This law builds on the prior revisions to the spousal share adopted in 1978, 1982, 2017, and 2019 by more appropriately providing for a surviving spouse or registered domestic partner.[137] When a decedent dies and is survived by a spouse and issue — all of whom are also issue of the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner — or when a decedent dies with no issue but leaves a surviving parent, the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner now inherits the entire probate estate.[138]

This change also means that estate administration will become less burdensome, as there will be fewer interested persons in some intestate estates and unanimous consent by all parties at various stages of the probate process becomes unnecessary.[139] For example, attorney’s fees and commissions for the personal representative may be paid without a petition to the Orphans’ Court, but only if all interested persons consent.[140] Instead of obtaining consents signed by the surviving spouse and potentially adversarial in-laws, the surviving spouse will be able to manage such intestate succession situations on their own.[141] Similarly, a surviving spouse will not need consent from children or parents to proceed under a process known as “Modified Administration,” a streamlined form of probate with less rigorous accounting requirements and little to no interaction with the Orphans’ Court.[142]

Removing a decedent’s parents from the line of intestate succession also resolves concerns over the 2019 amendment to Maryland’s intestacy law.[143] The requirement that a surviving spouse have been married at least five years in order to inherit the whole estate was, as a matter of record, arbitrary.[144] Also, because it created two categories of surviving spouses based on an arbitrary time period, the five-year requirement is constitutionally dubious.[145] While some express concern over “death-bed marriages” and elder abuse, this bifurcation excludes anyone under the age of 23 who could not have been married for five years because of their age, generally anyone who marries and has a spouse who dies by accident or unexpected illness within five years of their marriage, or anyone who is of perfect sound mind and chooses to marry shortly before the end of their life.[146] There are ample legal options available to heirs who wish to challenge the validity of a death-bed marriage without unfairly prejudicing legitimate marriages with the random and rigid requirement imposed by the 2019 statute.[147] Additionally, the elimination of great-grandparents and their descendants from the line of intestate succession, alleviates personal representatives of the cost and time to hire professionals to search for distantly related heirs who the decedent, in all likelihood, did not know existed.[148]

• Summative Conclusion

Intestacy laws are an essential protection for individuals who die without a Last Will and Testament because they ensure a sensible method for determining heirs and provide consistent guidance for interested persons in estates, for attorneys, and for the judiciary. As vital as they are, Maryland intestacy laws have been subject to minimal reform efforts and, until 2022, had never been studied and scrutinized in a comprehensive manner.[149] After months of research, discussion, and debate, a Workgroup of stakeholders produced a series of recommendations to the Maryland General Assembly.[150] This package restedon the principles of bringing Maryland intestacy law in line with other states, incorporating the evolution of family structures, streamlining estate administration, and creating law that is more in line with public expectations.[151] Ultimately, this package took effect on October 1, 2023.[152]

Crucially, this package also paved the way to grant rightful protections for domestic partners, a rapidly growing segment of society.[153] Effective October 1, 2023, domestic partners in Maryland are able to visit their local Register of Wills and submit a Declaration of Domestic Partnership, which must be signed and notarized.[154] The Register will issue the partners a Certification of Domestic Partnership that will entitle a surviving partner to inherit under Maryland’s intestacy law in the same way as a surviving spouse.[155] The Certificate will also exempt the surviving partner from our state’s inheritance tax.[156]

It was the perspective of the 2022 Workgroup, shared by the Maryland State Legislature, that this overhaul to Maryland’s intestacy law was long overdue.[157] The motto of Maryland’s Judiciary is “Fair, Efficient, Effective Justice for All.”[158] This long-overdue reform keeps with this vision for Maryland’s courts and the people of Maryland; in this case, people who are experiencing the hardest part of their lives – the death of a loved one.

---

* The Honorable Byron E. Macfarlane is the Register of Wills for Howard County, a graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law, and a member of the Maryland State Bar Association. Acknowledgements: I am deeply appreciative of the individuals and institutions that have allowed me to be in the position to hopefully contribute to the legal community’s scholarly discourse regarding estates and trusts law in Maryland. I am grateful for the mentorship and counsel of Professor Angela M. Vallario, and for the support and contributions of members of my staff, including Gary Smith, Chief Deputy, and Greg Staub, Information Technology Manager. I thank my friend and colleague, Alexis Burrell-Rohde, Register of Wills for Baltimore County, for her partnership in ushering through the legislation discussed in this article. This legislation represented the most comprehensive and culturally inclusive reform to intestacy and estate law in over half a century and I could not have asked for a more steadfast, insightful, and dedicated companion on this journey. I also thank the tremendous staff at the University of Baltimore Law Forum for their consistent, thorough, and prompt assistance with the drafting and publication of this article. Finally, I must thank my family, friends, and the voters of Howard County for their support and for electing me to an office where I have the privilege to serve them and work for positive change not just for our county but for our entire state.

[1] Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 3-101 (West 2019).

[2] Id. § 1-301(a).

[3] Hall v. Vallandingham, 75 Md. App. 187, 192, 540 A.2d 1162 (1988) (“The right to receive property by devise or descent is not an actual right but a privilege granted by the state.”).

[4] Id. at 192 (“Every State possesses the power to regulate the manner or terms by which property within its dominion may be transmitted by will or inheritance and to prescribe who shall or shall not be capable of receiving that property. A State may deny the privilege altogether or may impose whatever restrictions or conditions upon the grant it deems appropriate.”).

[5] Intestacy, Cornell L. Sch. Legal Info. Inst., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intestacy (last updated Feb. 2023); see generally Kroll v. Nehmer, 348 Md. 616, 705 A.2d 716 (1998).

[6] Angela Vallario, Don’t Let Death Be Your Deadline: Get A Will Before It’s Too Late: Expand Holographic-Wills Law to Incentivize Will-Making, 30 Elder L. J. 349, 350-51 (2023).

[7] Byron E. MacFarlane & Greg Staub, Analysis of Estates Opened in Fiscal Year 2023 by Estate Type and Will Type (July 19, 2023) (on file with Author).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] MacFarlane & Staub, supra note 7. Note, however, that this could also be due to the bulk of an individual’s gross estate being comprised of assets that are titled jointly, titled with named beneficiaries, or otherwise arranged to pass outside of probate, such as revocable trusts. However, given the nature of small estates, they’re usually opened for individuals of modest means rather than for individuals who are wealthy and have left only a small probate estate.

[12] Reid K. Weisbord, The Connection Between Unintentional Intestacy and Urban Poverty, Rutgers L. Rev. (Feb. 26, 2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2401014.

[13] James G. McCabe, Recent Legislation, Decedents’ Estate – Laws Enacted at the 1974 Session of the Genera; Assembly of Maryland Affecting the Administration of Decedents’ Estates, 4 U. Balt. L. Rev. 199, 200-01 (1974).

[14] Id.

[15] Act of May 25, 2017, ch. 627, 2017 Md. Laws 3733-35; S. 317, 2019 Gen. Assemb., 440th Sess. (Md. 2019).

[16] See infra Part III, Para. 2-5.

[17] S. 317. Revisions include provisions regarding posthumously conceived children, precluding a parent from inheriting from a child they have abandoned, and precluding a parent from inheriting from a child who was born as a result of incest. Id.

[18] Id.; See also Louis J. Rosenthal, Recent Developments in Maryland’s Intestate Succession Law, 13 U. Balt. L.F. 28, 28-29 (1982).

[19] Act of Feb. 18, 1974, ch. 11, 1974 Md. Laws 50. (“Revisor’s Note: These provisions were not changed, except for language and style, from the aforementioned Article 93.”).

[20] Act of Apr. 11, 1978, ch. 111, 1978 Md. Laws 1063-64.

[21] Id.

[22] Katharine T. Barlett, Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives when the Premise of the Nuclear Family has Failed, 70 Va. L. Rev. 879, 879 (1984).

[23] Act of May 20, 1982, ch. 264, 1982 Md. Laws 2548.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Ch. 111, 1978 Md. Laws, at 1063-64.

[28] Act of May 25, 2017, ch. 627, 2017 Md. Laws 3734-35.

[29] Id.

[30] S. 73, 2017 Gen. Assemb. (Md. 2017).

[31] See, e.g., ch. 264, 1982 Md. Laws, at 2548; See also, ch. 111, 1978 Md. Laws, at 1063-64.

[32]  Act of Apr. 30, 2019,  ch. 263, 2019 Md. Laws 1567-68.

[33] Id.

[34] S. 317, 2019 Gen. Assemb. (Md. 2019).

[35] Id.; Hearing on S. 317 Before the S. Comm. on Jud. Proc., 2019 Gen. Assemb., 439th Sess. (Md. 2019) [hereinafter “Hearing on S. 317”] (statement of Sen. Mary Washington, Member, S. Comm. on Jud. Proc.).

[36] Hearing on S. 317, supra note 35 (statement of Sen. Mary Washington).

[37] Id. (statement of Kathleen D. Colleran Nossick).

[38] Id.

[39] Act of May 25, 2017, ch. 627, 2017 Md. Laws 3734-35.

[40] Act of Feb. 18, 1974, ch. 11, 1974 Md. Laws 50; see also, S. 317.

[41] S. 317.

[42] S. 258, 1999 Gen. Assemb., 413th Sess. (Md. 1999); H.D. 1100, 1999 Gen. Assemb., 413th Sess. (Md. 1999); S. 87, 1999 Gen. Assemb., 413th Sess. (Md. 1999); S. 219, 2000 Gen. Assemb., 414th Sess. (Md. 2000); S. 173, 2001 Gen. Assemb., 415th  Sess. (Md. 2001); S. 71, 2012 Gen. Assemb., 430th Sess. (Md. 2012); H.D. 857, 2013 Gen. Assemb., 433d Sess. (Md. 2013); S. 73, 2017 Gen. Assemb., 437th Sess. (Md. 2017); H.D. 567, 2018 Gen. Assemb., 438th Sess. (Md. 2018); S. 109, 2018 Gen. Assemb., 438th Sess. (Md. 2018); H.D. 783, 2018 Gen. Assemb., 438^th Sess. (Md. 2018); S. 317, 2019 Gen. Assemb., 440th Sess. (Md. 2019).

[43] H.D. 783; S. 219; S. 258; S. 71; H.D. 567; S. 109.

[44] H.D. 1100; S. 73; H.D. 857; S. 173;S. 317.

[45] S. 87.

[46]  Act of May 27, 1999, ch. 685, 1999 Md. Laws 3763-66; Act of May 18, 2001, ch. 582, 2001 Md. Laws 3098-3100; Act of May 16, 2013, ch. 644, 2013 Md. Laws 5487-91; ch. 627, 2017 Md. Laws, at 3733-34; Act of Apr. 30, 2019, ch. 262, 2019 Md. Laws 1567-68.

[47] See ch. 626, 2017 Md. Laws, at 3733-34; ch. 262 2019 Md. Laws, at 1567-68; Meeting Minutes from the Md. Intestacy Reform Workgroup (Mar. 3, 2022, Mar. 29, 2022, Apr. 23, 2022, May 23, 2022, Jun. 9, 2022, Jul. 7, 2022, Aug. 24, 2022, Oct. 3, 2022, Nov. 2, 2022) (on file with author).

[48] See generally Act of May 16, 2023, ch. 647, 2023 Md. Laws (though the Governor signed this bill in 2023, this bill began substantive development in 2022).

[49] Meeting Minutes from the Md. Intestacy Reform Workgroup, supra note 47 (Workgroup members include:  Hon. Byron Macfarlane, (Register of Wills for Howard County), Hon. Alexis Burrell-Rohde (Register of Wills for Baltimore County), Rachel D. Burke, Esq., Angus Derbyshire, Esq. (Asst. Dir. For Pro Bono, Md. Legal Aid), Christine W. Hubbard, Esq., Shakisha A. Morgan, Esq., Michaela C. Muffoletto, Esq., Micah G. Snitzer, Esq., and Laura L. Thomas, Esq. Administrative and strategic support was provided by Joshua Greenfeld, Esq. (Chief of Staff, Reg. of Wills for Balt. Cnty.), judges of the Orphans’ Ct. for Prince George’s Cnty.; Athena Malloy Groves and Wendy Cartwright, attended the first meeting and a portion of the second meeting of the Workgroup, neither they nor any other Judge of an Orphans’ Court participated further.)

[50] Id.

[51] Barron v. Janney, 225 Md. 228, 234–35, 170 A.2d 176, 180 (1961).

[52] Id. at 234-35, 170 A.2d 176 at 180; see also Meeting Minutes from the Md. Intestacy Reform Workgroup, supra note 47.

[53] Meeting Minutes from the Md. Intestacy Reform Workgroup, supra note 47.

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] Census Bureau Releases New Estimates on America’s Families and Living Arrangements, U.S. Census Bureau (Nov. 29, 2021), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/families-and-living-arrangements.html. 

[57] Id.

[58] Erez Aloni, Incrementalism, Civil Unions, and the Possibility of Predicting Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage, 18 duke j. gender l. & pol’y 105, 109 (2010) (discussing the view that marriage is a “patriarchal and discriminatory institution”);  One-in-Five U.S. Adults Were Raised in Interfaith Homes, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Oct. 26, 2016), https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/10/26/one-in-five-u-s-adults-were-raised-in-interfaith-homes/#:~:text=Roughly%20one%2Din%2Dfive%20U.S.,new%20Pew%20Research%20Center%20study; see generally Belinda Luscombe, Why 25% of Millennials Will Never Get Married, time (Sept. 24, 2014 6:13AM), https://time.com/3422624/report-millennials-marriage/.

[59] Courtney Thomas-Dusing, The Marriage Alternative: Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, or Designated Beneficiary Agreements 17 J. Gender, Race & Just. 163, 166 (2014).

[60] Hearing on S. 792 Before the S. Comm. on Jud. Proc. 2023 Gen. Assemb., 443rd Sess. (Md. 2023) (testimony of Hon. Alexis Burrell-Rohde, Reg. of Wills for Balt. Cnty.)

[61] Md. Code Ann., Tax-Gen. § 7-203(l) (West 2018).

[62]  Tax-Gen. § 7-202.

[63] Tax-Gen. § 7-203(l).

[64] Tax-Gen. § 7-204(b).

[65] Act of May 19, 2009, ch. 602, 2009 Md. Laws 3405-06.

[66] Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 6-101(b) (West 2008).

[67] Tax-Gen § 7-202; Md. Code Ann., Est & Trusts § 5-104 (West 1974).

[68] See Census Bureau Releases New Estimates on America’s Families and Living Arrangements, U.S. Census Bureau (Nov. 29, 2021), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/families-and-living-arrangements.html.

[69] Domestic Partner Registries, Unmarried Equality (Last Updated Mar. 2013), https://www.unmarried.org/domestic-partnership/registries/.

[70] Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meetings, Maryland Intestacy Reform Workgroup at 6, 8 (May 23, 2022 & Aug. 24, 2022) (on file with Author).

[71] Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meeting, Maryland Intestacy Reform Workgroup at 5 (May 23, 2022) (on file with Author).

[72] See id.

[73] Id.

[74] Id.

[75]  Claire S. Calomeris, What Are You Entitled to When Your Spouse Dies – The Elective Share, People’s L. Libr. of MD (Jan. 17, 2022, 7:07 AM), https://www.peoples-law.org/what-are-you-entitled-when-your-spouse-dies-elective-share.

[76] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations from Alexis Burrell-Rohde, et al., to Md. Gen. Assemb., at 3 (on file with Author).

[77] Registered Domestic Partnerships in Maryland, Md. Off. of Reg.’s Wills (2023) https://registers.maryland.gov/main/publications/Domestic%20Partnership%20Registration.pdf; see also H.D.755, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023). S. 792, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023).

[78] Timonthy Canney, Estate Administration Overview, People’s L. Libr. of MD, https://www.peoples-law.org/estate-administration-overview (July 21, 2021, 3:39 PM). Letters of Administration are issued to personal representatives when estates are opened, Id.

[79] Intestacy Reform & Domestic Partnership Registry: Summary of Current Law and New Law, Md. Off. of Reg. Wills (2023), https://registers.maryland.gov/main/publications/Intestacy%20Summary%20Grid.pdf.

[80] Registered Domestic Partnerships in Maryland, supra note 77.

[81] D.C. Code Ann. § 32-702 (West 2016); Act of May 16, 2023, ch. 647, 2023 Md. Laws.

[82] Ch. 647, 2023 Md. Laws.

[83] Id.

[84] Id.

[85] Brenda Wintrode, Bill Will Grant Probate Protections for Domestic Partners, Eliminate Inheritance Taxes, Balt. Banner (May 11, 2023, 5:30 AM), https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/politics-power/state-government/domestic-partnership-rights-maryland-TSZXXJXT2JGGJNCTNWAHSWLFXY/.

[86] Id.

[87] See Md. Intestacy Law, People’s L. Libr. of MD., https://www.peoples-law.org/maryland-intestacy-law. Maryland is the only jurisdiction in the United States that distinguishes between minor and adult children in intestacy. Id.

[88] See id.

[89] Id.

[90] Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 3-102(b) (West 2019) (prior to 2023 amendment).

[91] Id. § 3-102(c) (prior to 2023 amendment).

[92] Id. § 3-102(d), (e) (prior to 2023 amendment).

[93] Id. § 3-102 (e) (prior to 2023 amendment).

[94] Id. § 3-102(f) (prior to 2023 amendment).

[95] Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meeting, Maryland Intestacy Reform Workgroup at 7 (Jul. 12, 2022) (on file with Author); Intestacy Leg. Recommendations from Alexis Burrell-Rohde, et al., supra note 76, at 3.

[96] See Minutes of the Joint Meeting of Rep.’s of the Md. Orphans’ Ct. Judges, Md. Reg.’s Wills, Md. Atty. Gen. Off., Md. Comptroller’s Off., & Md. State Bar Est. and Tr. L. Section Council, at 2-3 (Oct. 13, 2022) (on file with Author).

[97] Est. & Trusts § 3-102 (prior to 2023 amendment).

[98] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations , supra note 76, at 3; cf. H.D. 755, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023); S. 792, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023).

[99] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76, at 3.

[100] Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meeting at 7 (Jul. 12, 2022) (on file with Author). Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meeting at 8 (Aug. 24, 2022) (on file with Author). Blended families are families in which the heads of household may not both be parents of  all the children in the household. See Jennifer Siedman, Functional Families and Dysfunctional Laws: Committed Partners and Intestate Succession, 75 U. Colo. L. R. 211, 216, 226 (2004); see also Terin Barbas Cremer, Reforming Intestate Inheritance for Stepchildren and Stepparents, 18 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 89, 89 (2011).

[101] See Alex S. Tanouye & Elisa Shevlin Rizzo, Surviving Spouse’s Rights to Share in Deceased Spouse’s Estate 50 (2nd ed. 2021) https://www.actec.org/assets/1/6/Surviving_Spouse%E2%80%99s_Rights_to_Share_in_Deceased_Spouse%E2%80%99s_Estate.pdf?hssc=1.

[102] Id.

[103] Id.

[104] Id.

[105] Act of Apr. 11, 1978, ch. 111, 1978 Md. Laws; Act of May 20, 1982, ch. 264, 1982 Md. Laws; Act of May 25, 2017, ch. 627, 3733-35; Act of Apr. 30, 2019, ch. 262, 2019 Md. Laws.

[106] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76, at 3.

[107] Id.

[108] Id.

[109]  Act of Apr. 30, 2019, ch. 262, 2019 Md. Laws (stipulating that the surviving spouse’s intestate share is based on the length of their marriage to the decedent, yet no other state has such a provision); see Tanouye & Rizzo, supra note 101, at 30-31.

[110]  Unif. Prob. Code § 2-102A(2) (amended 2019).  Tanouye & Rizzo, supra note 101, at 32, 38, 43, 68 (indicating the following intestate shares: Massachusetts ($200,000 plus ¾ of the remainder), Montana ($300,000 plus ¾ of the remainder), NH ($250,000 plus ¾ of the remainder), and WA (¾ of the estate)).

[111]  Tanouye & Rizzo, supra note 101, at53.

[112]  Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meeting at 7 (Jul. 12, 2022) (on file with Author).

[113] See id; see Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76, at 3.

[114] Hearing on S.B. 797 Before the Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. 7 (Md. 1999) (statement in support by the Honorable Byron E. Macfarlane, Reg. of Wills for Howard Cnty., Md.).

[115] Stephanie Rosenbloom, Here Comes the Great-Grandparents, N. Y. Times (Nov. 2, 2006), https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/fashion/02parents.html.

[116] John V. Orth, The “Laughing Heir”: What’s so Funny?, 48 Real Prop., Tr. & Est. L.J. 321, 322-24 (2013).

^[117] Byron E. Macfarlane, et al., Analysis of Heirs in Intestate Estates Opened in Howard County in Fiscal Year 2021,  (on file with Off. Howard Cty. Reg. of Wills). This analysis of the 413 intestate estates opened in Howard County in FY2021 showed that 77.75 of estates’ heirs were limited to a surviving spouse or issue, 20.57% were parents or descendants of parents, 1.2% were grandparents or descendants of grandparents, and 0% were great-grandparents or descendants of great-grandparents. Id. Maryland, unlike other jurisdictions, has laws which curb such inheritance to the fifth degree. Kenneth G.C. Reid, et al., intestate Succession, at 416 (2015).

[118] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76; Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meetings, Maryland Intestacy Reform Workgroup at 6, 8, (Apr. 25, 2022) (on file with Author).

[119] Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 3-104(e) (West 2019) (prior to 2023 amendment).

[120] See id. § 3-105(a)(2)(ii).

[121] Minutes for Intestacy Workgroup Meetings, Maryland Intestacy Reform Workgroup (Apr. 24, 2022) (on file with Author).

[122] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76.

[123] Id.

[124] Id.

[125] Est. & Trusts §§ 1-205, 1-206, 1-208 (prior to October 1, 2023).

[126] Id.

[127] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76.

[128] Id. (recommending the use of “marital” vs. “non-marital” children).

[129] Est. & Trusts § 3-104(c)(1) (prior to October 1, 2023).

[130] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76.

[131] S. 792, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2023); H.D. 755, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2023).

[132] S. 792; see Committee Testimony and Witness Signup, S. 792, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023); see Committee Testimony and Witness Signup, H.D. 755, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess, (Md. 2023).

[133] See S. 792; see Committee Testimony and Witness Signup, S. 792; see Voting Report, S. 792, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023).

[134] See H.D. 755; see Committee Testimony and Witness Signup, H.D. 755; see Voting Report, H.D. 755, 2023 Gen. Assemb., 445th Sess. (Md. 2023).

[135] S. 792.

[136] Macfarlane & Staub, supra note 7.

[137] Act of Apr. 11, 1978, ch.111, 1978 Md. Laws 1063-64; Act of May 20, 1982, ch. 264, 1982 Md. Laws 2548; Act of May 25, 2017, ch. 626, 2017 Md. Laws 3733-35; Act of Apr. 30, 2019, ch. 262, 2019 Md. Laws 1567-68.

[138] Act of May 16, 2023, ch. 627, 2023 Md. Laws 10-11.

[139] Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 7-604(a)(1) (West 2022).

[140] Id.

[141] Id. § 5-702(5).

[142] Id. § 5-707; Byron E. Macfarlane, Administering Estates in Maryland: A Basic Instructional Guide, Howard Cnty. Reg. of Wills, (Apr. 2023), https://registers.maryland.gov/main/region/howard/Administering%20Estates%20in%20Maryland%20Guide.pdf.

[143] Ch. 262, 2019 Md. Laws, at 1567-68.

[144] See generally Hearing on S. 317, supra note 35.

[145]  Michael J. Higdon, (In)Formal Marriage Equality, 89 Fordham L. Rev. 1351, 1370 (2021), https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=utklaw_facpubs. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (“Equal Protection Clause”).

[146]   Jeffrey E. Nusinov & Paul D. Raschke, Maryland Will Contests: Caregivers, Gold Diggers, and Death-Bed Marriages (2019), https://www.msba.org/product/maryland-will-contests/.

[147]  Annulment, People’s L. Libr. of MD., https://www.peoples-law.org/annulment (June 28, 2023, 3:33 PM).

[148] Orth, supra note 116.

[149] Vallario, supra note 6, at 355; see also S. 426, 2022 Gen. Assemb., 444th Sess. (Md. 2022).

[150] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76.

[151] See Meeting Minutes from the Md. Intestacy Reform Workgroup, supra note 47 ( “Statement of Purpose” for Workgroup: “Intestacy laws Workgroup were written a long time ago and amended in a way that is not holistic. Goal is to modernize these statutes to better reflect how familiar are organized in 2022 as compared to the 1950s when the statutes were written. The laws should reflect what the average person on the street expects and understands.”

[152]  S. 792, supra note 131.

[153] Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Census Bureau Releases New Estimates on America’s Families and Living Arrangements, supra note 56.

[154]  S. 792, supra note 131.

[155] Id.

[156] Id.

[157] Intestacy Workgroup Recommendations, supra note 76.

[158] Mission and Vision, Md. Cts. (last visited Sep. 22, 2023), https://www.courts.state.md.us/about/mission.