Legal Bulletins

Bond v. Slavin et al., 2004 Md. App. LEXIS 96 (filed June 18, 2004)

A bank produced deposit account records for a joint deposit account after receiving a subpoena certifying that one of the depositors (who was involved in a lawsuit) had been served with a copy of the subpoena, in compliance with the requirements of the Maryland Confidential Financial Records Act. Maryland's intermediate appellate court held that the joint owner, who otherwise was not involved in the lawsuit, has a right to a hearing on the issue of whether the court should enter a protective order prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of the subpoenaed financial records. The Court remanded the case to the lower court to allow the joint account holder his hearing "not inconsistent with this opinion."

Practice Pointer: While the bank in this case produced financial records in response to a validly issued subpoena, the Court was concerned that the bank had responded prior to the response date on the subpoena. In light of this case, depository institutions should not produce financial records earlier than or in a manner different from stated in a subpoena.

Legal Concern: The Court's decision may lead the lower court to conclude that a non-party, joint account holder who, under the Maryland Confidential Financial Records Act, would not normally be given notice of a subpoena for financial records, has a right to some notice that financial records relating to the joint account holder have been subpoenaed. Depository institutions should consult counsel for advice on what measures to take at this time in light of the Court's "guiding principles."