## Facts

- William E. Bozman and Nancie L. Bozman were married in 1968.
- William filed for divorce in Maryland in February 2000, alleging adultery; a divorce decree was entered in March 2001.
- Before entry of the divorce decree, William filed a civil action against Nancie for malicious prosecution.
- William alleged Nancie initiated multiple criminal proceedings against him in 2000, leading to arrests and charges including stalking, harassment, and violations of a protective order.
- William alleged the charges were fabricated, brought without probable cause, and filed in retaliation for the divorce proceedings and his position in those proceedings.
- William alleged he was incarcerated multiple times and subjected to home detention with electronic monitoring for about eight months.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland should retain the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity as a bar to one spouse’s tort action against the other spouse.
2. If not, whether abrogation of the doctrine permits a spouse’s malicious prosecution claim to proceed under ordinary tort rules.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland abrogated the common-law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity.
- The court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s affirmance of dismissal and held interspousal immunity could not bar the action.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the malicious prosecution claim; the court did not decide whether William could prove the tort’s elements.

## Legal Principles

- Interspousal tort immunity, derived from obsolete common-law concepts of marital unity, is a judicially created doctrine subject to judicial abolition.
- Maryland no longer recognizes interspousal tort immunity as a categorical defense to tort claims between spouses.
- Policy justifications traditionally offered for interspousal immunity (marital harmony, prevention of fraud or collusion, avoidance of trivial suits) do not warrant a blanket bar given modern marital status law and ordinary procedural and evidentiary safeguards.
- After abrogation, tort claims between spouses are governed by ordinary tort elements, defenses, and litigation procedures, without an “outrageousness” threshold as a gatekeeping substitute for immunity.

## Conclusion

Maryland abolished interspousal tort immunity and allowed a spouse’s tort action, including a malicious prosecution claim, to proceed without categorical immunity, leaving liability to be determined under standard tort law on remand.


Bozman v. Bozman, 376 Md. 461, 830 A.2d 450 (Md. 2003)