Comptroller of the Treasury v. Mayor of Baltimore

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the State of Maryland acting through the Comptroller of the Treasury, Retail Sales Tax Division, from an order entered in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, dated May 7, 1980, directing the quashing of a writ of attachment served on the City of Baltimore at the direction of the Comptroller of the Treasury to garnish the wages owed to its employee, Shirley B. Allen, a teacher in the public school system of Baltimore City. In this appeal by the Comptroller the following question is presented: "Did the Court below err in quashing the writ of attachment served on the City by the State when it allowed the City to assert the defense of sovereign immunity in an action brought against it by the State?” It appears that on July 25,1972, the Comptroller assessed Shirley B. Allen $6,542.57 for unpaid retail sales taxes, including interest and penalty. Pursuant to the provisions of Md. Ann. Code, art. 81, § 342 (b), the Comptroller on November 2, 1972, filed a lien against any property of Ms. Allen.

Under date of October 18, 1979, the Comptroller had the clerk of the Superior Court of Baltimore City issue a writ of attachment and requested the sheriff to lay the writ of attachment "in the hands of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore — Central Payroll Division, Garnishee, to bind the salary or wages owing the Defendant [Shirley B. Allen].” Baltimore City filed a motion to quash the writ of attachment on the ground that it "is a municipal government and is not subject to Attachment procedures.” On May 7, 1980, the court quashed the writ of attachment. This appeal followed. ²⁰¹ Md. Ann. Code Art. 81, § 208, authorizes the Comptroller of the Treasury to institute attachment proceedings against delinquent taxpayers and there is no contention here by either Ms. Allen or the City of Baltimore that the retail sales tax assessment against Ms. Allen is not valid. They contend, however, that because Baltimore City is a municipal corporation or government, it is absolutely immune from attachment procedures, including those brought by the State of Maryland. They point out that the "genesis of the rule in this State prohibiting the attachment of the salary of a municipal employee is found in Baltimore v. Root, 8 Md. 95 (1855).” In that case Root, a private citizen, laid an attachment in the hands of an official of Baltimore City seeking to garnish the wages of a Baltimore City police officer in order to satisfy a judgment obtained by Root against the officer.

In reversing an order of the lower court approving the attachment, the Court of Appeals observed, at 100: "It has been repeatedly held, that money due by the government to its officers or agents for services rendered by them as such, whilst it remains in the hands of the government or in the keeping of its disbursing agents, is not liable to be attached or seized by the creditors of those having such claims upon the government. This is certainly true in regard to those who hold appointments directly from State authority. The opposite theory would be calculated to produce serious interruptions in the course of public business, and hinder and delay, if not entirely prevent, in some instances, the accomplishment of very important measures, depending for their successful termination upon the prompt and regular supply of the funds on which the officers or agents have to rely.” The Court went on to reason, at 102: "As municipal corporations are parts of the State government exercising delegated political powers, for public purposes, the rule which prevents an ²⁰² attachment from being levied upon a claim of one State officer on funds in the hands of another, applicable to its payment, must apply with equal force to a case like the present. If an argument against the right to attach, based upon inconvenience, can have an influence in any case, it surely should do so where the officers of a large city are, necessarily, very numerous.” Root , of course, involved the action of a private citizen and certainly lends no support, in our opinion, to the proposition