HB27 revises Maryland law governing compensation for guardians of property and trustees. For guardians, the bill replaces the prior cross-reference to trustee compensation with a detailed statutory commission schedule for income, corpus, sales of real or leasehold property, and final distribution, while preserving court authority to adjust compensation in unusual circumstances. It also retains the special cap for guardians of certain disabled persons receiving long-term care services under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program, unless a court finds unusual circumstances.
For trustees, the bill makes compensation more flexible and standards-based. Instead of relying primarily on fixed commission schedules, a trustee whose trust instrument does not specify compensation is entitled to reasonable compensation under the circumstances, and even where a trust sets compensation, a court may increase or reduce it if duties differ materially from what was contemplated or if the stated compensation is unreasonably low or high. The bill also allows certain trustees, including supervised financial institutions and Maryland attorneys, to charge reasonable compensation calculated under a filed schedule of rates, with notice to qualified beneficiaries and court review available if the rates are challenged. Related provisions in the Estates and Trusts Article are updated to align principal/income allocation rules with the new compensation structure.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize and reorganize the compensation framework for fiduciaries in Maryland, especially by distinguishing guardianship compensation from trustee compensation and by clarifying when trustees may use filed rate schedules versus when they are limited to reasonable compensation determined under the statute. It amends multiple sections of the Estates and Trusts Article, including provisions on allocation of trustee compensation between income and principal and on environmental and other principal disbursements, to conform cross-references and terminology to the new rules. The act takes effect October 1, 2025.
The general sentiment around HB27 appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It passed the House 134-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous support in both chambers. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, and the voting record suggests broad agreement that the bill was a technical and clarifying update rather than a major policy dispute.
There is little visible contention in the available record. The main policy choice is between fixed statutory commission schedules and a more flexible reasonableness standard for trustee compensation, with additional oversight through notice and court review. Any potential concern would likely center on beneficiary protections, fee increases, and the circumstances under which trustees or guardians may depart from default compensation rules, but the bill’s unanimous votes suggest those issues did not generate significant opposition.
HB27 amends the Estates and Trusts Article to revise how guardians of property and trustees are compensated, including detailed commission rules for guardians and a new reasonableness-based compensation standard for trustees. It updates related provisions on notice, court review, and allocation of trustee compensation between income and principal, and it conforms cross-references in the trust accounting statutes to the new compensation framework. The bill affects guardians, trustees, qualified beneficiaries, and courts overseeing estates and trusts in Maryland.
The bill appears to have been received very positively and without meaningful opposition. It passed both chambers unanimously, 134-0 in the House and 47-0 in the Senate. That voting record suggests the measure was viewed as a clarifying and technical update to fiduciary compensation law rather than a controversial policy change.
No significant contention is evident in the available materials. The only substantive policy issue is the shift from fixed commission schedules to a reasonableness standard for some trustee compensation arrangements, along with the ability of courts to adjust compensation and beneficiaries to challenge filed rate schedules. Those provisions balance fiduciary flexibility against beneficiary protections, but the unanimous votes indicate broad consensus rather than active dispute.