In Maryland, as in most states, a person can sue their spouse. Spouses can sue one another for anything for which non-spouses can sue one another. This includes a lawsuit for breach of contract or a tort action. The defense of interspousal immunity is no longer available. Today, spouses have the same rights to sue each other as non-spouses.

Read the Law: Md. Code, Family Law § 4-204, 4-205

Read the Case: Bozman v. Bozman, 376 Md. 461 (2003)

Maryland's History 

Historically, Maryland restricted the ability of a person to sue their spouse under the doctrine of interspousal immunity. This legal principle, rooted in common law, was based on the idea that marriage merged the legal identity of the wife with that of the husband. Under this rule, spouses were considered a single legal entity, preventing them from suing one another.

Blackstone's Commentaries gave the doctrine's rationale:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert, foemina viro co-operta; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage." 

Blackstone adds, in discussing the consequences of this union of husband and wife, "If the wife be injured in her person or her property, she can bring no action for redress without her husband's concurrence, and in his name, as well as her own: neither can she be sued without making the husband a defendant." Quoted in the Bozman case, at page 469.
Over time, societal changes and legal reforms began to challenge the justification for interspousal immunity. Critics argued that the doctrine unfairly denied justice to injured spouses and was inconsistent with evolving views on marriage as a partnership of equals. The erosion of interspousal immunity in Maryland occurred through a series of landmark court decisions that gradually dismantled the doctrine. Each case addressed different aspects of the legal and policy justifications for the immunity, culminating in its complete abolition.

1. Lusby v. Lusby, 283 Md. 334 (1978)
   • Significance: Allowed lawsuits between spouses for intentional torts.
   • Key Points: The court held that intentional harm by one spouse against another should not be shielded by interspousal immunity. It rejected the argument that allowing such claims would harm marital harmony, reasoning that the harm itself already undermines the marriage.
2. Boblitz v. Boblitz, 296 Md. 242 (1983)
   • Significance: Abolished interspousal immunity for negligence claims.
   • Key Points: The court ruled that the doctrine was outdated and inconsistent with modern legal and societal views of marriage. It recognized that barring negligence claims between spouses denied justice and failed to protect the partnership of equals that marriage had become.
3. Bozman v. Bozman, 830 A.2d 450 (2003)
   • Significance: Abolished the doctrine entirely for all tort claims.
   • Key Points: The court declared interspousal immunity to be a relic of outdated legal principles, rooted in a conception of marriage that no longer applied. It emphasized that denying spouses the right to sue each other was unjust and unnecessary, given modern safeguards against collusion and fraud.

These decisions reflect Maryland's shift toward ensuring justice for injured spouses and rejecting outdated notions of marriage that once justified immunity. Today, spouses have the same rights to sue each other as non-spouses.