In the Matter of Mishra

In the Matter of Anita Rani Mishra, No. 1068, September Term, 2024. Opinion by Woodward, J. GUARDIANSHIP STATUTE AND RULES – LACK OF REQUIRED MEDICAL CERTIFICATES – CIRCUIT COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER AN ALLEGED DISABLED PERSON TO SUBMIT TO AN EXAMINATION OR EVALUATION AGAINST THEIR WISHES GUARDIANSHIP – DISCOVERY – RULE 2-423 – ALLEGED DISABLED PERSON (“ADP”) NOT A “PARTY” WHERE NO SHOW CAUSE ORDER WAS SERVED ON ADP AND ADP DID NOT FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION – CIRCUIT COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER ADP TO SUBMIT TO MENTAL OR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION UNDER RULE 2-423 WHEN ADP IS NOT A “PARTY” In a guardianship action, Brother sought guardianship of the person of his Sister. Sister, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was experiencing paranoid delusions, which caused her to refuse to eat, to take her medication, and to render proper personal care. She also neglected her finances and property, leading to a scheduled tax sale of her home. When Brother filed his petition for guardianship, he filed two medical certificates required by Estates and Trusts Article (“E&T”) § 13-705(c)(2) and Maryland Rule 10-202(a). One of the certificates, however, was not signed by a health care professional specified in E&T § 13-705(c)(2) or Rule 10-202(a). As a result, the trial court did not issue a show cause order under Rule 10-104. Brother filed a motion for a mental examination of appellee pursuant to Rules 10-202 and 2-423 in order to obtain a correct medical certificate. Sister, through court appointed counsel, opposed the motion, asserting that she was exercising her right to refuse medical examination and treatment. The trial court ultimately denied Brother’s motion and then granted Sister’s motion to dismiss Brother’s petition. Brother noted a timely appeal. Held: Affirmed. The Appellate Court first held that there is no language in the guardianship statute or rules authorizing the trial court to order an examination of an alleged disabled person (“ADP”) against their wishes, nor is there any language allowing a medical certificate that is signed by someone other than the health care professionals identified in E&T § 13-705(c)(2) and Rule 10-202(a). Second, after tracing the history of guardianship law back to feudal times, the Appellate Court determined that the “equitable powers” accorded to the Court of Chancery in England and the courts of equity in the several states after the American Revolution did not extend to the adjudication of an individual as “non compos mentis;” rather, “equitable powers” were available to the court for the administration of a guardianship after the adjudication of incompetency or disability. Last, the Appellate Court held that Rule 2-423, which authorizes a trial court to order a mental or physical examination of a party, does not apply to this case because Sister was not a party to the proceeding. The trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over Sister because the show cause order was never issued, and thus never served on her, and Sister never voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by filing an answer. Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No.: C-15-FM-24-000290 REPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND No. 1068 September Term, 2024 ______________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF ANITA RANI MISHRA ______________________________________ Graeff, Arthur, Woodward, Patrick L. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Woodward, J. ______________________________________ Filed: August 27, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.08.27 14:29:56 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk  Appellant, Gyan Sagar Mishra, is the brother of appellee, Anita Rani Mishra. On January 12, 2024, appellant filed an Emergency Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Temporary Guardian of Person and Property of Anita Rani Mishra and a Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Permanent Guardian of Person and Property of Anita Rani Mishra (collectively, the “Petitions”) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Attached to the Petitions were two medical certificates evaluating appellee’s mental health, one by a licensed physician and the other by a licensed clinical professional counselor (“LCPC”). On January 22, 2024, the court issued a “Non-Compliance Notice” regarding the medical certificates. The court deemed the medical certificate signed by the LCPC insufficient under Maryland Rule 10-202(a). On February 28, 2024, appellant filed a motion for a mental examination of appellee pursuant to Rules 10-202 and 2-423 in order to obtain the correct medical certificate. On April 1, 2024, appellee, through court-appointed counsel, filed an opposition to the motion for a mental examination and a motion to dismiss the Petitions for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 2- 322(b)(2). The court denied appellant’s motion for a mental examination of appellee on April 16, 2024, and on April 24, 2024, appellant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Order Entered April 16, 2024. The court denied appellant’s motion to alter or amend by Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated June 26, 2024, and then granted appellee’s motion to dismiss the Petitions by Order dated June 28, 2024. This timely appeal followed. Appellant presents two questions for our review, which as stated in his brief, are as follows:  1. Did the trial court err by dismissing the Emergency Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Temporary Guardian of Person and Property of [Appellee] and the Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Permanent Guardian of Person and Property of [Appellee]? 2. Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant]’s Motion to Alter or Amend Order Entered April 16, 2024 (Request for Hearing)? BACKGROUND The following facts, which are set forth in appellant’s Petitions and motion for a mental examination of appellee, are not in dispute for the purposes of this appeal. At the time of the filing of the Petitions, appellee was a 55-year-old woman who resided alone in Germantown, Maryland. She was divorced and had one minor child, for whom her ex-husband had sole legal and physical custody. Appellee’s living relatives were her mother, two sisters, and a brother (who is appellant). Although appellee has a master’s degree and worked for eighteen years in a high-level position with a federal government contractor, she lost her job several years ago and has remained unemployed. During 2023 appellee suffered a dramatic decline in her mental health. On or about December 17, 2023, appellee was involuntarily hospitalized at Brook Lane in Hagerstown, Maryland, for inpatient psychiatric care. At the time of her commitment, appellee was experiencing paranoid delusions, which caused her to refuse to eat, to take her medication, and to render proper personal care. Appellee was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Appellee was released from involuntary commitment at Brook Lane on December 27, 2023. Appellee refused to remain at Brook Lane voluntarily and returned home that day. 2  Following appellee’s discharge from Brook Lane, appellant visited appellee at her home on multiple occasions. Because appellee did not have a phone or email address, appellant could communicate with her only through in-person visits at appellee’s home. But appellee would only open the door if appellant used an agreed upon knock. During those visits, appellant observed that appellee wore the same clothes, refused to turn on the main lights (instead using a few plug-in lights), used only paper plates and plastic utensils, and did not appear to be taking her prescribed medication. Appellant also became aware that appellee had been neglecting her finances and property. For example, on April 19, 2023, a judgment was entered against appellee for $58,827.22 in unpaid income taxes for the 2018 and 2019 tax years. Appellee failed to pay her real property taxes for the year 2023, and her home was scheduled for a tax sale on June 10, 2024. Appellee also lost her car when it was towed to an impound lot in the District of Columbia and appellee took no action to recover it. Appellee did not check her mail or pay her utility bills, leading to termination notices. When appellant asked appellee about these debts, appellee stated that she had paid them but provided no proof. As of February 2024, appellee no longer allowed appellant to enter her home and only communicated with appellant through a window of her home. On January 12, 2024, appellant filed the Petitions in the circuit court and attached two medical certificates evaluating appellee’s mental health, one by a physician and the other by a LCPC. The evaluations took place while appellee was involuntarily hospitalized at Brook Lane. On January 22, 2024, the court issued a “Non-Compliance Notice” with respect to the medical certificates. The court deemed the medical certificate signed by the 3 LCPC to be insufficient under Maryland Rule 10-202(a)(1) because it was not signed by a licensed physician, licensed psychologist, licensed certified social worker-clinical, or nurse practitioner. Because the Petitions lacked the two requisite medical certificates, the court did not issue a show cause order, and thus appellee was not served with a show cause order, the Petitions, or the Advice of Rights form under Rules 10-104 and 10-203(a). On February 21, 2024, appellant filed a motion for a mental examination of appellee pursuant to Rules 10-202 and 2-423 in order to obtain a correct medical certificate. By order dated February 26, 2024, the circuit court appointed counsel for appellee pursuant to Rule 10-106(a)(2). Because of a deficiency in the filing of the motion for a mental examination, appellant refiled such motion on February 28, 2024. On April 1, 2024, appellee, through court-appointed counsel, filed an opposition to appellant’s motion for a mental examination on the ground, among others, that she was “exercis[ing] her right to refuse medical examination and treatment.” Appellee also filed, through counsel, a motion to dismiss the Petitions for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 2-322(b)(2). On April 15, 2024, appellant responded by filing a reply to appellee’s opposition to the motion for a mental examination and an opposition to appellee’s motion to dismiss. No answers to the Petitions were ever filed by or on behalf of appellee. On April 16, 2024, the circuit court denied appellant’s motion for a mental examination of appellee. On April 24, 2024, appellant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Order Entered April 16, 2024. Appellee filed an opposition to the motion to alter or amend, to which appellant filed a reply. By Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated June 26, 2024, the court denied appellant’s motion, stating: 4  Maryland Rule 10-202(a)(1) requires that two valid certificates be filed with a petition seeking guardianship of the person of a disabled person. Rule 10-202(a)(3) addresses the absence of certificates and Rule 10- 202(a)(3)(A) and 10-202(a)(3)(B) provide a procedure to be followed if the requisite certificates are not filed AND the petition alleges that the disabled person is living with or under the control of someone who has refused to permit examination or evaluation. In such an instance, the [c]ourt is directed to issue an order directing the person allegedly refusing the evaluation to appear and show cause why the alleged disabled person should not be examined or evaluated (10-202(a)(3)(A)). A hearing on the issue is to be conducted and if the court finds that examinations are necessary, the court is to appoint appropriate professionals to conduct examinations or evaluations. The Rule does not authorize entry of an order compelling an examination or evaluation over the objection of the alleged disabled person himself. In the instant matter, the Petitioner does not allege that the Respondent is living with or under the control of another and the Respondent, through counsel, objects to submitting to an evaluation. Maryland Rule 2-423 is a discovery rule providing in pertinent part that when the mental condition of a party is in controversy, and for good cause shown, the court may order the party to submit to an examination. In the instant matter, the mental condition of the Respondent is not yet at issue as the Petitioner has not met the filing requirements necessary for the action to proceed and a motion to dismiss has been filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2). Application of this discovery rule at this stage of the proceedings would circumvent the express language of Estates and Trusts 13-705(c)(2) and Rule 10-202[(a)](1) and render pointless the requirements set forth therein. (Emphasis added). By Order dated June 28, 2024, and entered July 1, 2024, the trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss the Petitions. Appellant noted a timely appeal to this Court. 5  DISCUSSION I. Did the Trial Court Err by Dismissing the Emergency Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Temporary Guardian of Person and Property of [Appellee] and the Verified Petition for the Appointment of a Permanent Guardian of Person and Property of [Appellee]? A. Standard of Review The decision to grant a motion to dismiss is a legal question, and therefore we review the decision without deference to the trial court. Grueff v. Vito, 229 Md. App. 353, 376 (2016). “The grant of a motion to dismiss is proper if the complaint does not disclose, on its face, a legally sufficient cause of action.” McMahon v. Piazze, 162 Md. App. 588, 597 (2005) (citation omitted). B. Statutory Scheme for Guardianship Proceedings in Maryland Guardianship proceedings in Maryland are governed by Title 13 of the Estates and Trusts Article of the Maryland Annotated Code and by Title 10 of the Maryland Rules of Practice and Procedure. See Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts Article (“E&T”) §§ 13-101, et seq. (1974, Repl. Vol. 2022); Md. Rules 10-101, et seq. (Repl. Vol. 2026). Title 13 of the Estates and Trust Article and Title 10 of the Rules divide proceedings for the appointment of a guardian into two separate and distinct components—guardianship of the person and guardianship of the property. See E&T §§ 13-701, et seq. and Md. Rules 10-201, et seq. (person); E&T §§ 13-201, et seq. and Md. Rules 10-301, et seq. (property). The general provisions set forth in E&T §§ 13-101 to 13-107 and Rules 10-101 to 10-113 apply to both guardianships of the person and property. Although the Petitions in the instant case sought guardianship of both person and property of appellee, the issues raised on appeal relate 6 only to the guardianship of appellee’s person. Accordingly, we will focus our analysis on those provisions of the statute and rules governing guardianship of the person. E&T § 13-705, entitled “Appointment of guardian of disabled person,” sets forth the following relevant provisions: (a) On petition and after any notice or hearing prescribed by law or the Maryland Rules, a court may appoint a guardian of the person of a disabled person. (b) A guardian of the person shall be appointed if the court determines from clear and convincing evidence that: (1) A person lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible personal decisions, including provisions for health care, food, clothing, or shelter, because of any mental disability, disease, habitual drunkenness, or addiction to drugs; and (2) No less restrictive form of intervention is available that is consistent with the person’s welfare and safety. (c)(1) Procedures and venue in these cases shall be as described by Title 10, Chapters 100 and 200 of the Maryland Rules. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, a petition for guardianship of a disabled person shall include signed and verified certificates of competency from the following health care professionals who have examined or evaluated the disabled person: (i) Two licensed physicians; or (ii) 1. One licensed physician; and 2. A. One licensed psychologist; B. One licensed certified social worker-clinical; or C. One nurse practitioner.[1] 1 By 2026 Maryland Laws Ch. 222 (S.B. 326), the General Assembly amended E&T §13-705(c)(2)(ii)2 by adding to the categories of health care professionals who can sign and verify certificates of competency a “licensed physician assistant.” S.B. 326, 2026 Leg., 449th Sess. (Md. 2026). Such amendment is effective October 1, 2026. 7  (3) An examination or evaluation by at least one of the health care professionals under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall occur within 21 days before filing a petition for guardianship of a disabled person. In accordance with E&T § 13-705(c)(2), Rule 10-202(a)(1) reiterates the requirements that in a proceeding for guardianship of the person, “the petitioner shall file with the petition signed and verified certificates” by two of the same persons specified in E&T § 13-705(c)(2)2 “who have examined or evaluated the alleged disabled person,” and the “examination or evaluation by at least one of the health care professionals shall have been within 21 days before the filing of the petition.” Rule 10-104 then directs that “upon the filing of a petition, the court shall issue a show cause order directing persons on whom it is served to show cause in writing on or before a specified date why the court should not take the action described in the order.” Rule 10-104 also requires that a “copy of any related petition or document” shall be served with a copy of the show cause order. Rule 10-203(a) follows up with the requirement that “[t]he petitioner shall serve a show cause order issued pursuant to Rule 10-104 on the . . . alleged disabled person” and on other persons specified therein, “accompanied by an ‘Advice of Rights’ [for the alleged disabled person] in the form set forth in Rule 10-204.”3 2 Rule 10-202(a)(1) will be amended at some time in the future to include a “licensed physician assistant” in order to be in conformity with E&T § 13-705(c)(2)(ii)2. See supra note 1. 3 Under Rule 10-205(b), if the petition is for guardianship of the person of an alleged disabled person, the trial court is directed to set the matter for a jury trial, unless the alleged disabled person, or their attorney, waives a jury trial. Rule 10-205(b), however, “clearly contemplates that a hearing will be held and evidence taken on the issue of competency even if it amounts to only the admission of the doctors’ certificates.” In re Sonny Lee, 132 8  From the above provisions of the statute and rules, it is clear that before a show cause order can be issued by the circuit court and served on the alleged disabled person, the petitioner must file with the petition for guardianship of the person two “signed and verified certificates of competency” by certain specified health care professionals “who have examined or evaluated the alleged disabled person,” at least one of which certificate shall be for an examination or evaluation within 21 days before the filing of the petition (“valid medical certificates”). See E&T § 13-705(c)(2) (first quotation); Md. Rule 10- 202(a)(1) (second quotation); Md. Rule 10-104. In other words, without two valid medical certificates filed with the petition for guardianship of the person, the trial court cannot issue a show cause order, and the alleged disabled person cannot be required to file a written response to such order. Rule 10-202(a)(3), however, addresses a particular situation where “the petition is not accompanied by the required certificate.” Rule 10-202(a)(3) reads in its entirety: (3) Absence of Certificates. (A) Refusal to Permit Examination. - If the petition is not accompanied by the required certificate and the petition alleges that the alleged disabled person is residing with or under the control of a person who has refused to permit examination or evaluation by a physician, psychologist, licensed certified social worker-clinical, or nurse practitioner, and that the alleged disabled person may be at risk unless a guardian is appointed, the court shall defer issuance of a show cause order. The court shall instead issue an order requiring that the person who has refused to permit the alleged disabled person to be examined or evaluated appear personally on a date specified in the order and show cause why the alleged disabled Md. App. 696, 712-13 (2000) (interpreting similar language in Rule 10-205(b)(1), which is the predecessor to Rule 10-205(b)). In other words, “the issue of competency cannot be waived, either by failing to file the appropriate objection or otherwise, and a hearing must be held on that issue.” Id. at 715. 9  person should not be examined or evaluated. The order shall be personally served on that person and on the alleged disabled person. (B) Appointment of Health Care Professionals by Court. - If the court finds after a hearing that examinations are necessary, it shall appoint (i) two physicians or (ii) one physician and one psychologist, licensed certified social worker-clinical, or nurse practitioner to conduct the examinations or the examination and evaluation and file their reports with the court. If both health care professionals find the person to be disabled, the court shall issue a show cause order requiring the alleged disabled person to answer the petition for guardianship and shall require the petitioner to give notice pursuant to Rule 10-203. Otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed. Rule 10-202(a)(3) does not provide an “exception” to the statutory and rule requirement of filing two valid medical certificates with the petition. Rather, Rule 10- 202(a)(3) authorizes a deferral of the issuance of a show cause order under Rule 10-104 when the petition lacks two valid medical certificates and “alleges that the alleged disabled person is residing with or under the control of a person who has refused to permit examination or evaluation[.]” Md. Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A). In that event, the court shall issue an order requiring such person to show cause why the alleged disabled person should not be examined or evaluated. Id. Only if, after a hearing, the court finds that an examination or examinations are necessary will the alleged disabled person be examined or evaluated, and if found disabled, the show cause order under Rule 10-104 shall be issued and service thereof shall be effected by the petitioner under Rule 10-203. Md. Rule 10-202(a)(3)(B). Rule 10-202(a)(3) is the only rule that permits the deferral of the issuance of the show cause order under Rule 10-104 when two valid medical certificates are not filed with the petition for guardianship of the person. And, if two valid medical certificates showing the 10 alleged disabled person to be disabled are not produced in accordance with the procedure set forth in Rule 10-202(a)(3), “the petition shall be dismissed.” Rule 10-202(a)(3)(B). C. Arguments of the Parties Appellant argues that “[t]he trial court erred when it did not issue a Show Cause Order and hold a Show Cause Hearing compelling [a]ppellee to appear and show cause on why she should not be examined or evaluated pursuant to Md. Rule 10-202.” Appellant points to Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A) as an “exception” to the statutory and rule requirement that a petition be filed with two valid medical certificates where “the petition alleges that the [alleged] disabled person is residing with or under the control of a person who has refused to permit examination or evaluation[.]”4 In such event, according to appellant, Rule 10- 202(a)(3)(A) directs the court to issue a show cause order “requiring that the person who has refused to permit the [alleged] disabled person to be examined or evaluated appear personally . . . and show cause why the [alleged] disabled person should not be examined or evaluated.”5 Conceding that appellee “does not reside with a person who is objecting to her examination as stipulated in the Rule,” appellant, nevertheless, contends that because the “court is permitted to compel an objecting third party to show cause, then such authority 4 A 2025 amendment to Rule 10-202(a) substituted “alleged disabled person” for “disabled person” wherever it appears in subsection (a). Rule 10-202 Committee Note (2026). Rule 10-202 (Repl. Vol. 2026) (Effect of amendments). 5 See supra note 4. 11 should be extended when, as is the case here, the alleged disabled person refuses to be examined.”6 Appellant also argues that allowing the circuit court to issue a show cause order only when the alleged disabled person is residing with an objecting third person disregards the intent of the Rule, which is to protect alleged disabled persons. Citing for support to Kicherer v. Kicherer, 285 Md. 114, 118 (1979), appellant states that “the court’s role in guardianship cases [is] to ‘protect those who, because of illness or other disability, are unable to care for themselves.’” Appellant concludes that a narrow interpretation of Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A) will undermine the intent of the Maryland Rules and guardianship statute. Appellant next argues that the medical certificates filed with the Petitions substantially complied with the intended purpose of Title 13 of the Estates and Trusts Article, and thus should have been accepted by the trial court. According to appellant, the circuit court has “equitable authority” in guardianship matters to protect the person and property of alleged disabled persons. Appellant cites for support to E&T § 13-704(a), which states that a court may “(1) [s]uperintend and direct the care of a disabled person; (2) [a]ppoint a guardian of the person; and (3) [p]ass orders and decrees respecting the person 6 Appellant claims that his argument is supported by Matter of Jacobson, 256 Md. App. 369, 388 n.4 (2022), which states that “[w]hen such certificates are not provided because the petitioner has been unable to access or examine the ward, then a show cause proceeding is held.” Appellee responds that in Jacobson there was a third person who had complete control of the medical treatment, health, and wealth of the alleged disabled person. Although a show cause hearing was held in Jacobson under Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A), it is unclear from the opinion the reason for such hearing. More importantly, no issue was raised by either party, either in the trial court or on appeal, regarding the propriety of the show cause order or hearing under Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A). Accordingly, Jacobson does not provide authority for appellant’s argument. 12 as seems proper, including an order directing the disabled person to be sent to a hospital.” Appellant also cites to E&T § 13-102(b), which states that “[t]his article shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes,” and argues that “[g]iven the liberal construction afforded to the provisions of the Estates and Trusts Article, the trial court should have accepted the certificates submitted by [a]ppellant.” Appellant claims that “[t]his is not a case in which [a]ppellant failed to submit any certificates[;]” the deficient certificate was completed “by a licensed clinical mental health professional employed at a psychiatric hospital[.]” Appellant concludes that the trial court erred by dismissing his Petitions based on one deficient certificate. Appellee, on the other hand, argues that Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A) provides no avenue for the circuit court to compel the examination of alleged disabled persons when they are not residing with or under the control of a third person preventing an examination or evaluation. Appellee distinguishes Kicherer by asserting that in Kicherer, the alleged disabled person had already been adjudicated to be in need of a guardianship and the dispute was between co-guardians who already had been appointed by the court. Appellee concludes that the circuit court becomes the ultimate guardian only after it has been determined that the alleged disabled person needs a guardian. Appellee next argues that although E&T § 13-102(b) does allow a court to interpret the article “liberally,” E&T § 13-705(c)(2) is unambiguous and thus there is nothing for the court to interpret. Appellee asserts that because “the statute contains no grant of authority for a court to admit certificates from other experts at its discretion,” the trial court correctly determined that the Rules do not allow a LCPC to complete a certificate. 13  Appellee also contends that the circuit court’s equitable authority does not apply to this case because the court had not ruled that appellee was disabled. According to appellee, E&T § 13-704 allows the court to exercise authority for the care of a “disabled person,” not an “alleged” disabled person. Appellee asserts that she had not been determined to be a “disabled person,” and thus E&T § 13-704 could not apply. Appellee concludes that because the trial court lacked the authority to issue the show cause order requested by appellant under “the clear language of the Rule,” the court correctly dismissed the Petitions. In his Reply Brief, appellant asserts that the fact that Kicherer was an appeal from a guardianship appointment whereas the instant case never reached that stage is factually irrelevant. Appellant, citing to Kicherer, states “‘that a court of equity assumes jurisdiction in guardianship matters.’” 285 Md. at 118. Therefore, appellant argues, the court sitting in a guardianship matter has equitable authority whether it is in the pre- or post-appointment stage. Appellant also responds that the liberal construction granted to the trial court by E&T § 13-102(b) applies to the entire Estates and Trusts Article, including the provisions concerning an alleged disabled person and petitioners seeking a guardianship. Appellant contends that he cited E&T § 13-704 as an example of the trial court’s equitable authority, not to avail himself of its protections. Appellant concludes that the trial court has the authority to accept medical certificates or to compel appellee to undergo an examination. D. Analysis (1) Circuit Court’s Authority under the Statute and the Rules Distilled to its essence, appellant’s first argument claims that (1) the language of Rule 10-202(a)(3) authorizes the trial court to issue an order directing an alleged disabled 14 person to show cause why they should not be examined or evaluated by a licensed physician, licensed psychologist, licensed certified social worker-clinical, or nurse practitioner when the alleged disabled person has refused to undergo such examination or evaluation; and (2) the language of E&T § 13-705(c)(2) and Rule 10-202(a)(1) authorizes the trial court to accept a signed and verified certificate by a LCPC as substantially complying with one of the two required valid medical certificates. To determine whether appellant’s argument is legally sound, we must engage in a statutory construction analysis of E&T § 13-705(c)(2) and Rule 10-202(a)(1), (3). In the recent case of In re K.K., this Court summarized the principles of statutory construction, as follows: The goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the Legislature. We assume that the legislature’s intent is expressed in the statutory language. Thus, all statutory interpretation starts with the text, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its terminology. We do not read the text in isolation, however, instead viewing it within the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs. Our review is holistic, seeking to give effect to all of what the General Assembly included and not to add anything that the General Assembly omitted. In other words, we take the statutory language as we find it, neither adding to nor deleting from it; we avoid forced or subtle interpretations; and we avoid constructions that would negate portions of the language or render them meaningless. Presuming the General Assembly intends its enactments to operate together as a consistent and harmonious body of law, we also seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a statute, to the extent possible consistent with the statute’s object and scope. The first step of our analysis is determining whether the statute is ambiguous. A statute is ambiguous if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Even when words are clear and unambiguous when viewed in isolation, they may become ambiguous when read as part of a larger statutory 15  scheme. Generally, if the text is plain and unambiguous, our analysis ends, and we apply the statute as written. On the other hand, if the statute is ambiguous, we seek to resolve the ambiguity by searching for legislative intent in other indicia, including the history of the legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process. Such sources include the derivation of the statute, comments and explanations regarding it by authoritative sources during the legislative process, and amendments proposed or added to it. 266 Md. App. 161, 180-82 (2025) (cleaned up). Regarding the Maryland Rules, “[t]he canons of rule construction and interpretation are well settled and frequently stated. ‘To interpret rules of procedure, we use the same canons and principles of construction used to interpret statutes.’” State v. Williams, 392 Md. 194, 206 (2006) (quoting State ex rel. Lennon v. Strazzella, 331 Md. 270, 274 (1993)). Our search for the meaning of a rule “must start with and, if the words are clear and unambiguous, end with, the words of the rule.” State v. Montgomery, 334 Md. 20, 24 (1994). “We are also to give effect to the entire rule, neither adding, nor deleting, words in order to give it a meaning not otherwise evident by the words actually used.” Strazzella, 331 Md. at 274-75. (a) Rule 10-202(a)(3) - Deferred Issuance of Show Cause Order Rule 10-202(a)(3) is clear and unambiguous. Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A) directs the circuit court to defer the issuance of a show cause order under Rule 10-104 only when the petition lacks two valid medical certificates and “alleges that the alleged disabled person is residing with or under the control of a person who has refused to permit examination or evaluation” by specified health care professionals. There is no language in Rule 10- 202(a)(3)(A) that authorizes the court to defer the issuance of the required show cause order 16 when the alleged disabled person is not residing with or under the control of a third person and it is the alleged disabled person who refuses to undergo the examination or evaluation. For the court to have such authority, we would have to add language to Rule 10- 202(a)(3)(A) through statutory construction. If we did so, we would violate the basic canon of statutory construction that prohibits “adding [or] deleting [] words in order to give it a meaning not otherwise evident by the words actually used.” Strazzella, 331 Md. at 274-75. Further, there is no language in Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A) authorizing the trial court to issue an order requiring that the alleged disabled person “appear personally on a date specified in the order and show cause why the alleged disabled person should not be examined or evaluated.” Again, to grant such authority we would have to add language to Rule 10-202(a)(3)(A), thus violating the above-mentioned canon of statutory construction. Finally, even if we went beyond the plain language of Rule 10-202(a)(3) and considered the history of the rule, we would reach the same result. See In re K.K., 266 Md. App. at 181 (stating that “if the statute is ambiguous, we seek to resolve the ambiguity by searching for legislative intent in other indicia, including the history of the legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process.” (citation omitted)). Subsection (a)(3) of Rule 10-202 first appeared in the Maryland Rules in 1997 as Rule 10- 202(b). See Rule 10-202(b) (Repl. Vol. 1997). The language of then Rule 10-202(b) is virtually identical to the current Rule 10-202(a)(3). The Reporter’s Note for Rule 10- 202(b), prepared by the Supreme Court of Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, states: 17  Section (b) is new and