When the defendant desires to raise an issue as to (1) the legal existence of a party, including a partnership or a corporation, (2) the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, (3) the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, (4) the averment of the execution of a written instrument, or (5) the averment of the ownership of a motor vehicle, the defendant shall do so by specific demand for proof. The demand may be made at any time before the trial is concluded. If not raised by specific demand for proof, these matters are admitted for the purpose of the pending action. Upon motion of a party upon whom a specific demand for proof is made, the court may continue the trial for a reasonable time to enable the party to obtain the demanded proof.
Rule 3-308.Demand for proof
District Court · Last amended April 1, 2017 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceA party who wants to challenge a listed set of formal facts, like whether a business exists or a signature is genuine, must raise the issue with a specific demand for proof or the fact is treated as admitted.
Full Text of Rule 3-308
Amendment History
Amended September 8, 2011, effective January 1, 2012; December 13, 2016, effective April 1, 2017.
Committee Note & Source
Source. This Rule is derived from former M.D.R. 302 a.
Plain-English Summary
Some facts in a lawsuit are formal building blocks rather than the real dispute: whether a partnership or corporation exists, whether a party has the legal capacity to sue or be sued, whether someone suing or being sued in a representative capacity has that authority, whether a written document was executed, and who owns a motor vehicle. This rule keeps those points from becoming ambush issues at trial. If a defendant wants to contest one of them, the defendant must say so directly, through a specific demand for proof, rather than raising it for the first time mid-trial.
The demand can be made any time before trial is concluded, which gives more flexibility than most pretrial deadlines in these rules. But the tradeoff is real: if a party never makes the demand, the matter is treated as admitted for that case. A plaintiff, for instance, doesn't have to prove it's a properly formed corporation unless the defendant specifically demands that proof.
Because a demand can come late, the rule builds in a safety valve. If a party demands proof of one of these formal matters, the party the demand was made against can ask the court for a reasonable continuance to go get that proof together.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a demand for proof?
It's a formal way of telling the other side and the court that you're contesting a specific procedural fact, such as whether a party legally exists or whether a document was signed by the person it names, instead of just assuming it.
What kinds of issues can I raise this way?
Five: whether a party (including a partnership or corporation) legally exists, whether a party has the capacity to sue or be sued, whether a party has authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, whether a written document was executed, and who owns a motor vehicle.
Is there a deadline to make a demand for proof?
The demand can be made any time before trial is concluded, which is later than most deadlines in District Court practice.
What happens if I never raise the issue?
The fact is treated as admitted for that case. If you never demand proof that the plaintiff is a validly formed corporation, for example, you can't argue that point at trial.
What if I demand proof and the other side needs time to get it?
The court can grant a reasonable continuance so the party who received the demand has a chance to gather the proof.
Source & verification. Rule text, Committee Note, Source note, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Maryland Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Maryland. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: demand for proof district courtdemand for proof of corporate existencedemand for proof of signature marylandprove ownership of a vehicle district courtchallenging capacity to sue district court