Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

S_MD PASS-04 — bounded correction to PASS-03

Research/access date: October 24, 2026, Pacific. Effect of this correction: The saved PASS-03 remains immutable history. This answer supersedes only the four identified PASS-03 passages and claims. All prior holds—including Maryland-only fee earning/refund interpretation, currentness limitations, electronic-contract issues outside these provisions, and full-state gaps—remain open.

The coordinator had already identified and read several passages. For this correction, I freshly opened and read the identified public sources, including page-level inspection of the statutory PDFs. This is not an independent review, and no UI model/mode claim is made.

A. Exact PASS-03 replacements

1. Replace the PASS-03 electronic-consent body text and S_MD-P3-C017

Replacement body text

Maryland Commercial Law §21-104 does not prohibit all inference of agreement to conduct a transaction electronically. UETA applies only when each party has agreed to transact electronically, but whether that agreement exists may be determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.

Two additional limits apply:

• When the electronic-transaction provision is contained in a standard-form contract, it must be conspicuously displayed and separately consented to, except where the parties use a separate, optional agreement whose primary purpose is authorizing electronic transactions.
• Agreement may not be inferred solely because a party previously used electronic means to pay an account or register a purchase warranty.

Thus, conduct and surrounding circumstances can establish electronic agreement, but prior electronic payment or warranty registration alone cannot. Section 21-104(b) also provides that the subsection may not be varied by agreement. Maryland General Assembly+1

Replacement for S_MD-P3-C017

S_MD-P3-C017 — CORRECTED: Agreement to conduct a transaction electronically may be established from context, surrounding circumstances, and the parties’ conduct. If the authorization appears in a standard-form contract, it must be conspicuously displayed and separately consented to, except for a separate and optional agreement primarily authorizing electronic transactions. Agreement may not be inferred solely from prior electronic account payment or warranty registration. Authority: CL §21-104(b)(1)–(4), (7). Limit: This corrects the prior overbroad statement that electronic consent “cannot simply be inferred”; it does not decide whether any particular DSS or DMP interface, click path, conduct, or disclosure establishes agreement.

2. Replace the PASS-03 specified-mail/electronic-delivery body text, S_MD-P3-C018, and related coverage wording

Replacement body text

When the parties have agreed to transact electronically and another law merely requires written information, §21-107(a) allows a retainable electronic record to satisfy the writing requirement. The record must be capable of retention when received; a sender that inhibits printing or storage cannot enforce the electronic record against the recipient.

When another law specifies a posting method, transmission method, or format, §21-107(b) ordinarily preserves that specified requirement. Section 21-107(d)(2), however, expressly provides that a requirement to send a record by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or regular mail may be varied by agreement to the extent permitted by the other law or by §21-118.1. Maryland General Assembly+2

Section 21-118.1 does not make ordinary email the equivalent of registered, certified, prepaid, or regular mail. Its statutory electronic-postmark route requires all of the following:

1. The electronic record is properly addressed or directed to an information-processing system designated by the recipient.
2. It enters a system outside the sender’s control or a region of a system under the recipient’s control.
3. A qualifying postal authority applies an electronic postmark.
4. An electronic postmark certificate authenticates the transmission.

The certificate must provide evidentiary proof concerning the valid electronic postmark, transmission form and time, and identified sender and recipient. A qualifying postal authority may be USPS, another national public or private mail-delivery service providing electronic postmarks, or another entity with regulatory authority or legal responsibility for electronic postmarks. Maryland General Assembly+2

An electronic record receives the same legal protections as United States mail under §21-118.1(c) only when the record satisfies subsection (b) and USPS is the postal authority that applied the electronic postmark. Section 21-118.1 does not authorize electronic-postmark service of a summons, complaint, or other papers used to obtain jurisdiction over a defendant. Maryland General Assembly+1

Section 21-118.1 is also expressly subject to §21-117. When a Maryland governmental agency is involved, that agency determines whether and to what extent it will send or accept electronic records and signatures. An agency using electronic records may prescribe format, signature, third-party, preservation, security, confidentiality, and auditability requirements, and Title 21 does not force a governmental agency to permit electronic records or signatures. Maryland General Assembly+1

Accordingly:

• A retainable ordinary email may potentially satisfy a generic writing requirement if the parties have agreed to transact electronically and no other law requires a specified method.
• Ordinary email does not, merely by being email, satisfy §21-118.1’s electronic-postmark route for a registered-, certified-, prepaid-, or regular-mail requirement.
• A separate law may itself authorize another method or permit variation by agreement.
• This correction does not decide federal E-SIGN requirements, every contract-delivery question, or whether a particular email platform or postal product satisfies the statutory technical conditions.

Replacement for S_MD-P3-C018

S_MD-P3-C018 — CORRECTED: If parties have agreed to transact electronically, a statutory writing requirement may be satisfied by an electronic record capable of retention at receipt. A method or format specified by another law generally remains controlling. But §21-107(d)(2) expressly recognizes variation of registered-, certified-, postage-prepaid-, or regular-mail requirements to the extent permitted by the other law or by §21-118.1. The §21-118.1 route requires a recipient-designated system, entry beyond the sender’s control or into a recipient-controlled region, a postal-authority electronic postmark, and an electronic postmark certificate; ordinary email alone is insufficient for that route. Government-agency participation remains subject to §21-117, and service of process for jurisdiction is excluded. Authority: CL §§21-107(a)–(d), 21-118.1(a)–(d), and 21-117(a)–(c). Limit: No conclusion is made that ordinary email satisfies a particular certified-mail clause, that every electronic-postmark product qualifies, or that all state/federal electronic-consent questions are resolved.

Replacement coverage wording

Replace the PASS-03 electronic-delivery coverage entry with:

Electronic signatures, retainable records, and specified mail methods — PARTIAL. Maryland UETA supplies the contextual-consent rule, standard-form consent protections, retainable-record rule, and a specialized electronic-postmark route for certain statutory mail requirements. Application still depends on the underlying law’s permitted variation, the parties’ agreement, actual technical transmission facts, any governmental-agency rules, and independently applicable federal electronic-consent law.

3. Replace the PASS-03 remote-work funds text and S_MD-P3-C043

Replacement body text

Current COMAR 09.03.02.08 applies to qualifying employees of listed licensees, including persons licensed under Financial Institutions Title 12, Subtitle 9 to provide debt-management services. For this regulation, an “employee” expressly excludes an independent contractor and an authorized delegate.

A qualifying remote work location may not receive or dispense cash, negotiable instruments, or other monetary value in connection with the licensed business except compensation paid to the employee by the licensee. The compensation exception is narrow: it allows licensee-to-employee compensation and does not authorize the remote location to receive consumer payments, trust-account money, creditor funds, settlement deposits, or other customer monetary value. Maryland Regulations+1

The location also generally may not store books or records relating to the licensed business, subject to two express exceptions:

1. Records produced or used in the employee’s normal course of employment may be present if the licensee maintains and administers procedures for their prompt and secure transmission to the licensee’s records-storage location.
2. Records may be stored there when applicable law or regulation independently permits that storage.

The location remains subject to the regulation’s security, privacy, supervision, authorization, and other conditions. Maryland Regulations

COMAR’s defined list of covered licenses includes a Title 12, Subtitle 9 DMP license. It does not list a Title 12, Subtitle 10 DSS registration. This provision therefore should not be extended categorically to DSS registrants without separate authority. Maryland Regulations

Replacement for S_MD-P3-C043

S_MD-P3-C043 — CORRECTED: COMAR 09.03.02.08 permits qualifying employees of covered licensees, including Subtitle 9 DMP licensees, to work remotely if all conditions are satisfied. The remote location may not receive or dispense cash, negotiable instruments, or other monetary value in the licensed business, other than compensation paid to the employee by the licensee. “Employee” excludes an independent contractor and an authorized delegate. Business-record storage is barred except for records produced or used in normal employment and promptly and securely transmitted under licensee procedures, or records independently permitted to be stored there by applicable law or regulation. Authority: COMAR 09.03.02.08A–D, particularly .08B(2)(f), .08B(2)(h)(ix), and .08D(6), (8). Limit: The compensation exception does not authorize receipt of consumer funds. The regulation’s enumerated license definition includes DMP licensure, not a blanket DSS registration category. Maryland Regulations+2

4. Replace PASS-03 S_MD-P3-S009 and currentness-provenance wording

A direct locator is now available for the previously described Maryland statutes interface:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/Statutes

The interface itself states:

• “Yes” means show statutes in effect as of October 1 of the current year.
• “No” means show statutes in effect as of January 1 of the current year.

That exact interface text was freshly read at the official MGA route on October 24, 2026. Maryland General Assembly

However, this is navigation-interface evidence only. It does not prove that a particular target section was successfully rendered with the “include enactments” selection, does not authenticate the contents of a failed enactments=true request, and does not independently establish that every post-compilation enactment was incorporated into a specific section result.

Replacement for S_MD-P3-S009

Corrected currentness paragraph

The official 2026RS substantive section PDFs remain the actual text read for the relevant provisions. The Financial Institutions “Statutes Affected” page was accessed on October 24, 2026, but its own label says “Last Updated: 9/1/2026 1:13 PM.” Its displayed Title 12 sequence moves from §12-802 to §12-1101 without listing the Subtitle 9 or Subtitle 10 sections at issue. That is bounded evidence about the page’s reported 2026 affected-section entries as of its update; it is not the same as an October 24 update date or a legal effective date. Maryland General Assembly+2

The Commercial Law “Statutes Affected” page carries the same September 1, 2026, 1:13 PM update label and does not display a Title 21 entry—the displayed sequence proceeds from Title 18 to Title 23. That supports only the limited observation that the page did not list 2026 bill action affecting §§21-104, 21-107, 21-117, or 21-118.1 as of the page’s stated update. It does not transform the generic statutes interface into substantive currentness proof or eliminate all post-update/currentness dependencies. Maryland General Assembly

The earlier failed target-section routes remain failed; they were not retried merely to improve provenance.

B. PASS-04 source table

C. PASS-04 claim table

D. Bounded classification examples

Example 1 — prior electronic payment is not enough by itself

Facts: A consumer once paid an account electronically. A provider later claims that this prior payment alone proves consent to execute and receive an entire debt-relief agreement electronically.

Operator: CL §21-104(b)(2)–(4).

Result: The prior electronic payment alone cannot establish agreement because subsection (b)(4) bars inference solely from that fact. Other context, surrounding circumstances, and conduct may still establish agreement. If authorization is embedded in a standard-form contract, the conspicuous-display and separate-consent rule also applies. No fee or provider authorization follows from this example. Maryland General Assembly

Example 2 — ordinary email versus qualifying electronic postmark

Facts A: A law requires certified mail. The sender sends an ordinary email with no postal-authority electronic postmark or certificate.

Result A: The email does not satisfy the §21-118.1 electronic-postmark route merely because it is electronic.

Facts B: The record is directed to the recipient’s designated system, enters outside sender control or into recipient-controlled system space, receives a qualifying postal-authority electronic postmark, and is authenticated by the required certificate.

Result B: The record can satisfy the statutory §21-118.1 route, subject to §21-117 where a governmental agency is involved and subject to any additional requirement of the underlying law. It does not become valid service of process for obtaining jurisdiction. Maryland General Assembly+2

Example 3 — employee compensation versus consumer funds at a remote location

Facts A: A DMP licensee pays its qualifying employee regular compensation by direct deposit while the employee works at home.

Result A: COMAR .08D(6)’s express compensation exception applies to the licensee-to-employee payment.

Facts B: A consumer mails or hand-delivers a creditor-payment check to that same home office.

Result B: The compensation exception does not cover the consumer check. The remote location may not receive or dispense that monetary value in connection with the licensed business. The result also assumes the worker is an actual employee, not an independent contractor or authorized delegate. Maryland Regulations+1

E. Four-issue coverage table

F. Correction boundaries and read status

Freshly read in this pass:

• CL §21-104(b), including contextual agreement, standard-form consent, sole-inference restriction, and nonvariation;
• CL §21-107(a)–(d);
• CL §21-118.1 in full;
• CL §21-117 in full;
• current COMAR 09.03.02.08’s employee, license, monetary-value, record-storage, and remote-work clauses;
• the direct MGA statutes-interface locator and its October 1/January 1 labels;
• the actual FI affected-section table and its September 1, 2026, 1:13 PM update label; and
• the Commercial Law affected-section table and corresponding update label.

Not established or reopened:

• PASS-02’s Maryland-only §12-1010(c)(3), per-debt earning, installment, or refund holds;
• any fee authorization;
• any ordinary-DMP residual-funds deadline;
• whether an actual email, click path, electronic-postmark vendor, contract, employee, contractor, delegate, provider, or DSS arrangement complies;
• all federal E-SIGN or TSR questions;
• the previously failed target-section enactments=true results;
• full-state, parent-area, A066, or publication readiness.

No local file was accessed or written, and this correction is not an independent review.

END S_MD PASS-04