RODOWSKY, Judge.

Petitioner, a discharged bankrupt, sued the respondent for the repayment of numerous alleged loans, none of which were scheduled by the petitioner as assets of the bankruptcy estate. Petitioner obtained a verdict and judgment for one loan which had been made prior to bankruptcy. Relying on evidence that the omission of the loans from the schedules was intentional, the respondent sought a complete legal bar to the petitioner's recovery under the label, "unclean hands." The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the respondent, concluding that summary judgment in favor of the respondent should have been granted. Manown v. Adams, 89 Md. App. 503, 598 A.2d 821 (1991). We granted certiorari on a petition which asked us to determine whether the equitable defense of unclean hands applies to this action which, historically, is one at law. We shall hold, however, that the uncontradicted facts relied upon for the clean hands defense demonstrate that the trustee in bankruptcy, and not the petitioner, is the real party in interest as plaintiff.

I

J. Stephen Adams (Adams), the petitioner, is a freelance, professional photographer. His base of operations for that activity was Washington, D.C., where Adams traded, apparently as a sole proprietor, under the name, "Steve Adams Photography." Adams also owned a business in Oakland, Maryland, The Colour Company, Inc., which failed during the period relevant to this action. Garrett County Development Corporation had assisted in establishing The Colour Company through loans on which Adams was personally liable.

Adams and his wife separated in February 1986 after twenty-three years of marriage. He left the marital abode in Springfield, Virginia and took up residence in an A-frame building in Deer Park, Garrett County, owned by him and his wife.

In April 1986, Adams met Patricia J. Manown (Manown), the respondent. Manown, who was divorced, is a business-woman whose background is in hotel and convention sales and tourism promotion. Adams and Manown began living together in September 1986. In July 1987, Adams and his wife executed a separation and property settlement agreement. They were divorced by decree of the Circuit Court for Garrett County in September 1987.

Also beginning in September 1986, Adams and Manown discussed combining his artistic talent and her business experience in a business venture. The concept was that Adams would photograph Garrett County scenes in different seasons, the scenes would be reproduced on souvenir items, and Manown would handle marketing and sales of the items.

The parties formalized their business relationship to the same extent that they solemnized their personal relationship. They called their business "North Star Design Publishing," (North Star). It was not incorporated. The Maryland Retail Sales Tax License was issued in the name of Manown, as North Star. Both Adams and Manown testified that their arrangement was a partnership in which each was to share equally in the profits. Postcards, calendars, and address books featuring photographs by Adams were produced for North Star and, to some extent, sold. There were no undistributed profits when the partnership and the personal relationship terminated. No party claims in this action for the value, if any, of the North Star inventory on hand at termination.

As early as the summer of 1986, Adams had begun accumulating cash by selling assets of The Colour Company. Adams avoided depositing significant sums of cash in his own name because, according to Manown, Adams anticipated a divorce action, and Adams was concerned that his creditors from The Colour Company would force him to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code. On August 1, 1986, Adams transferred title to his boat to Manown, reciting a purchase price of $3,200 in the bill of sale. The parties both testified, however, that Manown paid nothing for the boat. Adams admitted that he transferred the boat to Manown so that his wife would not find out about it in the anticipated divorce proceedings. Adams did not list the boat as an asset on his financial statements filed in the divorce action. Manown later sold the boat for $2,000. Adams does not claim the value of the boat, or its proceeds, in the action sub judice.

North Star initially conducted operations out of a rented office in Hagerstown which North Star shared with Steve Adams Photography. In addition, Adams and Manown were paying rent on an apartment leased to Manown. To save money the parties decided to purchase a house in Frederick that was under construction. The intention was to use the premises for the activities of Adams's freelance photography business, for North Star, and as their dwelling. The contract to purchase was signed in Manown's name at a purchase price of $169,685. Of that price $43,000 was paid in cash which Adams had accumulated over some unspecified period of time, which he had kept in a safe deposit box, and which he had transferred to Manown, for deposit in her checking account, in increments of $5,000 to $10,000. At closing in February 1988, the deed to the house was taken in Manown's name only, and she alone obligated herself to repay the mortgage for the balance of the purchase price.

Adams filed a Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland on November 4, 1988. In his schedules filed in bankruptcy, Adams swore that he had no interest in property held by another and that he had no interest in any partnerships. He made oath that the only liquidated debt owing to him was $1,000, described by him as "[o]ne week's wages," and for which he claimed exemption. He denied owning any contingent or unliquidated claims of any type. His schedules reported debts of $190,000 and assets of $10,000, including those for which he claimed exemptions of $7,000. By the bankruptcy court's order of February 21, 1989, Adams was discharged. The bankruptcy case was closed.

The parties' relationship soured. Manown moved out of the Frederick home in March 1989, and Adams lived there until July 1989. Manown sold the house on October 13, 1989, for a gross selling price of $239,500 from which she netted $92,236.45 in cash at settlement. Manown testified that from these proceeds she used $23,000 to pay in full, with interest, certain outstanding loans, including loans for North Star from Adams's mother and from Manown's mother, $8,500 to purchase a new car, approximately $14,000 to pay capital gains taxes on the sale of the realty, and an unspecified amount to cover her legal fees.

II

On June 26, 1989, Adams filed the instant suit against Manown. The complaint presents the claims of Adams in eighteen counts, seventeen of which seek to recover alleged loans. These seventeen counts each aver that the loan alleged therein had been made by Adams to Manown, or to Manown trading as North Star. Some of these counts aver that the loans were made on specific dates while others claim total sums advanced incrementally over periods of time, including one period of seventeen months. Count I claimed that the $43,000 used toward purchase of the house was a loan. The other loan counts sought to recover sums expended by Adams in other aspects of the relationship between the parties. The amounts claimed in all counts averring loans totalled approximately $92,000. The final count, necessarily a claim in the alternative, alleged that North Star was a partnership between Adams and Manown which had terminated. Relief sought in that count was that North Star should be dissolved with an accounting. Adams prayed a jury trial.

Manown filed a motion for summary judgment seeking application as a matter of law of the clean hands doctrine and relying in particular on Adams's failure to schedule as assets in bankruptcy the claims which Adams was asserting against Manown. The circuit court denied summary judgment, and the matter went to trial before a jury.

At his pretrial deposition Adams had refused to answer, on self-incrimination grounds, any questions directed to his failure to schedule as assets in bankruptcy the claims asserted against Manown. At trial Adams testified on the subject, saying that he had not included the loans, or any interest in North Star or in the Frederick house, as assets in bankruptcy because his counsel for the bankruptcy proceedings had advised him not to do so. Adams acknowledged on cross-examination that he had given "a lot of thought" to the possibility that he was subjecting himself to criminal penalties by failing to list the $43,000 loan or any interest in the house in Frederick.

Manown also introduced portions of two letters written by Adams to her after their relationship had terminated. In one letter Adams said:

"I will await for the guy with the badge to knock on my door. Like I have said before I have had the law knock on my door before. It is very humiliating and degrading but I am ready to handle it."

Adams acknowledged that the reference was to the United States Marshal. In the other letter Adams said, "And I am still willing to pay the price and go to jail." Adams acknowledged the reference was to the possibility of going to jail for bankruptcy fraud.

At the conclusion of the defendant's case, in which Manown testified, she moved for judgment, without success. Her motion incorporated, inter alia, the clean hands doctrine which she had argued in support of judgment at the close of the plaintiff's case.

The circuit court submitted to the jury fourteen of the counts claiming monies loaned, including Count I, after granting Manown's motion for judgment as to Counts III, XIII, and XV. The circuit court also left to the determination of the jury whether to apply what the trial court called the "rule of law that applies in a situation where a person who is seeking the aid of the court has himself or herself been guilty of any conduct which violates the conscience or good faith or other equitable principle in prior conduct." The jury was told that "[w]hatever may be the nature of the claim the court may deny relief if the claim grows out of, or depends upon, or is connected with, any prior fraud." The jury was told that to apply the foregoing rule it "must find as a fact that there was a fraud, a fraudulent scheme, action contrary to law or public policy, and the parties are equal, pari delicto, and that the claim that might be denied can be directly arising out of that misconduct."

Adams excepted to those instructions solely on the ground that the clean hands doctrine does not apply at law. Adams did not have any criticism of the content of the instruction. Manown excepted because she understood the jury to have been told that it could or could not, in its discretion, apply the rule described by the circuit court. It was Manown's position that, if the jury found the facts to be within the rule described in the instruction, then the jury must find for the defendant.

The circuit court further instructed the jury to return a general verdict. Neither party excepted to that mode of submission. The jury returned a verdict of $43,000 in favor of Adams on which the court entered judgment disposing of all fourteen counts submitted to the jury.

Manown appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which reversed. Manown, 89 Md. App. 503, 598 A.2d 821. The court concluded that the clean hands doctrine applies at law, relying on Messick v. Smith, 193 Md. 659, 69 A.2d 478 (1949) and Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Forster Transfer Rigging Co., 214 Md. 18, 133 A.2d 59 (1957). The intermediate appellate court then concluded that, as a matter of law, the doctrine completely barred Adams's claims.

In reaching its holding, the court gave no legal effect to Adams's testimony that his failure to disclose his claims as assets in bankruptcy were advised by counsel. 89 Md. App. at 514-16, 598 A.2d at 826-27. The court relied on evidence demonstrating that Adams had not relied in good faith on the advice allegedly given; rather, Adams had comprehended the potential consequences of his omissions. The Court of Special Appeals also observed that it could not say "for certain whether the jury actually found for Adams only on Count I," because of the general verdict. Id. at 510 n. 5, 598 A.2d at 824 n. 5.

Both parties petitioned for the writ of certiorari. We granted Adams's petition and denied that of Manown.

III

At issue here is whether Adams is entitled to all or none of the $43,000 judgment entered on the jury verdict. Adams does not seek a new trial based on the circuit court's alleged error in having given a clean hands instruction in a "law" action. Adams's objective on certiorari is only to retain the $43,000 judgment.

Under the evidence, jury instructions, and arguments in the particular case before us, it is clear that the verdict properly can be analyzed as a verdict rendered only on Count I of the amended complaint. The claim on the loan in that count is precisely $43,000. The trial court defined for the jury a "loan" as the delivery and receipt of a sum of money upon an express or implied agreement to repay the money with or without interest. No combination of claimed loans in any other counts totals $43,000. Under the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the entire amount claimed in a particular count either was, or was not, a loan by Adams to Manown. No issue was generated by the evidence under which part of the amount claimed in a given count could be considered by the jury as a loan, and part of the amount claimed in a given count could be rejected by the jury as a loan, so that any amounts awarded by the jury on various counts, when totalled, might coincide by happenstance with the $43,000 claim asserted in Count I. The award of $43,000 is by design, representing the jury's finding that the $43,000 contribution to the cost of the house was a loan.

More important, after instructing the jury that it would be asked to find for the plaintiff or defendant, and, if for the plaintiff, to state in what amount, the trial judge further instructed:

"And it is the burden as I indicated before for Mr. Adams to prove his claim or claims by a preponderance of the evidence. And you would apply that standard to each one of these various counts to come to your ultimate conclusion."

The instructions then reviewed the amended complaint, count by count, as to each of the fourteen counts being submitted. The trial judge stated the total amount claimed on a count and referred the jury to the documentary evidence associated with the claim asserted in the count then being reviewed in the instructions. In the concluding segment of the instructions the jury was told:

"If you would find for the Plaintiff Adams that he has sustained his burden on one or more of the claims that I have outlined for you of establishing a loan relationship . . . then you would further be asked the question, `What damages do you assess?'"

Thereafter counsel for Manown, in arguing that she came away with nothing from her relationship with Adams, conceded that "the house" was the exception to that analysis of the evidence.

Under these circumstances we shall treat the general verdict as if it were a verdict for Adams on Count I and a verdict for Manown on the remaining counts submitted. Consequently, we shall consider the evidence in support of the claim in Count I most favorably to Adams while reviewing the Court of Special Appeals's reversal of the judgment in favor of Adams. Further, under the evidence most favorable to Manown on those counts where the verdict was in her favor, the jury's decision not to award any amount to Adams can be considered to have been based on the lack of any expectation of repayment at the time of the contribution by Adams to some activity of the parties. For that reason we shall not consider those counts to be implicated in the clean hands defense.

IV

Manown's clean hands defense to Count I, even if applicable to a claim "at law," cannot be predicated on Adams's transfer of the boat to Manown in fraud of the potential claims against him by his wife in their anticipated divorce action. The clean hands doctrine is not applied for the protection of the parties nor as a punishment to the wrongdoer; rather, the doctrine is intended to protect the courts from having to endorse or reward inequitable conduct. Space Aero Prods. Co. v. R.E. Darling Co., 238 Md. 93, 120, 208 A.2d 74, 88, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843, 86 S.Ct. 77, 15 L.Ed.2d 83 (1965); Niner v. Hanson, 217 Md. 298, 309, 142 A.2d 798, 803 (1958). "It has also been said that the maxim has nothing to do with disapproval of the character or past behavior of the applicant but only with the effect of his present application." Niner, 217 Md. at 309, 142 A.2d at 803. "`Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives.'" Id. (quoting Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229, 54 S.Ct. 684, 689, 78 L.Ed. 1219, 1227 (1934)). Thus, an important element of the clean hands doctrine is that the alleged misconduct must be connected with the transaction upon which the claimant seeks relief.

In Niner, 217 Md. 298, 142 A.2d 798, the plaintiff sought to compel the carpenters' union to recognize him as a member and to enjoin them from interfering with his membership. Id. at 302, 142 A.2d at 799-800. The union raised the clean hands defense. Prior to becoming a member in the union, the plaintiff had adopted a friend's identity and used the friend's membership card to get union work; the plaintiff had defied union obligations after becoming a member in his own right; and the plaintiff had committed perjury in a prior lawsuit between the local and international unions. Id. at 309, 142 A.2d at 803.

In refusing to apply the clean hands doctrine, we stated:

"The relief sought was in no way predicated upon the misconduct. It has been held in a number of well considered cases that dismissal is not required even where the complainant was guilty of fraud, perjury or suppression of evidence, where the wrongdoing does not result in benefit to the wrongdoer, or operate as a fraud or imposition upon the court in which relief is sought."

Id. at 310-11, 142 A.2d at 804.

See also, in this state, Thomas v. Klemm, 185 Md. 136, 142, 43 A.2d 193, 197 (1945); Baltimore Humane Impartial Soc'y Aged Women's Men's Homes v. Marley, 156 Md. 478, 482, 144 A. 521, 522 (1929); Equitable Gas Light Co. v. Baltimore Coal Tar and Mfg. Co., 65 Md. 73, 84-85, 3 A. 108, 111 (1886), and elsewhere, Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 39 Cal.Rptr. 64, 98 (1964) (applying the maxim where the claim sued upon is independent of the unclean hands conduct "would be to sanction an assault upon a person who has perpetrated a fraud upon or breached a contract with the assaulter").

D. Dobbs, Remedies § 2.4, at 46 (1973) puts the concept as follows:

"It is only when the plaintiff's improper conduct is the source, or part of the source, of his equitable claim, that he is to be barred because of this conduct. `What is material is not that the plaintiff's hands are dirty, but that he dirties them in acquiring the right he now asserts.'"

(Footnote omitted).

In the instant matter Adams does not claim the value of the boat from Manown. Any fraud committed by Adams in concealing the existence of the boat from his wife in the divorce proceedings is independent of Adams's claim against Manown for the $43,000 used toward purchase of the Frederick house.

V

The principal predicate of Manown's clean hands argument is Adams's apparently intentional concealment of assets in bankruptcy. The $43,000 which the jury found Manown had borrowed from Adams became outstanding no later than February 1988 when the Frederick house was purchased. Adams filed under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. (1988) (the Code), in November 1988, without scheduling the $43,000 loan as an asset. After the bankruptcy case was closed, and after he had been discharged, Adams sued for repayment of the loan. Manown's defense — Adams's concealment of the loan in bankruptcy — seeks to prevent a judgment for repayment, with the result that Manown would be left as the effective owner of the $43,000. By raising cries of unclean hands and in pari delicto, Manown has successfully presented this case as if the only alternatives were either to give Adams the benefit of his fraud or to give Manown the benefit of a windfall. What has become obfuscated through two levels of courts is that those who are entitled to benefit from the judicial determination of Manown's indebtedness to Adams are the creditors of Adams. His trustee in bankruptcy is the real party in interest in the instant case. It is not too late to apply and carry out the correct analysis.

When Adams filed his voluntary petition, it created a bankruptcy estate, comprised of all of the property described in Code § 541(a), "wherever located and by whomever held," including "(1) . . . all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case." "Within this definition of a debtor's property fall the debtor's rights of action to collect accounts receivable." In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 902 F.2d 1098, 1101 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Smith, 640 F.2d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 1981) (" All causes of action become property of the estate under section 541."); see 4 Collier on Bankruptcy § 541.10[1], at 541-66 (15th ed. 1992).

Here, the trustee who was appointed by the United States Trustee under Code § 701 did not know of the $43,000 loan to Manown because it was not scheduled. Had the trustee known, it would have been the trustee's responsibility either to cause the claim to be pursued on behalf of the estate or to abandon the claim. Abandonment could be effected by express decision or court order, Code § 554(a) and (b), or pursuant to § 554(c) which reads:

"Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title."

Property which has not been scheduled is not abandoned by the trustee simply because the estate is closed. This principle has long been settled. First Nat'l Bank of Jacksboro v. Lasater, 196 U.S. 115, 25 S.Ct. 206, 49 L.Ed. 408 (1905), involved the debtor's post bankruptcy action on an unscheduled usury claim on which a state court judgment for the debtor had been entered. Speaking in terms of the theory of the then Bankruptcy Act under which a trustee elected whether to take property, and after recognizing that the bankrupt could assert title to abandoned property, the Court said:

"But that doctrine can have no application when the trustee is ignorant of the existence of the property, and has had no opportunity to make an election. It cannot be that a bankrupt, by omitting to schedule and withholding from his trustee all knowledge of certain property, can, after his estate in bankruptcy has been finally closed up, immediately thereafter assert title to the property on the ground that the trustee had never taken any action in respect to it. If the claim was of value (as certainly this claim was, according to the judgment below), it was something to which the creditors were entitled, and this bankrupt could not, by withholding knowledge of its existence, obtain a release from his debts, and still assert title to the property."

Id. at 119, 25 S.Ct. at 208, 49 L.Ed. at 409. Judgment for the debtor was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Cases decided under the Code are to the same effect. Krank v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 109 B.R. 668 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd without opinion, 908 F.2d 962 (3d Cir. 1990), is in point. The plaintiff's alleged cause of action for wrongful cancellation of a malpractice policy accrued no later than 1983. The claim was not scheduled in the plaintiff's 1986 voluntary bankruptcy which resulted in a 1989 discharge. The court analyzed the facts as follows:

"If a trustee chooses to abandon a claim or is ordered to do so, the debtor may assert title to the cause of action and bring suit upon it. If, however, the debtor fails to list a claim as an asset, the trustee cannot abandon the claim because he or she will have had no opportunity to determine whether it will benefit the estate. In such circumstances, the debtor may not claim abandonment and seek to enforce the claim after discharge[.]

. . . .

"Instead, the debtor must petition the bankruptcy court to reopen proceedings to allow that court to decide whether the trustee should enforce the claim for the benefit of creditors or abandon it. Stein v. United Artists [Corp.], 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982).

"In the case at bar, plaintiff may not assert his cause of action in the absence of proof of abandonment: his cause of action remains an asset of the estate."

Id. at 669 (citation omitted). To the same effect, see Lambert v. Fuller Co., 122 B.R. 243, 246 (E.D.Pa. 1990); Harris v. St. Louis Univ., 114 B.R. 647, 649 (E.D.Mo. 1990); Cain v. Hyatt, 101 B.R. 440, 442 (E.D.Pa. 1989); In re Louden, 106 B.R. 109, 112 (Bankr.E.D.Ky. 1989); In re Lake, 49 B.R. 715, 717 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1985); In re Crandall, 1 B.R. 752, 755 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1980); Weiner v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 43, 45-46 (1988); Schlosser v. Bank of W. Ind., 589 N.E.2d 1176, 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); McDonald v. Fairfield Pathologists, Inc., 580 N.E.2d 690, 692-93 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); Marciszewski v. Hoselton Datsun, Inc., 115 A.D.2d 264, 495 N.Y.S.2d 839, 839-40 (1985).

The rule was the same under the Bankruptcy Act. See, e.g., Management Investors v. United Mine Workers of America, 610 F.2d 384, 392 (6th Cir. 1979); Moore v. Slonim, 426 F. Supp. 524, 526-27 (D.Conn.), aff'd without opinion, 562 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1977); Riverside Memorial Mausoleum, Inc. v. UMET Trust, 469 F. Supp. 643, 644-45 (E.D.Pa. 1979); Binnick v. AVCO Financial Servs. of Nebraska, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 359, 361-62 (D.Neb. 1977); Hermsmeyer v. A.L.D., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 740, 741 (D.Colo. 1964); Dynamics Corp. of America v. Marine Midland Bank-New York, 69 N.Y.2d 191, 195-97, 513 N.Y.S.2d 91, 92-94, 505 N.E.2d 601, 603-04 (1987).

Manown's indebtedness to Adams, and Adams's claim thereon, were neither administered nor abandoned by the trustee in bankruptcy, and the asset has, throughout these proceedings in courts of the State of Maryland, been property of the bankruptcy estate. Code § 554(d) ("[P]roperty of the estate that is not abandoned . . . and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate."). Thus, we are faced with an action which has not been brought by the real party in interest under Maryland Rule 2-201.

"Notwithstanding its permissive origins, Rule 2-201 does have a mandatory component. If the party bringing an action is not the real party in interest, the action may be dismissed, provided a reasonable time is allowed after objection `for joinder or substitution of the real party in interest.'"

South Down Liquors, Inc. v. Hayes, 323 Md. 4, 8, 590 A.2d 161, 163 (1991).

One requirement of justiciability is that the plaintiff have standing in the sense that the person is entitled to invoke the judicial process in a particular instance. Reyes v. Prince George's County, 281 Md. 279, 288, 380 A.2d 12, 17 (1977). We notice the absence of justiciability on our own initiative. Id.; County Council of Harford County v. Maryland Reclamation Assocs., Inc., 328 Md. 229, 614 A.2d 78 (1992); see also Kreatchman v. Ramsburg, 224 Md. 209, 215-16, 167 A.2d 345, 348-49 (1961); Wagner v. Freeny, 123 Md. 24, 30-31, 90 A. 774, 775-76 (1914); McDonald v. Workingmen's Bldg. Assoc., 60 Md. 589, 590 (1883); E. Miller, Maryland Equity Procedure § 354, at 429 n. 1 (1897).

VI

Under the unusual circumstances of the instant case it would not be in the interest of justice to vacate the judgment and dismiss the claim. Rather, substitution of the real party in interest is appropriate. Under Rule 2-201, "[t]he real party in interest simply steps into the shoes of the plaintiff who commenced the action." P. Niemeyer L. Richards, Maryland Rules Commentary 92 (1984). Accordingly, we shall exercise our discretion under Rule 8-604(d) and direct remand to the Circuit Court for Washington County for further proceedings, as hereinafter specified.

Upon receipt of the mandate in this case the circuit court shall send notice by ordinary mail, together with a copy of this opinion, to the Assistant United States Trustee, 1 Metro Circle, 51 Monroe Street, Plaza Level 2, Rockville, Maryland 20850, advising the United States Trustee that the circuit court will stay further proceedings in this action for sixty days following service of the notice on the United States Trustee, or for such longer period as the circuit court, in its discretion, may allow. The purpose of the stay is to allow the United States Trustee to determine whether the bankruptcy estate of John Stephen Adams, No. 88-43240-BKC-SD should be reopened pursuant to Code § 350(b) in order to administer an asset, that is, the judgment of the Circuit Court for Washington County for $43,000 in favor of Adams against Manown in this action, No. 16144 Civil. If a trustee for the reopened estate determines to administer the asset and moves to intervene as the real party in interest in No. 16144 Civil, the circuit court shall allow that intervention, substitute the trustee for Adams, and enter the judgment standing in the name of Adams against Manown as a judgment in the name of the trustee in bankruptcy of Adams. If no trustee in bankruptcy is appointed, or if the trustee abandons or otherwise determines not to administer the asset, then the circuit court should proceed by treating Adams as the real party in interest and terminate the stay. In that event the judgment is to stand in the name of Adams against Manown.

VII

The foregoing disposition moots Manown's contentions, even if clean hands applies "at law." As we have pointed out above, the policy underlying the clean hands doctrine is institutional. The objective is to prevent the court from assisting in fraud or other inequitable conduct; the purpose is not to punish a party for past misconduct. If a trustee, as representative of Adams's creditors, with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court to the extent approval is required under the Code, abandons the known asset, Maryland courts will not be assisting fraudulent conduct by enforcing the judgment. If the trustee is substituted for Adams, there is no longer a clean hands issue in the case.

For these same reasons the issues which Manown raised in the Court of Special Appeals, but which were not decided there, are also moot. Following remand, the contention by Manown that the jury was erroneously allowed, in its discretion, to decide whether to apply the clean hands maxim, will no longer be in the case. If a trustee in bankruptcy holds the judgment, the party who committed the fraud will not benefit from the judgment. If a trustee in bankruptcy declines to administer the asset, the circuit court will not be assisting in the fraud. Any fraud on Adams's part will have been attenuated by the inaction of the United States Trustee in disregarding the notice from the circuit court, or by a deliberate decision on the part of a trustee appointed for the estate of Adams to abandon the asset.

Manown's second point which was not explicitly decided by the Court of Special Appeals is that Adams should have been precluded at trial from testifying concerning circumstances surrounding his omission of assets from his bankruptcy schedule. Preclusion was sought on the ground that Adams refused on deposition to testify concerning those omissions by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. The testimony by Adams at trial to which Manown objects is that the loans to, or claims against, Manown were not reported because counsel so advised. The jury may have concluded that Adams's unclean hands conduct with respect to the $43,000 loan was excused because of the advice of counsel. The disposition under our remand, however, does not depend upon whether the jury believed that bankruptcy counsel advised Adams to conceal assets nor upon whether the jury believed that the advice prevented Adams from acting with unclean hands. Our disposition starts with the premise that Adams committed a fraud on the Bankruptcy Court, but our remand insulates the judgment in this case from that fraud.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THIS ACTION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY PURSUANT TO RULE 8-604(d)(1) WITHOUT AFFIRMANCE OR REVERSAL AND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT. THE PETITIONER, J. STEPHEN ADAMS, AND THE RESPONDENT, PATRICIA J. MANOWN, SHALL EACH BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN THIS COURT. COSTS IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY PATRICIA J. MANOWN.

Concurring and dissenting opinion by CHASANOW, J., in which ROBERT M. BELL, J., joins.