Maryland does not allow a fair toll on the statute of limitations and leaves the statute of limitations only if the legislature has created an exception to its application.  The Maryland courts have held that the limitation period reflects a statutory judgment over a reasonable period of time during which a person should bring an action with normal diligence.  Some non-federal courts in the United States have different approaches to fair tolls, with some courts accepting a fair toll and others drastically restricting the practice or refusing to impose statutes of limitations in the absence of legal powers. Historically, the U.S. federal court has allowed “a fair toll in situations where the applicant has actively followed his appeals by making an erroneous plea during the legal period, or if the complainant was incited or deceived by his opponent`s misbehaviour to pass the filing period.”  The federal approach has been described as a merger of the fair toll principles and the Just Estoppel.  In the normal application of these principles, a fair toll does not require fault on the part of the defendant, while a just Estoppel requires reprehensible conduct on the part of the defendant such as fraud or misrepresentation.  On the other hand, this “discovery phase” can be costly, frustrating and time-consuming in a trial. For example, a toll agreement may provide a potential complainant with the opportunity to save money and obtain more information from the defendant than he would normally offer. The New Mexico Supreme Court has held that a fair toll generally applies in cases where a complainant has been prevented from prosecuting because of an exceptional event beyond his control.
 On the other hand, where an applicant is not referred to a remedy because of his fault and he or she brings an action in a timely manner, a fair toll does not apply.  In exchange for the applicant`s agreement to delay the filing of an appeal until the expiry of the toll contract, the defendant agrees to waive the right to use that time limit to calculate the expiry of the claim in accordance with the limitation period. With the statute of limitations suspended, the parties may have the necessary time to negotiate and resolve the dispute. The California Supreme Court has held that a fair toll can be done in carefully thought-out situations if necessary to avoid unwarranted technical forfeiture of the means, if the defendant is not prejudiced.  The toll agreement must specify the length of time the parties suspend the statute of limitations. Depending on the needs of the parties, most defendants include the following clauses for toll agreements: although toll agreements are useful instruments, they present potential drawbacks. First, check if the court has introduced a timetable with a deadline for counter-claims and potential conflict with your toll agreement. If your client is entitled to contractual or tacit compensation and the co-accused has not agreed to compensate your client, your client may seek clarification on the issue of pre-trial compensation. Co-accused should consider toll agreements if they wish for additional time to consider filing counter-claims against each other.
Under the laws of some states, counter-claims must be filed while proceedings are pending, requiring defendants to decide, before trial, whether to assert counter-claims.