November 2017 Maryland Certiorari Grants
The Court of Appeals of Maryland today granted certiorari review in five appeals. The list of grants, including questions presented, appears after the jump. For the two cases where there are Court of Special Appeals opinions, we have provided a link.
Estate of Charles Howard Zimmerman, Robert Clayton Stevens, Personal Representative v. Erich E. Blatter, et ux.– Case No. 62, September Term, 2017 (unreported CSA opinion) (Leahy, J.)
Issues – Real Property – 1) Do new Real Property §§ 14-601 through 14-621 and new rules 12-801 through 12-811, all of which concern quiet title actions and which took effect during the pendency of this appeal apply to this appeal? 2) If so, do the new procedural statutes and rules eliminate any requirement in prior law that a quiet title action is subject to automatic dismissal for non-joinder of a deceased record owner who has no personal representative? 3) If the answer to question 1 is no, what is the standard of review (de novo or abuse or discretion) of a trial court’s determinations under Rule 2-211? 4) If the answer to question 1 is no, did the trial court err in its determination under 2-211(c) that the case could proceed among the parties before it? 5) If the answer to question 4 is yes, did the trial court’s decision on Petitioners’ counterclaim for trespass q.c.f. become law of the case as a result of Petitioners’ failure to present, raise and argue the denial of their counterclaim? 6) Alternatively does this Court recognize the concept of a judgment having multiple and severable parts, as CSA recognized in Harrison v. Harrison, 109 Md.App. 652 (1996)? 7) If the answer to question 5 or question 6 is yes, did CSA err in reversing and dismissing that part of the trial court’s judgment concerning the counterclaim? 8) If the answers to the above questions do not materially change the disposition of the case, did CSA err in ordering a dismissal of the entire case for failure to join a necessary party rather than remanding to allow the joinder of a necessary party?
Elizabeth Hanson-Metayer v. Leslie Rach– Case No. 59, September Term, 2017
Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the District Court A) exceed its jurisdiction by denying a motion to stay despite the dicta in McKlveen v. Monika Courts Condominium, 208 Md.App. 369 (2012) or B) commit constitutional error by denying a motion to dismiss or demand for a jury trial given the claims at issue had identical counterparts already pending in the circuit court with a jury demanded? 2) Did the circuit court, on appeal, erroneously find the case to be moot despite the fact that Respondent sought to use the very judgment being challenged to obtain a warrant of restitution, that the judgment has multiple collateral consequences, and the exception to mootness doctrine articulated in Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556 (1986) applies?
Shontel Hunter v. Broadway Overlook– Case No. 61, September Term, 2017
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in finding that Real Property § 8-402.1 allows a landlord to file a complaint for possession without having first exhausted the statutory notice period? 2) Did the trial court err in finding a notice of breach sufficient under RP § 8-402.1 where it failed to meet the content requirements expressly set forth in the lease?
Cornelius John McIver v. State of Maryland– Case No. 58, September Term, 2017
Issue – Criminal Procedure – Does the trial court have the jurisdiction to convert a civil infraction of Transportation Article § 12-809 into a criminal case and then adjudicate the case under Maryland’s rules of criminal procedure?
Albert Otto v. State of Maryland– Case No. 60, September Term, 2017 (unreported CSA opinion) (Friedman, J.)
Issue – Criminal Procedure – On the question of applying the common law Rule of Completeness for single statements, did the lower courts err after Respondent submitted a paragraph-long snippet of a 13-page long jailhouse conversation as evidence of Petitioner’s consciousness of guilt when; (1) the trial court acknowledged there were “muddled” thoughts going to multiple motivations of Petitioner, yet refused to provide the jury any other context or part of the conversation due to Respondent’s objection, (2) the correct legal standard and presumption “universally conceded” under the common law is the rest of the conversation was out of fairness to be provided to the jury as requested by Petitioner, not the other way around, and (3) CSA acknowledges it may have disagreed with the narrow “subject” definition construed by the trial court, yet did not find any error in the trial court’s refusal to provide any part of the “remainder” to the jury?