Anne Arundel County v. Rode
214 Md. App. 702
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Appellee Mary Rode did not file a brief or participate in oral argument; County Anne Arundel County opposed unemployment benefits denial to Rode.
- DLLR joined as a party, seemingly aligned with the County's position.
- Rode appealed a Board of Appeals unemployment decision to the circuit court; the County and DLLR defended, forming co-defendants with identical interests.
- DLLR moved for remand to itself without County notice; County opposed remand but outcome favored remand.
- Circuit court granted remand to the Board of Appeals prior to consideration of merits; Rode remained inactive in the remand dispute.
- Court questions whether the remand order is a final, appealable judgment and whether the county’s appeal is premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand order is a final judgment for appeal purposes | County asserts remand ends judicial action | DLLR/Board contend remand is proper and not final | Remand is non-final; not immediately appealable. |
| Whether the County may appeal a tactical remand decision by co-defendant DLLR | County should preserve right to appeal | DLLR remand did not destroy County's appellate rights | County’s appeal treated as appropriate; DLLR as defacto appellee. |
| What is the proper framework for evaluating remands to administrative agencies under review | Remand falls under Hickory Hills differentiation | Remand must be analyzed under finality rule | Remand is non-final under Hickory Hills / Woodie analysis; premature for merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickory Hills Limited Partnership v. Secretary of State of Maryland, 84 Md.App. 677 (1990) (differentiates final vs. non-final remands; remand prior to merits is non-final)
- Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1 (1981) (remand under § 10-215(g) analyzed; distinction from § 10-215(e) remands)
- Breedon v. Maryland State Department of Education, 45 Md.App. 73 (1980) (remand for additional evidence; circuit court retains jurisdiction)
- Woodie, Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation v. Woodie, 128 Md.App. 398 (1999) (remand analysis under Rule 7-209; UI context narrow but relevant)
- Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams, 284 Md. 86 (1978) (defines final judgment test for appeal)