97 A.3d 220
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Baltimore Home Alliance purchased the Property at foreclosure for $100,000 and paid a $27,000 deposit under the Terms of Sale requiring settlement within 10 days of ratification or forfeiture and resale at risk and expense.
- Sale ratified by the circuit court on March 20, 2013; Baltimore Home Alliance did not settle within 10 days of ratification.
- The Substitute Trustees filed a Motion to Forfeit on May 1, 2013; Baltimore Home Alliance responded arguing forfeiture/resale violated Maryland law and rules.
- On August 1, 2013, the circuit court granted the Motion to Forfeit, ordering the deposit forfeited and the property resold at Baltimore Home Alliance’s risk and expense.
- The Property was resold on September 17, 2013 for $193,800; a report of sale was filed and ratified on November 21, 2013; Baltimore Home Alliance appealed the August 2013 order.
- The appellate court sua sponte raised the issue of finality and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order; an auditor’s report on the resale had not yet been filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forfeiture order was final and appealable | Baltimore Home Alliance contends the order was final and appealable. | Geesing et al. argue the order is interlocutory and not a final judgment. | Order not final or appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| If not final, whether any interlocutory hook permits review | Appellant seeks interlocutory review under statutory provisions. | Respondents contend no applicable interlocutory exception applied. | No applicable interlocutory exception; review denied pending auditor’s report and final determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Remson v. Krausen, 206 Md. App. 53 (2012) (finality requires nothing more to be done to effectuate disposition)
- Waters v. Whiting, 113 Md. App. 464 (1997) (jurisdictional requirement to appeal from a final judgment)
- Shofer v. Stuart Hack Co., 107 Md. App. 585 (1996) (finality/de novo review of finality issue)
- Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 (1989) (interlocutory orders subject to revision until final judgment)
- Banegura v. Taylor, 312 Md. 609 (1988) (interlocutory orders are subject to revision within trial court discretion)
- Fetting v. Flanigan, 185 Md. 499 (1946) (final ratification of auditor’s report constitutes final decree for appeal)
- In re Samone H., 385 Md. 282 (2005) (interlocutory orders and statutory exceptions under CJP 12-303)