Buckingham v. Fisher
115 A.3d 248
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2015Background
- John and Elizabeth Buckingham held property as tenants by the entireties; a 1997 deed of trust (with later modifications) secured a loan and was recorded.
- Borrowers defaulted in 2010; substitute trustees initiated foreclosure; Elizabeth died in 2011 and John in 2012; John’s estate representatives (Richard and Susan) were later joined.
- A foreclosure sale was scheduled for Dec. 19, 2013; Richard received notice Dec. 5, 2013; Richard and Susan filed a Rule 14-211 motion on Dec. 18 seeking a stay and dismissal.
- The motion alleged (1) forgery of Elizabeth’s signature on the lien instruments and submitted a forensic examiner’s affidavit and a familial handwriting affidavit, and (2) defects/inconsistencies in the pre-sale notice (wrong modification cited; incorrect guardian reference; counsel not served).
- The circuit court held an initial hearing, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, ordered better service on counsel, rescheduled the sale, and the property sold Jan. 30, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading standard under Md. Rule 14-211 for triggering an evidentiary hearing | Rule 14-211 requires only a facially valid defense; plaintiffs argued their allegations sufficed to require a merits hearing | Trustees argued Rule 14-211 requires particularized pleadings with supporting evidence and noncompliant motions may be denied without a hearing | Court held Rule 14-211 requires pleading all elements of a defense with particularity and accompanying available supporting materials; standard is more exacting than initial complaint pleading |
| Sufficiency of forgery defense to require a merits hearing | Buckingham alleged Elizabeth’s signatures were forged and submitted expert and familial affidavits asserting non-authenticity | Trustees argued plaintiffs failed to plead the element of intent to defraud and did not show lack of ratification/authorization | Court held plaintiffs pled falsity (first and third elements) but failed to plead or support the intent-to-defraud element; motion properly denied without an evidentiary hearing |
| Sufficiency of notice defects to require a merits hearing | Buckingham argued inconsistencies in notice (different modification cited; guardian language; counsel not served) undermined the right to foreclose | Trustees argued notice satisfied Rule 14-210 by informing interested parties of time, place, and terms and allowed protection of interests | Court held plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity the legal basis showing the notice defects barred foreclosure; minor inconsistencies did not require a merits hearing, especially given sale delay and corrected service |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Medtronic, Inc., 219 Md. App. 485 (describing particularity requirement for pleading fraud)
- RRC Northeast, LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc., 413 Md. 638 (legal correctness review for questions of law)
- Scotch Bonnett Realty Corp. v. Matthews, 417 Md. 570 (forgery as a principal basis to void a deed)
- Harding v. Ja Laur Corp., 20 Md. App. 209 (definition of forgery elements)
- Bechamps v. 1190 Augustine Herman, LC, 202 Md. App. 455 (context and purpose of Rule 14-211)