Edery v. Edery
213 Md. App. 369
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Sultana Edery died in 2009 leaving six adult children; Hanan and Paul are the appellants, the others are appellees.
- The July 15, 2003 Will nominated Hanan as Personal Representative and Paul as Substitute Personal Representative if Hanan could not serve.
- Hanan renounced the nomination in 2008; David filed petitions in 2011 seeking probate of the Will and appointment as Personal Representative by the Orphans’ Court.
- The Orphans’ Court appointed outside Personal Representative C. Brian Carlin in October 2011, which was later rescinded; David was appointed Substitute Personal Representative in December 2011 after Carlin declined.
- Paul and Hanan filed motions including Paul’s January 2012 notice of appeal; the Orphans’ Court struck that appeal in May 2012, leading to the current interlocutory appeal about timing.
- The Maryland appellate issue centers on tolling of appeal deadlines under Rule 8-202(c) when timely post-judgment motions (Rules 2-534/2-535) are filed in the orphans’ court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Orphans’ Court err in striking the January 11, 2012 notice of appeal? | Hanan/Paul: timely due to tolling from Hanan’s timely Rule 2-534 motion. | Orphans’ Court: proper basis to strike as untimely under Rule 8-202(a)/(c). | Yes; striking was error; notice of appeal timely under tolling. |
| Should the case be reopened to proceed with the appeal (Case No. 2858) rather than remanding? | Because the January 11, 2012 appeal was timely, the matter should proceed in this Court. | The appropriate remedy would be remand to the Orphans’ Court if needed. | Vacate May 30, 2012 order and reopen Case No. 2858 to proceed as originally intended. |
Key Cases Cited
- County Comm’rs of Carroll County v. Carroll Craft Retail, Inc., 384 Md. 23 (2004) (rules to strike a notice of appeal are collateral to merits; appellate court decides jurisdiction)
- Hudson v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City, 402 Md. 18 (2007) (notice of appeal may cover multiple orders; not required to specify the judgment)
- Grimberg v. Marth, 338 Md. 546 (1995) (pre-amendment tolling rules: revisory motions do not toll appeal period)
- Anthony v. Clark, 335 Md. 579 (1994) (tolling limitations for post-judgment motions not to be extended)
- Carrick v. Henley, 44 Md. App. 124 (1979) (appointment of Personal Representative is a final judgment for purposes of appeal)