81 A.3d 639
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Gary Heit and Kathryn Stansbury were married on August 1, 2005 and obtained a Judgment of Absolute Divorce on December 24, 2008.
- On remand after prior appellate reversals, the circuit court denied monetary relief and attorneys’ fees to Stansbury and dismissed other relief requests.
- The remand judgment vacated the existing QDRO and reversed prior monetary awards; it appointed no new monetary award and denied attorneys’ fees.
- Heit sought restitution for funds already paid to Stansbury from Heit’s 401(k) and wage garnishments, arguing inequitable windfalls were created.
- Stansbury argued res judicata barred restitution claims and that remand proceedings resolved all outstanding relief.
- The trial court ultimately denied Heit’s restitution claim and refused to specially assign the remand judge; Heit appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars restitution claim. | Heit: remand not final for restitution; equity requires recovery. | Stansbury: remand order resolved all issues; restitution barred. | Yes; res judicata bars restitution. |
| Whether the Administrative Judge erred by not specially assigning the remand judge. | Heit: remand judge had special familiarity; deserves reassignment. | Stansbury: no legal basis to require special assignment; authority rests with Administrative Judge. | No; denial of special assignment was within Administrative Judge’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Community Ass'n, Inc., 361 Md. 371 (2000) (elements and impact of res judicata; final judgment on merits; transaction-based claim preclusion conceptualization)
- Rand v. Rand, 40 Md.App. 550 (1978) (recoupment generally not available after reversal unless court exercises discretion)
- FWB Bank v. Richman, 354 Md. 472 (1999) (transactional approach to determining if claims could have been litigated together)
- Anne Arundel County Bd. of Ed. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93 (2005) (transactional test for whether second action should have been brought earlier)
- Strickland v. State, 407 Md. 344 (2009) (administrative judge authority over assignments; Rule 16-101/16-103 framework)
- D’Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549 (2012) (summary judgment standards and burden-shifting)