Kent Island, LLC v. DiNapoli
61 A.3d 21
Md.2013Background
- Kent Island, LLC entered into a Consent Order with Queen Anne’s County Planning and Sanitary Commissions and County Commissioners to resolve disputes over Cloisters on Kent Island project.
- The Consent Order terminated Kent Island I in the Anne Arundel County circuit court and was entered March 10, 2009, with an enrolled final judgment 30 days later.
- Respondents, non-parties to Kent Island I, later filed Kent Island II in Queen Anne’s County seeking to invalidate the enrolled Consent Order.
- Kent Island moved to transfer Kent Island II to Anne Arundel County, arguing Anne Arundel was the proper forum since it approved the Consent Order; Queen Anne’s County circuit court granted transfer to Anne Arundel.
- The Queen Anne’s County circuit court, and then the Court of Special Appeals, held that Queen Anne’s County had jurisdiction to hear the collateral attack and that the Consent Order was not a final enrolled judgment.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Consent Order is a final enrolled judgment and that a different circuit court may not collaterally revise or modify it; the proper remedy would be to pursue review in the same forum that entered the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2009 Consent Order a final enrolled judgment? | Kent Island argues yes; it is a final judgment enforceable as such. | Respondents argued it is merely a settlement agreement reviewable by another circuit court. | Consent Order is a final enrolled judgment. |
| Does Queen Anne’s County have subject matter jurisdiction to review a collateral attack on an enrolled judgment from Anne Arundel County? | Kent Island contends a collateral attack by non-parties is permissible in Queen Anne’s County. | Respondents rely on cross-circuit authority to allow review in Queen Anne’s County. | Queen Anne’s County lacks jurisdiction to review a final judgment entered by another circuit court. |
| May a circuit court revise or modify a final judgment entered by another circuit court after the typical revisory periods? | Kent Island asserts no jurisdiction for revision by another circuit court. | Respondents claim general authority to modify via collateral attack in a different circuit. | Revision or modification by a different circuit court is not authorized absent specific statutory provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Hubbard, 356 Md. 513 (Md. 1999) (consent judgments carry same force as other judgments)
- Long v. State, 371 Md. 72 (Md. 2002) (consent decrees judicial and contractual in nature)
- Chernick v. Chernick, 327 Md. 470 (Md. 1992) (consent judgments generally treated as final judgments)
- Solomon v. Solomon, 118 Md.App. 96 (Md. Ct. App. 1997) (courts enforce only their own judgments absent statutory authority)
- Clark v. Southern Can Co., 116 Md. 85 (Md. 1914) (acts of a competent tribunal cannot be reviewed collaterally)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 265 Md. 327 (Md. 1972) (final determinations by a court with jurisdiction cannot be collaterally attacked)
- Downes v. Downes, 388 Md. 561 (Md. 2005) (collateral challenges to final judgments governed by established rules)
- Sigurdsson v. Nodeen, 180 Md.App. 326 (Md. Ct. App. 2008) (venue decisions depend on statutory authorization; custody context)
- Nace v. Miller, 201 Md.App. 54 (Md. Ct. App. 2011) (law of the case does not prohibit readdressing motions in different contexts)
- Kaouris v. Kaouris, 324 Md. 687 (Md. 1991) (constitutional and statutory limits define circuit court jurisdiction)
- Nechay (Md. Bd. of Nursing v. Nechay), 347 Md. 396 (Md. 1997) (revisory power interacts with Rule 2-535 and § 6-408)
- Solomon v. Solomon, 118 Md.App. 96 (Md. Ct. App. 1997) (reiterates lack of cross-circuit review absent authority)