Nace v. Miller
201 Md. App. 54
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Appellee Tamara Hamilton Miller sued appellant Barry J. Nace, Esq. for professional malpractice related to guardianship settlement funds.
- Nace petitioned Montgomery County to be guardian for the settlement proceeds; the petition was denied and he acted as guardian anyway.
- Over time, funds were released for taxes, insurance, shelter, and home repair, but insurance was never obtained.
- A 2004 fire destroyed appellee’s residence; after the fire, Nace sought further funds which were granted by the Montgomery County court.
- Appellee filed suit in Prince George’s County; Nace moved to transfer venue to Montgomery County, arguing improper venue in PG County.
- PG County granted transfer to Montgomery; appellee sought reconsideration; later a third-party claim against Hamilton prompted further venue motions.
- Montgomery County eventually transferred the case back to PG County; Nace appealed seeking reversal and challenging the venue transfer.
- The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Montgomery County court’s transfer back to PG County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of appellate review of transfer | Miller did not acquiesce and could appeal | Miller’s post-transfer participation implied acquiescence | No acquiescence; appeal permitted |
| Whether Montgomery County abused discretion reviewing a sister court’s transfer | Remand/transfer decision should not be retried by a different court | Montgomery County can review and potentially re-transfer under law of the case | Court not abuse discretion; could readdress transfer |
| Venue proper in Prince George's County or Montgomery County | Guardianship origin and residence justify PG County | Appellant resided in Montgomery; balance of factors favors Montgomery | Venue proper in Prince George's County |
| Forum non conveniens – abuse of discretion in transfer | PG County more convenient for plaintiff due to disability and distance | Montgomery County convenient for defendant; witnesses in PG County | Montgomery County did not abuse discretion; transfer to PG County appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigurdsson v. Nodeen, 180 Md.App. 326 (2008) (waiver not automatic; participation may not equal consent to transfer)
- In re Cragar Indus., Inc., 706 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1983) (law of the case and review limits on transfer orders)
- Allfirst Bank v. Progress Rail Serv's Corp., 178 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Md. 2001) (persuasive federal standard on appellate review of transfers)
- Kearney v. Berger, 416 Md. 628 (2010) (law of the case and coordinate-judge autonomy)
- Burnside v. Wong, 412 Md. 180 (2010) (venue arising from negligent misdiagnosis and birthplace of injury)
- Green v. North Arundel Hospital Ass'n, 366 Md. 597 (2001) (negligence venue may lie at site of injury progression)
- Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170 (2004) (law of the case and autonomy of coordinate judges)
- Odenton Dev. Co. v. Lamy, 320 Md. 33 (1990) (forum non conveniens framework and balancing interests)
- Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co., 314 Md. 521 (1989) (private/public interest framework for venue analysis)