Pulliam v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., 219 A.3d 141

Background

In 2006 Pulliam and White executed a $390,000 note; they stopped making payments in March 2009 and foreclosure followed.
An order to docket was filed in 2013; the property sold in 2014 to Freddie Mac for $187,000; sale and auditor’s report were ratified in 2015. Neither mortgagor filed exceptions. The auditor found a deficiency of $405,918.53.
After ratification the note transferred (Nationstar → Freddie Mac → Dyck-O’Neal, Inc. (DONI)). DONI filed a Rule 14-216(b) motion for a deficiency decree in November 2017 (within the three-year window).
Service issues were raised but cured by alternative service; a hearing occurred and the court later entered judgment against Pulliam for $405,918.53 plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
Pulliam appealed, arguing (1) Rule 14-216 should be strictly construed and DONI’s motion was deficient, (2) DONI lacked admissible proof of its rights (chain of title/assignments), and (3) the interest worksheet was inadmissible and the damages calculation was incorrect.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the procedure and admissibility of the assignments and worksheet as either non‑hearsay verbal acts or self‑authenticating notarized documents, but vacated and remanded to correct an arithmetic error (double-counting of pre‑judgment interest).

Issues

Issue	Pulliam's Argument	DONI's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 14-216(b) must be strictly construed to defeat DONI’s motion	Rule 14-216’s requirements were not met and the motion should be strictly construed against DONI	DONI complied with Rule 14-216(b): timely filing, proper service, and reliance on the foreclosure record	Court: No strict-construction defect; DONI complied with Rule 14-216(b) and motion was proper
Whether DONI submitted admissible evidence of its right to seek a deficiency (chain of title)	Assignments were hearsay and insufficient; DONI was a “stranger” and had to re-prove foreclosure facts	Assignments are legally operative documents (verbal acts) and notarized, showing DONI’s interest	Court: Assignments admissible as verbal acts and self-authenticating; court did not abuse discretion in crediting them
Whether an affidavit was required to support DONI’s motion (Rule 2-311/2-501/2-501(a))	Motion lacked required affidavit and thus attachments were inadmissible	The motion relied on adjudicated foreclosure record; only post-judgment transfer required proof (provided by notarized assignments)	Court: Affidavit not required here because motion relied on the foreclosure record; self-authenticating assignments sufficed
Whether the interest worksheet was admissible and the damages calculation accurate	Worksheet was hearsay and overstated damages (improper interest computation)	Worksheet summarized adjudicated facts and gave arithmetic; assignments/ratification supplied the substantive record	Court: Worksheet not hearsay as to recorded facts but contained a math error—court double-counted interest; remand to correct interest calculation

Key Cases Cited

Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519 (discussing standard of review when legal interpretation is involved)
Ehrlich v. Perez, 394 Md. 691 (same principle on appellate review)
G.E. Capital Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Levenson, 338 Md. 227 (foreclosure as an in rem summary proceeding)
Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Neal, 398 Md. 705 (post-sale remedies and objections in foreclosure)
Jones v. Rosenberg, 178 Md. App. 54 (ratification of foreclosure sale has res judicata effect absent fraud)
Mitchell v. Yacko, 232 Md. App. 624 (equitable nature of foreclosure and prohibition on fraudulent/illegal conduct)
Austraw v. Dietz, 185 Md. 245 (historical rule endorsing strict construction of deficiency statutes)
Garner v. State, 414 Md. 372 (legal‑operative documents as non‑hearsay verbal acts)
Fair v. State, 198 Md. App. 1 (verbal acts and the limits of hearsay)
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Assocs., 109 Md. App. 217 (self-authentication of notarized documents and affidavit context)