Remson v. Krausen
206 Md. App. 53
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- Krausen filed for limited divorce; consent injunction barred Remson from contacting her; a contempt order followed injunction violation.
- The contempt was challenged; Remson later sought to withdraw the motion to set aside; withdrawal was granted.
- An in banc panel reviewed the withdrawal decision and concluded no abuse of discretion; Remson sought further relief.
- Remson then sought Rule 2-535(b) relief to alter/amend or vacate, which the in banc panel denied.
- Remson appealed the in banc panel denial, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final, reviewable order and lack of circuit court resolution on dissolution of the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is permissible from an in banc panel decision | Remson argues issues reserved were before the circuit court | State contends in banc decision is final and reviewable | Appeal dismissed; in banc panel lacked jurisdiction to review dissolution/vacation issues and no final judgment existed |
| Whether there was a final, reviewable judgment | The in banc panel addressed withdrawal, not dissolution/vacation | No final judgment since circuit court hadn’t ruled on the dissolution/vacation issues | Dismissed for lack of final judgment; no reviewable ruling existed |
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying requests to dissolve the injunction or vacate contempt | Requests were properly before the circuit court | Issues were not properly before the in banc panel and thus not reviewable | Questions not properly before in banc; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Washabaugh v. Washabaugh, 285 Md. 393 (Md. 1979) (in banc review final when reserved; review limited to reservation of points)
- Costigin v. Bond, 65 Md. 122 (Md. 1886) (in banc review requires reservation during sitting; cannot extend beyond reserved points)
- Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. Steward, 207 Md. 110 (Md. 1955) (in banc panel jurisdiction to address reserved issues; authority to consider jurisdictional questions)
- Estep v. Estep, 285 Md. 416 (Md. 1979) (premature in banc review when outstanding motions unresolved)
- Merritts v. Merritts, 299 Md. 521 (Md. 1984) (in banc issues must be reserved; unreserved rulings not reviewable)
- Bienkowski v. Brooks, 386 Md. 516 (Md. 2005) (discusses Article IV, § 22 in banc review scope)