*1 A.2d 1070 Rеpresentative ANTHONY, Personal F. Barbara Rose Clark of Geraldine of the Estate H. Frank CLARK. Term, 81, Sept. 1993.
No. Appeals Maryland.
July Aug. Denied Reconsideration *3 Frederick, Clifford R. Bridgford, for petitioner. (Oliver Paul Jorgensen, Jr., Victor Cekja, Middletown J. P.A., Frederick, brief), both on for respondent. MURPHY, C.J.,
Argued ELDRIDGE, before RODOWSKY, BELL, JJ., CHASANOW and ORTH, E. CHARLES Jr.* McAULIFFE, and JOHN F. Associate Judges of the Court of (retired), Appeals Specially Assigned.
BELL, Judge. This estate dispute between the two surviving children of Clark, decedent, Geraldine Rose Barbara F. Anthony and *4 Clark, Frank H. us to requires determine orphans’ whether an court order which petition will, dismissed Clark’s to caveat a which, judicial after probate proceedings, had been accepted by orphans’ the court as the last will and testament of the decedent, was a final judgment within meaning thе of Mary- (1974,1989 12—101(f) land Code RepLVol.) § of the Courts and * Orth, J., participated hearing in the of the case and in the conference in decision, regard prior to its adoption opinion but died to the of the Court. hold, to the contrary shall Article.1 We Proceedings Judicial it Appeals, Special of by the Court reached conclusion of 12-502(b),2 appeal an § therefore, with and, consistent its thirty days of within taken should have been that order Special of reverse. we shall Accordingly, entry. granted that, orphans’ the because holding was Appeals’ fact, and, in did order the dismissal to reconsider a motion of reaffirming dismissal order it, subsequent the reconsider which an from final was the to caveat petition court did nоtwithstanding that lay, appeal manner. prior change
I. largely and straightforward facts are The relevant survivors, Frank H. two leaving decedent died dispute. The (“Anthony”). Anthony F. Clark, and Barbara respondent, death, after the decedent’s four months Approximately for Register Wills with probate filed for respondent decedent executed Maryland, a will County, Frederick By to him. everything left which November pro- was admitted that will probate administrative 12-101(1) (1974, § Courts and Repl.Vol.) Maryland Code provides: Proceedings Article Judicial decree, (f) judgment, Judgment” means a Judgment.—“Final Final court, decision, determination, sentence, order, by a action or other appeal, application for an from which including an may be taken. certiorari appeal, or for leave to indicated, to the Courts will be future code references otherwise Unless Proceedings Article. and Judicial 12-502(b) (1974, § of the Courts Repl.Vol.) Code provides: Proceedings Article Judicial pursuant (b) appeal to this taking appeal.—An time Manner and register appeal by filing with an order section shall be taken judgment from which the final days after the date of wills within 30 register wills days thereafter the appeal taken. Within 30 is proceedings to the court orders of the pleadings all shall transmit taken, which orphans’ court from unless the appeal to which transmitting pleadings these appeal the time for is taken extends and orders. (a) “from a appeal cirсuit court be taken requires to the Section orphans' judgment of an court.” *5 respondent bate and the appointed personal representa- tive of the Subsequently, Anthony estate. filed a Petition For Judicial Probate And To A Caveat that petition, Will. With will, 27, 1981, she filed a codicil, dated November and a dated 14, 1984, January which she requested judicially probat- to be ed. The later will divided equally the estate between the survivors and named Anthony personal representative. as respondent The answered petition, denying all allegations except the fact of the decedent’s death and the lack of other pending proceedings.
Anthony Probate, an filed Amended Petition For Judicial which she request withdrew her to caveat the earlier will. respondent’s The answer to the amended petition denied all pertinent allegations judicial related to probate, thus contest- ing petition. Following judicial probate hearing on 28, 1991, August 11, 1991, on September ordered that the 1981 will and codicil be as accepted “the valid last and Will Testament the decedent” and Anthony “appointed personal representative estate, as for the above appointment of Frank personal Howard Clark as representative hereby respondent revoked.” The did not appeal that order. 4, 1991,
On respondent October filed a Petition to Caveat, in which he raised as to the 1981 will and codicil thereto, influenсe, issues of undue testamentary capacity, and genuineness signature. decedent’s Anthony, as personal representative of the decedent’s estate and an inter- moved, ested party, on October to dismiss the petition to grounds, caveat. As proffered she that the issues raised had been heard and judicial decided probate proceedings consequently, judicata were barred res estoppel. collateral The orphans’ agreed; by and/or order dated November granted the court Anthony’s motion to dismiss. The docket day entries for that read:
November Motion to dismiss to caveat and order November 4 Certificate of by Register Service of Wills motion to Anthony’s his answer filed respondent *6 that maintaining In 5, 1991. addition on November dismiss he probate, judicial not decided were he raised issues He not final. judicial probate argued §§ 5-406 and (1974, Repl.Yol.) Maryland Code relied on later, days Two Article.3 and Trusts the Estates 5-207 of For a Motion he filed the November having received Relief, in he asked which Appropriate within signed order had been Noting that the it. dismiss “an 6-1224 allows Rule Maryland which period day (1974, §§ and 5-207 Repl.Vol.) 5-406 Maryland Code provide: Article and Trusts Estates judicial probate. Finality action in § 5-406. 5-407, any §§ determination 5-207 and Except provided in as judicial probate is final and proceeding for by the court in a made persons. binding on all proceeding. § Caveat 5-207. (a) petition for whether a caveat.—Rеgardless of Filing petition to filed, may be filed petition to caveat a will verified probate been a has following the first expiration six months prior any time to the will, there a even if representative under personal a appointment of personal repre- appointment of a judicial probate or subsequent be a probate, subsequently for will is offered If a different sentative. may filed at a time within will be petition the later offered to caveat later to occur of (1) probate, or months after the later Three representa- (2) personal appointment of a the first Six months after probated will. tive of (b) petition is filed before the petition.—If the to caveat Effect probate, it has probate, administrative filing petition for or after of a judicial judicial probate. If filed after petition for the effect of a if reopened proceeding held as and a new probate matter shall be previously been determined. only probate had an administrative case, apply. provisions 4 of this title of Subtitle either i.e., probate proceedings, subsequent judicial references Section 5-407 reopened. may judicial probate be when 6-122, "Petitions—Generally,” provides: captioned this (a) provided by the rules in Generally.—Except otherwise as court for an application to the permitted by an Title or Register. shall by petition filed with order shall be sought, and shall forth the relief or order writing and shall set be in requested. Except for an legal basis for the relief or factual state the 6-201 and pursuant to Rules for Probate filed initial Petition person and shall serve on may interested petitioner serve persons the court direct representative and such as personal person interested ... a response file to ... a Motion [To Dismiss],” he asked the court hearing to hold a on the issues petition. By raised his caveat order dated November 1991, treating the respondent’s answer as a “motion to recon- sider” and citing its “additional consideration of the Answer to Dismiss, Motion to and of the testimony elicited at the hear- ing,” Caveat, its dismissal of
re-affirm[ed] the Petition to finding testimony was given judicial at the time of probate to satisfy the Court as to decedent’s testamentary capacity and absence undue influence. relitigate To these issues only would serve to rehear issues this has already decided, heard and and would not an economical use of the Court’s time. *7 respondent’s appeal, 17, which was filed on December
1991, dismissed, Anthony’s motion, on by the Circuit Court for County. Frederick Anthony argued had that the 4, November 1991 order was a final order from which an appeal should have been noted within 30 days entry. of its The respondent appealed to the Special Court of Appeals, which, in unreported an opinion, reversed.5 The court rea- copy petition, together a of the informing person with a notice the right servеd of response to file a filing and the time for it. (b) Response.—Any response petition to the shall be filed within 20 days after service or within such by shorter time as be fixed good copy court for response cause shown. A of the shall be served petitioner personal representative.
on the and the (c) An Order Court.—The court petition shall rule on the of appropriate enter an order. Having respondent’s appeal decided that the judg- was from a final ment, address, appellate proceeded the intermediate court the merits raised, respondent namely: issues the orphans' Whether the ruling court erred on the motion to dismiss day statutory response period within the 20 and whether the court by ruling erred parte application. on the motion as an at filing petition prevents judicial Whether the of a probate to caveat a operating order from as a final order. orphans' ruling Whether the court petition erred in that the to caveat by principles judicata/collateral was barred estoppel. of res Given the view we take of the 4 unnecessaiy November it is we address these issues.
587 reaf- reconsidered and orphans soned that because dismiss, constituted “the re-affirmance firmed its decision appellant’s caveat dismissing final decision appealable of Register by docket recorded properly and was reasoned, a mere not, Slip op. at It was Wills.” behest, At Anthony’s denial of a motion reconsideration. issue. granted important certiorari to consider this we II. subject matter acquire court to appellate
For an
judg
a final
ordinarily must be from
jurisdiction,
appeal
an
v.
Estep
interlocutory order. See
ment or an appealable
(1990).
Leather,
282,
78,
277,
577
A.2d
Georgetown
Md.
of
courts.
appeals
This
from orders
is also true
12-101(f)
“final
defines
§§ 12-501 and 12-502. Section
See
however,
the elements
judgment.”
specify,
It does not
to this Court.
that ultimate determination
finality, leaving
Stein, 328
Services v.
City Department
Baltimore
Social
(1992);
9,
880,
1,
Public Service Commission
Md.
(1984);
759,
206, 477
Valley,
v.
300 Md.
A.2d
Patuxent
State,
297 Md.
Sigma Repro. Health Center
(1983).
judg
A.2d
determined that
484-486
We have
conclude
ment
is “so
final as to detеrmine and
far
action,
deny
party
or to
rights involved
further
seeking
appeal
prosecut
redress
the means
subject
rights
his
matter
ing
defending
or
interests
Trusts,
proceeding.”
Re Buckler
*8
added).
(1924)
Stein,
177,
328
(emphasis
125
178
See also
A.
Rohrbeck,
28,
10,
884;
at
v.
Md.
Md. at
612 A.2d
Rohrbeck
318
Center,
(1989);
41,
767,
Repro.
A.2d
773-74
Health
Sigma
566
665,
the
underlying
[A] the fails to settle appealable judgment though even order a trial underlying dispute parties. the Where between of out of putting parties court’s order has “the effect 588
court,
Houghton County
v.
is a final appealable
[it]
order.”
Co.,
Comm’rs Kent
407, 412,
1145,
Md.
305
504 A.2d
1148
of
See,
Swanson,
(1986),
e.g.,
v.
cases
Wilde
and
there cited.
(“an
80, 85,
(1988)
837,
314 Md.
548 A.2d
839
order of
circuit
...
[may be]
a final judgment
without
adjudication
merits”);
Doehring
by the circuit court on
v. Wagner, 311 Md.
(1987)
272, 275,
1300,
533 A.2d
1301-02
(trial
“terminating
court’s order
in that
litigation
court”
Walbert,
657,
v.
judgment);
was a final
Walbert
310
Md.
661,
(1987) (circuit
291,
531 A.2d
293
unqualified
court’s
order was a final judgment
“put
because it
Denise Walbert
court,
out of
denying her the means of further prosecuting
level”);
Houghton
v. County Comm’rs
the trial
case at
Co.,
Kent
216, 221,
291,
(1986);
307
Md.
513 A.2d
293
Commission,
v. State
Concannon
Roads
118, 125,
230 Md.
220,
(1962),
186 A.2d
224-225
there cited.
cases
See
Schlossberg Schlossberg,
also
v.
600, 612,
275 Md.
343 A.2d
234,
(1975),
242
rejecting,
applicable
as
to an
court’s
judgment or order
requirement
it “finally settles
disputed right
some
or
parties”
interest
or be “so far
final as to determine and conclude the
rights involved
Brooks v. Sprague, 157 Md.
action” (quoting
160, 164,
A.
145
(1929)
Trusts,
375,
and In Re Buckler
427,
377
(b) Entry Register.—The register enter an shall or judgment by a record of making writing it in on the file jacket, file, book, or on docket within the in a or docket according practice of each shall record the actual entry. date That date shall be the date of the judgment. order or *9 courts, to 2-601, to circuit Rule Maryland applicable
See also the same effect. held, settled, consistently has well and this Court
It is
to dismiss
dismissing,
motions
granting
or
that orders
See
appealable.
final and
pleading
initial
are
plaintiffs entire
293-94,
cases
A.2d at
at
Houghton, 307 Md.
course,
must otherwise meet
Of
the order
there cited.
say, it must also
that
is to
judgments,
criteria of final
6~171(b).
also
See Rule
See
on the court’s docket.
entered
645, 650-52, A.
392-93
Bradley,
Bradley
(1913)
judgment
dismiss
from
(appeal allowed
caveat).
to be
necessary
entry,
not
that the docket
ing
It is
See
judgment”.
“final
effective,
“judgment” or
use the term
Stein,
886;
Md. at
612 A.2d at
Houghton,
The November 4th peti By completely respondent’s finality. disposing caveat, denying out puts respondent tion to it proceeding that pursue him means further Furthermore, of the order do court. terms terms, appear it that finality; its from its would undermine disposition. final was intended to be the dismissal III. final for a argues prerequisite that the respondent
The met, i.e., a record proper has not been 6-171. do made of it in accordance with We not agree. seen, noted for November as we have
The docket entries
To
The
To
Petition
Caveat and Order.”
“Motion
Dismiss
that notation to be a sufficient
certainly
circuit court
found
too,
Special Appeals,
judgment.
record of
...
that
the “notation
was sufficient
was of the view
with the
order had been issued
connection
[an]
indicate
10; it
slip op.
to caveat”
motion to dismiss the
conjunction
with
“indicates
was made
designates
sufficiently
motion to dismiss and therefore
*10
Id. at
conclusion,
To
order.”
10-11.
reach this
the intermedi-
court, noting
ate
the
appellate
respondent
having
that
not
to
claimed
be without notice of the
construed the
respondent’s argument
to be “that the error in docketing both
the motion and the order on
date
signed
the court
the
precludes
being
the order
from
judgment.”
a
Court,
respondent
as,
truth,
in
argues
this
in
he argued
below,
entry
that a docket
that does not reveal
the court’s
dismiss,
of a
to
disposition
motion
or that is ambiguous as to
issued,
whether
order has
to
fails
reflect the court’s order
and, therefore,
cannot
final. For
he
support,
directs our
supra,
Estep,
287,
attention to
at
82,
577 A.2d at
in
Court,
2—601(b)6
Maryland
which this
construing
Rule
6-171,
circuit
equivalent
Maryland
Rule
noted the
requirement of “a simple
entry
docket
which
make
would
clear
to everyone
disposition
of each and
claim in
every
Rohrbeck,
case,”
supra,
318 Md. at
A.2d
in
which we said that an order which confirms that decisions
matters,
as
were made
to the listed
but ... gives no clue as to
what those decisions
comply
were” does not
Md.
2-
with
Rule
601(b).
According
respondent,
sufficient,
to be
entry
was,
docket
has to
precisely
state
what the court’s ruling
a
simply
ruling
reflect
was made.
nor Rohrbeck
Estep
Neither
involves the
presented
situation
sub
judice;
judgment
neither was the
the dismissal of a
plaintiffs
and, hence,
initial pleading,
cause of action.
In
Estep,
whether,
issue was
in determining finality, the court
could consider
viability
of a claim that
not formally
had
“no,”
been disposed of. We answered
process,
pointing
out,
in Doehring,
we
what
said
[W]hen court,” an appeal terminate in that that case finally does embodied ruling until “that becomes could still be taken a final necessary to constitute action is in whatever formal judgment.” noted that Although 577 A.2d at we 320 Md. at
Estep, make clear which would entry of a docket simple value “[t]he claim a case every of each and disposition everyone attempt to did not pointedly we overemphasized,” cannot be entry say. should define whаt docket Rohrbeck, in open her decision judge trial announced get I judgment when clerk “to enter directing the *11 in the case judgment this to be the going because is these is there are and that the extent exception, with the one 772, 37, 566 A.2d at as to 318 Md. at [QDRO’S],” quadros on which parties submit an order which she wanted the actually made was: entry The docket they agreed. had HEALTH, CUSTODY, AS TO ENTERED JUDGMENT INSURANCE, PROPER-. MARITAL AND PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, ALIMONY, CHILD SUP- TY, SAVINGS AWARD, AND PORT, PENSION PLANS MONETARY TO BE SUBMITTED. ATTORNEYS FEES. ORDER 39, 772-73. The order was not submitted Id. at 566 A.2d at submitted, the proposed orders were days. within When jurisdictional signed declining, an order judge trial that, not them. We held because grounds, to consider of of conclusion the final determination and intended as involved, entry in were rulings reflected the docket rights however, final, sub we pertinent judice, As the issue said: 1988, 13, entry July of does not refleсt
The docket It of a “as the court.” recording judgment directed matters, as to the listed confirms that decisions were made Nor, gives it no as to what those decisions were. but clue in the said, any other document as we have was there Al- information. supplied file that would have that critical would, that the clerk though Judge evidently Bell assumed in some and way, summarize record the of substance rulings announcing, what, fact, she was in that is well, happened. then, For July reason as rulings a did not judgment. constitute omitted). 46, (footnote Id. at A.2d In the omitted footnote, observed, we “The extemporaneous recitation of multiple or complex rulings from the bench fíne for letting parties and attorneys their know what the court’s case, dеcision is in the but judgment because it is the actual conduct, fortunes, that will govern affairs parties, the court must be especially judgment careful that the clear, is complete, itself precise.” Id. at 46 n.
at 776 n. 7. entry
Although 6-171(b), docket is see required, Rule necessary it is not in an orphans’ entry order; summarize the written an it if sufficient docket entry reflects that an filed. January Prior to there were no rules of this Court courts, applicable to orphans’ and there was no statewide requirement entry for the “an order or by making writing record it in on the jacket, file or on a docket file, book, within the or a docket according to the practice (b). rules, each court----” Rule 6-171 including Such 6-171, were proposed the One Hundredth Report of the *12 Standing Committee on Procedure, Rules of Practice and 9,1988. submitted to Court on March They adopted were by the Court on June to January be effective objectives 1991.7 The of general the Rules were: 1. To create a uniform practice and procedure before the Orphans’ Courts and registers of of Maryland. wills To 2. construct a set rules easily can be adminis- orphans’ tered registers courts and of wills and understood by lay persons as by lawyers.... well as year 7. The more proposal than two hiatus between of the Rules and adoption explained Supplement their is in the To The One Hundredth Report Standing Procedure, on Committee Rules of Practice and February submitted to on forms, appro- in the incorporated standard provide To of all estates. Rule, used in the administration to be priate persons, to interested possible as as 4. To much notice give proceedings. with the nature consistent contains supplement 1-2. The Report at One Hundredth as apply, not a blanket the Title Rules recommendation that advisable, in the matter, courts, orphans’ being it deemed efficiency, applicability limit their to simplicity interest of of their intended in which advance notice specific to instances to given parties. use has been The rules are after Rule 2-601. patterned
Rule 6-171 was however, they identical, is to believe that and there reason originally As interpreted identically. were not intendеd to be only what was become Rule 6-171 consisted proposed, (b). clarity”, proposed “some greater To achieve subsection 6-462, latter Rule proposed Rule was combined with 6-171 (a). Hun- to the One Supplement subsection See becoming 6-171, Thus, finally adopted, consist- Rule as Report. dredth hand, 2-601, subsections; on the other two Rule ed but 6-171(b) Rule 2- is broader than of three. Rule consists 601(b); applies orphans’ to all Rule Rule 6-171 unlike Further, or- orders, there is no including judgments. court 2-601(c) that, requires to Rule which phans’ counterpart docket, judgment, a circuit court civil entry after its on the costs,” all without also be “except judgment denying relief “in court.” judgment records of the recorded and indexed case, it 2-601 to this would appliсable Rule Were the clerk necessary specificity with what determine claim. of a dismissal required entry to make the docket Because, however, required. that is not Rule 6-171 is involved 6—171(b), hold, requires that it be noted on simply we has filed docket in an that an order been register filed need previously paper; relative to some court action reflected docket the describe 6-171(b) require was not intended the order. Rule *13 to then to registers digest of wills clerical staffs 594 on
reproduce the docket the of all terms orders generated by courts. of but a handful exceptions, orphans’ judges With court are lay persons part who serve judicial capacities. time their cannot be to They expected supervise the clerical staffs of the registers digesting of wills in describing or orders. Further- more, the of registers personnel wills’ clerical do not have the opportunity necessity same or for acquiring that skill. There ordinarily are no oral orders in orphans’ court-orphans’ usually are not rulings dictated to a There reporter. are no jury verdicts announced in open which must be Instead, interpreted then noted on the docket. or- courts, phans’ an order is a paper writing that is filed in the file. estate Rule 6-171 contemplates persons interested will read that of writing. purpose is simply docket person alert an interested been has filed.
IV. Whether 4 November order is a turns, part, also effect of the November it grant whether constituted a aor denial of a motion to reconsider the If former, November order. then it possible that the November 4 order finality; could lose its latter, if it could not.
In the of an effect, absence order staying its see Hanley Stulman,
(1958), rule, or a Maryland 8-202(c),8 see Rule neither a judgment’s nor finality, running appeal time for denial, affected or filing, of a motion addressed to 8-202(c) provides: (c) action, Judgment Civil Action—Post Motions.—-In a civil when a timely 2-532, 2-533, pursuant motion is filed to Rule or appeal (l) of days entry notice shall be filed within after (2) withdrawing notice denying motion or an order a motion pursuant disposing pursuant Rule 2-533 or aof motion to Rule 2- or appeal 2-534. A notice filed before the withdrawal or disposition these deprive motions does not the trial court of jurisdiction dispose of the motion.
595 aside, motion e.g., to set power of the reviewing the v. Atty. Atty. judgment. See Unnamed modify or reconsider a (1985). 473, 940, Comm’n, 484, A.2d 946 494 303 Md. Griev. pro- fully applicable are principles These 437, Bucher, 1, 5-6, A.2d 291 266 Md. ceedings. Thomason v. the (1972). case, for rule. we offered the rationale 439 distri- and prompt of settlement desirability the noting After 4-5, 439, estates, A.2d at the Court 266 at 291 Md. bution stated: appel- nor for policy in law foundation neither
There is motion for reconsidera- filing the of a lant’s contention that thirty-day that a period the so new appeal tion extended 11, yet and that another June 1971 period commenced on 28, 1971, when the July to run period began on thirty-day recipiatur to granted appellee’s motion ne Orphans’ Court by that each move the first account. fact the revised Orphans’ an adverse decision appellant challenging the decision is thirty made court’s days Court was within immaterial, which the statute except illustrate the evil running period To seeks to avoid. allow by filing of one ad appeal to be extended infinitum attacking motion or after another—all essence and prompt antithesis of same decision—would orderly settlement of estates. or of a motion for reconsid
Although filing denial appeal, “grant” the time for eration does extend revises, if That or may. motion will occur also Sutton, v. changes, judgment. See Gluckstern somehow 898, (1990); 634, 651, v. 319 Md. 574 Yarema Exxon A.2d 906 (1986); 219, 240-241, 239, 503 Un Corp., 305 Md. A.2d 250 484, Comm’n, 473, 494 Atty. Atty. named 303 Md. Griev. Baer, 940, (1985); A.2d Brown v. (1981).
A.2d The rule was stated Yarema: ... a filed within judgment “when motion to revise judg in fact thirty days and the circuit court revises ment, appeal, intervening there no has been judgment effective final the revised becomes the at 250. in the Id. Md.] case.” [305 sure, To be cases those were decided under 2- 535(a)9 625a,10 or its predecessor, Rule which no ordinarily has applicability But, court proceedings.11 as the Thomason, Court said in
The mere fact that formal rules adopted by have been the Orphans’ does not dictate it must function vacuum, procedural in view of particularly long the rules made clear decisions of this Court.
266 Md. at A.2d at Hayman, citing relying *15 Messick, Adm’r v. 384, 392, 252 695, (1969), Md. therein, the cases cited and sоme of the cases hereinbefore cited. If Thomason are to be consequences the identified avoided, a requiring simply rule more than grant the motion necessary. is concluding November 27 order was the final
judgment, of Special Appeals that, Court reasoned rather than as being “merely, contended a by appellee, denial of the relief,” motion for appropriate “the court reconsid- ered and its decision appellant’s reaffirmed to dismiss caveat. 2-535(a) Maryland provides: Rule (a) Generally.—On any parly days motion of filed within 30 after entry judgment, may revisory power the court exercise and control and, court, judgment over the may if the action was tried before the any
take action that it could have taken under Rule 2-534. provided: 10. Former Rule 625a. period thirty days For entry after the of a or thereafter
pursuant to period, a motion filed within such the court shall have reviewing power judgment. and control over such expira- After the period tion reviewing power of such court shall have and control fraud, judgment, only over such irregularity. in case of mistake or See, however, provides: which (a) Discovery Rules.—Discovery in accordance with the Rules in 2, Chapter Title proceeding is available aon contested matter. (b) any proceeding Other Rules.—In which an issue of law or controversy, fact petition party is in on of a or on its own persons motion and notice may by after to all who affected heard, proceeding opportunity and an apply to be other rules in petition specific Title 2. The and notice shall state rules in Title requested apply. the court to is decision dis- appealable constituted a reaffirmance recorded properly and was caveat missing appellant’s at 6. In its Slip op. Register of Wills.” by on the docket explained: November Frank Clark October by was filed A Petition to Caveat grounds 1991, Will on challenging validated influence, and, in re and undue testamentary capacity to was filed Petition Caveat to Dismiss sponse, Motion it 4,1991.[12] is the Because Anthony on November Barbara to in the Petition that the issues raised of this Court oрinion of the decedent Caveat, testamentary capacity specifically of execution of undue influence at time subjection to Will, testimony given during and addressed were raised her granted the the Court hearing August 4, 1991. on November to Dismiss Petition to Caveat Motion to Caveat was Motion to Dismiss Petition An answer to of Peti- following the dismissal filed on November to treating This the Answer to Caveat. tion to as a motion recon- Petition to Caveat Motion Dismiss dismiss, prompt- and motion to the Petition Caveat sider additional consideration ing the herein. After Order Dismiss, testimony and of the elicited Answer to Motion *16 dismissal of the this Court re-affirms its hearing, at Caveat, testimony given finding Petition to judicial satisfy to the Court as to decedent’s probate time of To of undue influence. testamentary capacity and absence this only serve to rehear issues relitigate these issues would decided, and would be an already has heard and time. economical use Court’s “grant” orphans’ purported court Implicitly, have, fact, for respondent’s motion reconsideration and dismissing petition. caveat prior its order “reconsidered its have so characterized actions That the substance, look to the rather binding on the Court. We is seen, form, subject have action. As we than 22, See 7 Motion Dismiss was filed on October note 12. The To supra. order for the “grant” of a motion for reconsideration to have any effect on reconsidered, the order it must be followed by the passage of a revised order. Special Court of Appeals’ characterization of the
orphans’ court’s action was explicit, more but no more effec tive. Notwithstanding that characterization, court’s the No vember 27 order was simply a denial of the motion for reconsideration. It certainly did not in any way or change revise the November order. That it explained why it denied the motion does not its change event, essential nature. the November 27 order constituted the court’s “refusal reopen man, previous [its] Hay [November 4] decision.” 392, Md. at 249 A.2d at Lefever, quoting Lefever (1854). Accordingly, it neither undermined the finali ty of the November order nor constituted a from whiсh an appeal would lie.13
JUDGMENT THE OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED THAT TO COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT THE OF CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL BE APPEALS TO PAID BY THE RESPON- DENT. McAULIFFE,
JOHN F. Judge Specially Assigned, dissenting.
I agree that November dismissing caveat, Clark’s petition to was a final hold, order. I would however, that the order of 1991, by November which the granted Clark’s motion reconsideration, for that, 13. To the respondent’s argument extent that the because it was filed days within ten dismissing the order petition, his it tolls the time filing appeal, unpersuasive. it is already, As noted the Title 2 *17 inapplicable proceedings rules are orphans’ in the Mary- court. See 6-461(b). land Rule petition 1-101 and Rule No provid- or notice was parties 2-532, ed to the in this case that Rules 2-533 or 2-534 would be applied in this case. motion, of the reconsideration complete court’s recited considered, again and previously new matter including final order caveat, new was a dismissal ordered the was taken. timely appeal which from “purported” court orphans’ holds that majority The reconsideration, it had reconsid- and said motion for grant in fact did not do so—it matter, really it but that ered See motion for reconsideration. denied (1994). not so. simply That is 1070, 1079 in violation precipitously, acted court orphans’ The represen- granted personal it when allowing caveat without dismiss Clark’s motion to tative’s this to brought the motion. Clark days to answer Clark answer, which reached timely his filed by attention the court’s of the order November entry day the court one after relief, days two there- filed appropriate motion for by his generated by аnswer, that issues argued Clark after. his court when by orphans’ had not been addressed his caveat out to the court pointed also granted. He judicial probate 5-207(b) Article, Maryland Estates and Trusts § that when a (1974, provides Repl.Vol.), Code matter shall be “the judicial probate filed after caveat only if administrative held as proceeding and a new reopened By his motion determined.” previously had been probate that it had erred relief, informed the court Clark appropriate the motion to to answer days him 20 which affording dismiss, by Rule 6-122. required as error. It recognized its obviously treat- reconsider, granted and it motion to as a Clark’s answer ed issue. The and reconsidered the the motion taking into consideration that it was now noted specifically not a denial answer. This is contained Clark’s new matters assuredly, by It is most for reconsideration. of a motion *18 600
definition, by orphans’ statement of the by admis- sion personal representative,1 a reconsideration. legal effect of the action of orphans’ court was to reconsideration; grant the motion for to reconsider the motion dismiss, to in including its consideration new matter not considered; previously opinion and to enter a new again granting the motion dismiss. The two orders are different, though even the ultimate action is the same. The may by difference be demonstrated examining might what appeal have been considered an taken from each An ordеr. appeal taken from the 4 order November could have , addressed the court’s error in on ruling the motion without an allowing opportunity respond.2 Clark An from appeal granting the second order the motion could not have ad- dressed that Orphans’ issue because the Court cured its oversight by reconsidering earlier the matter after Clark had filed his answer.
Moreover, if
had appealed only
Clark
from the
4
November
order he
have
difficulty arguing
encountered
on appeal
answer,
generated by
issues
his
because he had not presented
them to the lower court before that court initially decided the
(a)
motion.
See
Rule 8-131
(providing that “[o]rdi-
narily,
appellate
court will not
...
decide
issuе [other
jurisdiction]
than
unless it plainly appears by the record to
...”).
have
by
been raised
or decided
the trial court
An
from
appeal
clearly
the new order
encompasses the issues
answer,
by
considered,
raised
Clark
his
they
because
were
4, by
albeit after
orphans’
November
court.
The intent of the lower court should
if
given
be
effect even
language
used
that court
imprecise. Hanley
v.
page
personal representative
In her brief at
‘‘The
states:
court
just
did
what Mr. Clark asked.
It treated his answer as a motion for
reconsideration,
4], including
and reconsidered [the Order of November
his answer.”
rights,
Dismissal of the caveat
involved substantial
and Clark no
argued deprivation
doubt would have
process
of due
as well as a
Venker,
Phillips
violation of the Rule. See
v.
316 Md.
557 A.2d
(1989);
Stockbridge,
1338
Baker
Md.App.
v. Miles &
95
(1993).
356
(1958);
Stulman,
461, 467-68,
the merits the case. J., joins opinion. in this CHASANOW