Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 849 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005

CATTAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. v. LEONARD SASS, JR., ET AL.

Hollander, Kenney, Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Kenney, J.

Filed: September 15, 2006 2C030088056

Appellant, Cattail Associates, Inc., appeals the decision of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granting the motion for judgment of appellees Leonard Sass, Jr. and Beverly Sass ("the Sasses"), Sandra DeVor, and Theresa Sass. question for our review: Whether the Circuit Court erred in determining that specific performance of the contract was barred by the Rule Against [Perpetuities][.][1] Cattail presents one

The Sasses and DeVor ostensibly noted a cross-appeal on June 24, 2005. They present four issues in their brief: 1. Whether the Trial Court properly Ruled that the Contract is Void under the Rule Against Perpetuities[.] 2. Whether Cattail Waived any Rights Under the Contract by its Own Inaction[.] 3. Whether the Claim for Specific Performance was Precluded by Cattail's Own Failure to Fulfill the Contract's Express Contingencies[.] 4. Whether the Claim for Breach of Contract was Barred by Cattail's Own Failure to Perform and its Failure to Present Evidence of Damages[.] "`It is established as a general principle that only a party aggrieved by a court's judgment may take an appeal and that one may not appeal or cross-appeal from a judgment wholly in his favor.'" Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County, 374 Md. 20, 25 n.2, 821 A.2d 52 (2003) (quoting Offutt v. Montgomery County Bd. of Education, 285 Md. 557, 564 n.4, 404 A.2d 281 (1979)). In this case, the circuit court stated its decision to "grant the motion for judgment and deny the specific performance and all of the other relief sought." Thus, the court's judgment was wholly in favor of the Sasses and DeVor, and, accordingly, they may not appeal or cross-appeal from that judgment. We will, therefore, view the additional questions presented by the Sasses and DeVor as alternative arguments in favor of affirmance. (continued...)

1

For the following reasons, we shall reverse the circuit court's judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In February 1995, Cattail entered into a contract with the Sasses, their daughter Sandra Stout,2 Leonard Sass, Sr.,3 and Theresa Sass, Leonard Sass, Jr.'s, sister, for the purchase of two parcels of real property located in Anne Arundel County ("the Contract"). $20,000. The Contract provided for a purchase price of

An addendum to the Contract included the following

provisions: 1. PROPERTY

Download Cattail v. Sass.pdf

Maryland Law