Preview:

HEADNOTE Elizabeth Powers Chambers v. Michael Cardinal, et al., No. 2519, September Term, 2006 REAL PROPERTY; JOINT TENANCY; SEVERANCE; JUDGMENT CREDITOR; JUDGMENT LIEN. Appellant obtaine d a judg ment a gainst h er form er husb and. A t the time , he owned real property in a join t tenancy with his new wife. The property owners entered into a contract of sale and then conveyed the property, by deed, to appellees before appellant sought to execute on her judgm ent. By the do ctrine of eq uitable con version, the c ontract of sa le transferred equitable o wnership to the contract purchasers. Therefore, the judgment debtor no longer held an interest in th e property to which a ju dgment c ould attach . Nor did appellees acquire property encumbered by a lien.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2519 SEPTEMBE R TERM, 2006 _______________________________

ELIZABETH POWERS CHAMBERS v. MIC HAE L CA RDIN AL, et al.

_______________________________ Murp hy, C.J., Hollander, Sharer, JJ. _______________________________

Opinion by Hollander, J. _______________________________

Filed: November 8, 2007

In this case, we must decid e whethe r a judgme nt creditor may levy against real property that was held by the judgment debtor in joint tenancy, and conveyed by the joint tenants to third parties, pursuant to a contract of sale and deed, before execution on the judgmen t. Elizabeth Powers Chambers, appellant, was divorced from Richard Chambers on April 17, 2003. On August 18, 2003, in the course of ongoing dom estic proceedings, appellant obtained a judgment against Mr. Chambers in the amount of $21,950. By that time, Richard Cham bers ha d rema rried. He and his new wife, Alon Cham bers (the "Cham bers"), owned a parcel of real property at 336 Oak Knoll Drive in Rockville (the "Property"), as joint tenants. The Ch ambers su bsequen tly entered into a contract d ated Octo ber 17, 200 4, to sell the Property to M ichael Card inal and Jam ie M. Gross, appellees. P ursuant to th at contract, they conveyed the Property to appellees, by deed, on Februa ry 8, 2005. As of then, appellant had no t attemp ted to ex ecute o n her ju dgme nt. On June 30, 2006, appellant sued a ppellees in the Circuit Cou rt for Montgom ery Cou nty, seeking a decla rato ry judgment that she had a valid and enforceable lien on the Prop erty. The circu it court grante d appellees ' Motion to Dismi ss on N ovem ber 28, 2 006. This appeal followed. App ellant presents one question: "D id the trial court err as a matter of law when it granted appellee's motion to dismiss?" We answer in the negative and shall affirm the circuit cou rt. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 18, 2003, several months after appellant and Mr. Chambers were divorced, appellant obtained a judgment against Mr. Chambers in the amount of $21,950. The

judgment arose out of the divorce litigation. By the time that appellant obtained the judgment against Mr. Chambers, he had already remarried. It is undisputed that he and his new wife owned the Prope rty in issue as joint tenants. About a year later, on October 17, 2004, Mr. and Ms. Chambers signed a contract of sale for that Property. Pursuant to that contract, they conveyed the Property to appellees, by deed, on February 18, 2005.1 Appellant filed suit on June 30, 2006, seeking a declaration that she had a valid lien on the Property. In a motion to dismiss filed on August 3, 2006, appellees argued that "[b]ecause Plaintiff never executed on the Judgment before the Property was transferred to Defendants, the joint tenan cy was nev er severed . Thus, judg ment nev er attached to the Prop erty. . . ." 2 Appellant's opposition to the motion was not filed until August 23, 2006. On that date, the circ uit court, with out having received a ppellant's op position, granted appellees' motion, without prejudice.3 That order was docketed August 28, 2006. By that time, appellees had filed, on August 24, 2006, a Reply in Further S upport of their M otion to

Appellant has included in the Record Extract a purported copy of the contract between the Chambers and appellees for the sale of the Property. Appellees protest that appellant's inclusion of the contract was imprope r because it was not pa rt of the record below. Although appellees are correct that the contract was not placed in the record below, the contrac t's contents ar e not releva nt to our dete rmination o f the appe al. In addition, appellees urged dismissal of the Complaint "because Plaintiff's judgment is more than offset by two judgments against her in favor of Mr. Chambers from the same divorce action." They attached copies of the two jud gments, tota ling $22,55 0. The circu it court did not reach this argument in its ruling on appellees' motion. The circuit court issued its orde r "[u]pon consideratio n of the M otion to Dismi ss . . . and n o oppo sition the reto. . . ." 2
3 2

1

Dismiss. On Sept. 6, 2006, appellant moved to vacate the court's order of dismissal. After argumen t, the court gra nted the m otion to vacate the order of dismissal, and set the case for argument on appellees' motion to dismiss. The court heard the motion to dismiss on November 28, 2006. In its ruling granting the motion, the court reaso ned that "it was too late, that the judgment had not been executed, and that . . . the defendant purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value. The joint tenancy now could not be severed." The court relied on Eastern Shore Building and Loan Corp. v. Bank of Somerset, 253 Md. 525 (1969), which the court described as standing "for the proposition that a joint tenancy may not be severed when the property is sold before a judgm ent is ex ecuted ." II. DISCUSSION Maryland law provides that real property may be held in joint tenancy, a form of common ownership. Md. Code (2003 & 2007 Supp.),

Download Chambers v. Cardinal.pdf

Maryland Law