Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 9 September Term, 1995 ___________________________________

GEORGE C. DODDS v. PATRICIA S. SHAMER

___________________________________

Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker, JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Raker, J. ___________________________________ Filed: August 29, 1995

I. In this case, we are asked to decide whether a liquor license may be levied upon to satisfy a judgment through a writ of execution. We hold that, in the absence of a statute to the

contrary, a liquor license is property subject to levy through a writ of execution.

II. On September 11, 1990, Patricia S. Shamer initiated divorce proceedings Baltimore against George C. the Dodds. parties The an Circuit Court divorce for on

County

granted

absolute

November 23, 1992, and entered a monetary award in Ms. Shamer's favor for $49,848.22, which was reduced to judgment. After several

failed attempts to collect upon the judgment, Ms. Shamer obtained a writ of execution on April 13, 1994, directing the Sheriff of Baltimore County to seize a Class A Beer, Wine, and Liquor

License.1 The license was issued in the name of George C. Dodds, Maryland Rule 2-641 provides the procedures by which a judgment creditor can request the issuance of a writ of execution. (a) Generally. - Upon the written request of a judgment creditor, the clerk of a court where the judgment was entered or is recorded shall issue a writ of execution directing the sheriff to levy upon property of the judgment debtor to satisfy a money judgment. The writ shall contain a notice advising the debtor that federal and state exemptions may be available and that there is a right to move for release of the property from the levy. The request shall be accompanied by instructions to the sheriff that shall specify (1) the (continued...)
1

- 2 Inc. t/a Harford Road Liquors.2 seized this Liquors. liquor license and On April 20, 1994, the Sheriff removed it from Harford Road

The Sheriff's office filed its return with the Court on

April 22, 1994.3 On April 21, 1994, Mr. Dodds petitioned the court to quash the execution. In this motion, he asserted that the liquor license had

been improperly seized because the license belonged not to him but to the corporate entity, George C. Dodds, Inc., the license itself had no value because it was only a piece of paper that could not be considered personal property, and the seizure was tantamount to

1

(...continued) judgment debtor's last known address, (2) the judgment and the amount owed under the judgment, (3) the property to be levied upon and its location, and (4) whether the sheriff is to leave the levied property where found, or to exclude others from access to it or use of it, or to remove it from the premises. The judgment creditor may file additional instructions as necessary and appropriate and deliver a copy to the sheriff. More than one writ may be issued on a judgment, but only one satisfaction of a judgment may be had.

The liquor license does not appear in the record. We accept the undisputed assertion of the Appellant that the license was issued pursuant to an application filed by George C. Dodds and that the name appearing on this license was George C. Dodds, Inc. t/a Harford Road Liquors. The record indicates that two further writs of execution on the same liquor license were issued by the court on May 4, 1994 and July 12, 1994. Pursuant to these writs the Sheriff filed returns on May 5, 1994 and November 30, 1994. The first return indicated that the liquor license had again been levied while the second return indicated that the writ was not served.
3

2

- 3 putting him out of business. on April 21, 1994. On April 25, 1994, Mr. Dodds filed a second motion to quash the execution. He reasserted the same grounds for granting the The court denied the motion to quash

motion, this time appending corporate documents showing that George C. Dodds, Inc., owned the liquor license. In response, Ms. Shamer disputed the ownership of the license. She contended that, by statute, liquor licenses could be issued only to individuals, not to corporations, thereby making the She further argued that because

license Mr. Dodds' personal asset.

Maryland Code (1957, 1994 Repl. Vol.) Art. 2B,

Download Dodds v. Shamer.pdf

Maryland Law