Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2071 September Term, 2001 _______________________________

DAVID R. FORWARD, ET AL.

V.

CURTLAN R. McNEILY, ET AL.

_______________________________ Salmon, Eyler, Deborah S., McAuliffe, John F. (Ret., Specially Assigned), JJ. _______________________________ Opinion by Salmon, J. Filed: December 2, 2002

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order entered on November 16, 2001, by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The order reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Ancillary Relief in Aid of Enforcement is granted. Defendant Forward shall issue stock certificates to the Plaintiff Curtlan R. McNeily for 44 percent of the stock of Business Information Network, Inc. and to Mark Burnett for 5 percent of the stock of Business Information Network, Inc. in accordance with their stock interests as determined by the judgment recorded in this court and entered in Business Information Network, Inc. et al. v. David R. Forward, Case No. CAL 94-25360, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. Defendant Forward shall bring the stock register of BIN into conformity with the judgment entered in Business Information Network, Inc. et al. v. David R. Forward, Case No. CAL 94-25360, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. Defendant Forward is enjoined from any disposition of the property subject to the judgment or from any disposition of the documents representing an interest in such property.

3.

4.

Under the provisions of section 12-303(1), 3(i) and (v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code (1998 Repl. Vol.), the above interlocutory order was immediately appealable, even though no final judgment was entered.1 The

1 Section 12-303 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Appeals from certain interlocutory orders. (continued...)

parties against whom the order was directed, Catalyst Equity Corporation and David R. Forward, filed an appeal from the foregoing order and raise the following question:2 viz: Did the circuit court for Montgomery County err in granting appellees' motion for ancillary relief in aid of enforcement of a Prince George's County judgment, where no judgment was entered in Prince George's County?

I. The resolution of the sole issue raised in this appeal concerns procedural matters that took place in three cases, one in Prince George's County and two in Montgomery County.

1

(...continued) A party may appeal from any of the following interlocutory orders entered by a circuit court in a civil case: (1) An order entered with regard to the possession of property with which the action is concerned or with reference to the receipt or charging of the income, interest, or dividends therefrom, or the refusal to modify, dissolve, or discharge such an order. (2) An order granting or denying a motion to quash a writ of attachment. (3) An order: (i) Granting or dissolving an injunction, but if the appeal is from an order granting an injunction, only if the appellant has first filed his answer in the cause. . . .

2 Appellants ask a second question as well, but as to that question we are without jurisdiction to decide it. That second question is:

Did the circuit court err in denying appellants' motion for summary judgment, where the complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the statute of limitations? The denial of a summary judgment motion is not a final judgment as defined by Maryland Rule 2-602. See Porter Hayden Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. , 339 Md. 150, 164 (1995), and cases therein cited. Moreover, no statute allows an interlocutory order of this type to be appealed immediately. See, e.g., Taha v. Southern Mgmt. Corp , 367 Md. 564 (2002). And, a non-appealable order may not be combined with an appealable interlocutory order so as to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Williams v. State , 17 Md. App. 110, 115 (1973).

2

A.

The Prince George's County Case

In December 1994, a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by Business Information Network, Inc. ("BIN"); Mark Burnett; Curtlan McNeily; Curtlan McNeily as a receiver for P.C. Consultants, Inc. ("PCI"); Curtlan McNeily and Mark Burnett as shareholders of BIN; and BIN as a nominal plaintiff. The individual plaintiffs were all shareholders

Download Forward v. McNeily.pdf

Maryland Law