Preview:

Joan M. Hagler v. Arthur G. Bennett No. 52, Sept. Term, 2001

Court did not err in refusing to vacate enrolled judgment on ground that judgment debtor, properly served with process, was not the person intended to be sued.

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No. CAL00-14333 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 52 September Term, 2001 ______________________________________

JOAN M. HAGLER

v.

ARTHUR G. BENNETT

______________________________________ Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. ______________________________________ Filed: February 4, 2002j

The issue presented to us is whether an enrolled civil judgment entered against a defendant who was served with process is required to be stricken, over the plaintiff's objection, upon a showing that the defendant was not the person intended to be sued by the plaintiff. In this case, it is not clear that the defendant served was not the person intended to be sued, but even if he was not, the answer is "no."

BACKGROUND On October 28, 1992, respondent, Arthur Bennett (Bennett), through a broker lent $54,000 to a corporation known as East Coast Development Company. The loan was

evidenced by a promissory note which, in turn, was secured by a deed of trust on certain property in the District of Columbia. Both the note and the deed of trust were executed on behalf of the corporation by "Alfred M. Hagler, President" and "Joan M. Hagler, Secretary." The note contained a joint and several guarantee of payment by "Alfred M. Hagler" and "Joan M. Hagler." It called for a guarantee by Allen Hagler as well, but he never signed the note. Unbeknownst to Bennett, there were two "Alfred M. Haglers," a father and a son. Both used the same name, without a "Sr." or "Jr." designation. Joan Hagler was the elder Alfred's

wife and the younger Alfred's mother. It appears that, at the relevant times, they all lived at the same address, 4015 Terrytown Court in Upper Marlboro. The corporation was owned and

operated by the younger Alfred (Alfred fils) and his brother, Allen. Bennett assumed that it was the father (Alfred pere) who was involved, as he said that "I don't lend to children." Bennett did not attend settlement, however, and thus was unaware that it was, in fact, Alfred fils who signed the note, both for the corporation and individually as guarantor, and the deed of trust.

Bennett was informed that Allen would be unavailable to sign the note and decided to proceed without him. The corporation defaulted on the loan, whereupon, in July, 1993, Bennett foreclosed on the deed of trust. There being no other bidders at the foreclosure sale, Bennett purchased the property for the principal balance of $54,000. That left a deficiency of $12,166 for

interest, costs, and expenses of sale, and, on October 1, 1993, Bennett sued to recover that deficiency. The initial complaint, filed in the District Court in Prince George's County, named

as defendants "Alfred M. Hagler" and Joan M. Hagler and alleged that they had jointly and severally, individually and unconditionally, guaranteed the corporate obligation. 1 The address given for them was 4015 Terrytown Court. Copies of the note and the deed of trust were

attached to the complaint. On December 22, 1993, a private process server effected service of the complaint and, we assume, the supporting papers on "Alfred M. Hagler" and Joan Hagler and filed an affidavit to that effect. It is evident from the description recorded by the process server, and is really not disputed, that the service was made on Alfred pere. In conformance

with Maryland Rule 3-114(b), the writ of summons informed the persons served that, if they contested the claim, they had to file the attached notice of intention to defend within 15 days after service and that, if they failed to do so, judgment by default may be granted. Neither Alfred nor Joan responded to the complaint. On May 17, 1994

Download Hagler v. Bennett.pdf

Maryland Law