Preview:

Circuit Court for Kent County Case # CV-3323-L

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 25 September Term, 1999

OLIVER JONES et al.

v.

SELBE HUBBARD

Bell, C. J. Eldridge Rodowsky Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell, JJ.

Opinion by Cathell, J.

Filed: November 16, 1999

On November 8, 1994, petitioners agreed to sell the property described as 10693 Chesterfield Forest Road, Millington, Maryland to respondent for $100,000.00. On March 7, 1996, respondent filed an action against petitioners in the Circuit Court for Kent County to recover for breach of contract arising out of that real estate transaction. The case came before the circuit court for a hearing on the merits on February 13, 1997. Prior to trial that day, the trial judge rendered a judgment pursuant to the parties' consent in favor of respondent in the amount of $5,000.00 with a proviso that it could be settled upon the payment of $2,550.00 within thirty days. The judgment was indexed and recorded. The thirtieth day fell on Saturday, March 15, 1997. In a handwritten memo dated March 10, 1997, petitioners advised respondent that they would pay the judgment on Monday, March 17, 1997 with a cashier's check. On March 17, the thirty-second day, petitioners presented respondent with a cashier's check for $2,500.00 and $50.00 cash and requested that respondent mark the judgment "released and satisfied." Respondent refused to file an Order of Satisfaction arguing that the $2,550.00 should have been paid by March 15, 1997, even though that day was a Saturday. On April 3, 1997, respondent filed a Petition for Deposition in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment. Petitioners filed an answer to that petition on April 8, 1997, and filed a Motion for Injunction, claiming that they had effectively paid within the thirty-day requirement because, pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1995 Repl. Vol.), Article 94, section 2 and Maryland Rule 1-203(a), they had until March 17, 1997, to satisfy the judgment at the discounted rate. The circuit court denied this motion and on May 5, 1997, petitioners filed

a Motion to Amend or Revise the Judgment, which was also denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding that the discount provision did not constitute a court order. We granted a writ of certiorari to consider whether the trial court properly ruled that the parties' agreement to discount a judgment for payment within thirty days was not governed by Maryland Code (1957, 1998 Repl. Vol.), Article 1, section 361 and Maryland Rule 1-203(a), and the due date for payment, therefore, was not extended by virtue of falling on a Saturday. We hold that the trial court erred, that the agreement to discount the judgment was a court order governed by Maryland Rules 1203(a) and 1-202(n), and the due date for payment was extended by virtue of falling on a Saturday. Accordingly, we reverse. We shall not reach the applicability of Article 1, section 36. I. Discussion and Analysis The threshold issue is whether the discount provision was a court order governed by the relevant provisions. To make this determination, we need to analyze three distinct questions of law: (1) whether the trial court rendered a final judgment; (2) if a final judgment was rendered, whether it included the discount provision; and (3), if a final judgment, which included the discount provision, was rendered, whether and how Maryland Rule 1-203(a) would affect the due date for payment of the judgment.

The petition for certiorari referred to Article 94, section 2, which was recodified as Article 1, section 36 in 1997. No substantive changes were made in the transfer. See 1997 Md. Laws, Chap. 31,

Download Jones v. Hubbard.pdf

Maryland Law