Preview:

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1540 September Term, 2003 ________________________________ TONG-YA G. MANIGAN v. JOHN S. BURSON, TRUSTEE, ET AL.

Murphy, C.J., Smith, Marvin H., (Retired, Specially Assigned) Rodowsky, Lawrence F., (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ. Opinion by Smith, J. ________________________________ Filed: September 14, 2004

In this appeal, Tong-ya G. Manigan, the pro se appellant, challenges a writ of possession issued by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County after her home was sold at foreclosure by appellee John S. Burson, trustee for Bank of America ("the Bank"), to B.A. Mortgage, L.L.C. subsidiary of the Bank. ISSUE Manigan presents ten questions in her brief, which we ("the purchaser"), a wholly owned

consolidate and rephrase as one: Did the trial court err in issuing a writ of possession to the purchaser, and in denying Manigan's motion to reconsider the issuance of that writ? We answer the question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the trial court. FACTS Bank of America held a mortgage on Manigan's town home in Prince George's County. In 1999, a dispute arose between the Bank payments were current.

and Manigan as to whether Manigan's mortgage

Eventually, the dispute led to the Bank's instituting foreclosure proceedings in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Throughout most of the proceedings, Manigan represented herself.1 While the foreclosure proceedings were underway, Manigan filed

The record reflects that at an early point in the proceedings Manigan retained an attorney who assisted her in filing for bankruptcy. Manigan indicates in her brief that she had hoped the bankruptcy would prevent the foreclosure. It is not clear when or why the attorney's representation of Manigan was terminated.

1

suit against the Bank, also in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, for breach of contract. She alleged, in essence,

that the Bank's allegations that she was behind on her mortgage payments were erroneous and were due to its own sloppy and inept accounting practices. Manigan filed a motion to stay the

foreclosure proceedings until the breach of contract action was resolved, and the court granted the motion. The trial court resolved the breach of contract action in the Bank's favor2, and the stay as to the foreclosure action was lifted. A foreclosure sale was held, and on December 17, 2002, On the same date,

Burson filed the Report of Sale with the court.3

the clerk of the court issued a notice indicating that the sale had taken place and would be ratified unless cause to the contrary was shown within 30 days.4 Manigan filed no exceptions to the sale.5

On February 11, 2002, the court entered an order of ratification and referred the matter to an auditor.6 On May 24, 2003, the

See Manigan v. Bank of America Mortgage, No. 1007, September Term, 2002 (filed May 7, 2003) (unreported), cert. denied, 377 Md. 113, 832 A.2d 205 (2003).
3

2

See Md. Rule 14-305(a). See Md. Rule 14-304(c). See Md. Rule 14-305(d). See Md. Rule 14-305(e) and (f). -2-

4

5

6

purchaser moved for a writ of possession of the property.7 The auditor's report was filed on July 21, 2003, and on August 15, 2003 a hearing on the motion for writ of possession was held in the trial court. Manigan appeared pro se at the hearing. She

attempted to argue that the Bank had wrongfully accused her of being delinquent on her mortgage payments and had hindered all attempts to resolve the matter, and that the foreclosure sale was therefore improperly conducted. The trial court informed Manigan:

Nothing has happened in this case to overturn [the] ratification of the sale. What has occurred is further action in consonance with [the sale]. It went to the auditor and the auditor has issued a suggested account. The auditor then issued the auditor's report. Ma'am, this case has not been appealed. The last thing that was filed here was an objection to Motion for Judgment awarding possession. But there is nothing to stop the awarding of possession. Manigan vaguely asserted that she "didn't receive anything to [the] effect" that the sale had been ratified, and insisted that if she "had received that [she] would have responded to it." The

court responded simply that the record reflected that "[c]opies were sent" to her. purchaser. Manigan subsequently moved for reconsideration of the It issued a writ of possession to the

possession award.

The court summarily denied the motion, and

7

See Md. Rule 14-102. -3-

Manigan filed this appeal. Manigan indicates in her brief that she has since been evicted from her home. DISCUSSION Manigan argues, in essence, that the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing into the propriety of the foreclosure. She

further argues that the court erred by denying her motion for reconsideration without conducting any hearing at all. As the trial court pointed out at the hearing on the request for the writ of possession, Manigan was sorely in need of an attorney throughout governing the foreclosure proceedings complex, below. and The

procedures

foreclosures

are

Manigan's

ignorance of the procedures has resulted in her inadvertent waiver of her right to challenge the sale. Put simply, Manigan failed to Her objection to the sale

object to the sale at the proper time.

at the time the writ of possession was requested came too late. To be sure, a party may properly appeal from the grant or denial of a writ of possession. See, e.g., G.E. Capital Mortgage

Services, Inc. v. Edwards, 144 Md. App. 449, 798 A.2d 1187 (2002) (regarding propriety of grant of writ of possession where

foreclosure sale had not yet been ratified).

See generally Md.

Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.),

Download Manigan v. Burson.pdf

Maryland Law