Preview:

In the Circu it Court for M ontgom ery County Misc. Petition No. 10021

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 149 September Term, 2004

EMMANUEL NNO LI v. NINA NNOLI

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinio n by Rak er, J.

Filed: October 17, 2005

In this action, petitioner Emmanuel Nnoli asks this Court to decide whether the trial court erred in refusing to quash a warrant for his arrest issued by the Circuit Court for Montgom ery Coun ty. Because the denial of the Motion to Quash the warrant is a

nonapp ealable interlocutory order, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appea ls and rem and to that c ourt with ins tructions to dis miss the ap peal.

I. This case has a long and tortured history in the cou rts of this State, beginning in 1988. Nina Nnoli, respondent, filed for divorce from petitioner in 1988 in the Circuit Court for Montgom ery County. On March 17 1992, the Circuit Court awarde d custody of the Nno li's two minor children, A udrey and E ileen, to respondent. At the time of the custody award, the children were in Nigeria with petitioner's extended family. Petitioner refused to return the children to respondent as ordered by the Circuit Court, and respondent then filed a petition for contempt against petitioner fo r his failure to return the children to her custody. On April 21, 1992, th e Circu it Cour t held a h earing o n respo ndent' s conte mpt pe tition. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, but was represented by counsel. Th e court found p etitioner in civil contempt for failure to deliver custody of the children to respondent in accordance with the custody award and issu ed a bo dy attachm ent for p etitioner . The contempt Order permitted petitioner to purge the contempt by returning the children to the custody of the court. The court also found petitioner's counsel in contempt for failure to divulge petitioner's location or telephone number and incarce rated him for several ho urs until he provided petitioner's

number. Petitioner ap pealed the c ontempt O rder to the C ourt of Sp ecial Appeals , arguing that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the underlying award of custody. In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. On May 13, 1993, petitioner was apprehended on the body attachment and brought before the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court ordered petitioner to remain in custody until he complied with the pu rge provisio n and rem anded him to the custod y of the Sheriff. Petitioner then filed a m otion to aba te the contempt Order and release him from custody. The court denied this motion. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court, with respondent as the only named defendant. The Circuit Court granted the petition and relea sed p etitio ner f rom custody. Respondent appealed the grant of the habeas petition to the Court of Special Appeals, and petitioner appealed the denial of the mo tion to abate the contempt Order. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the grant of the habeas petition, and af firmed the den ial of the motion to abate the con tempt O rder. Nnoli v. N noli , 101 Md. A pp. 243, 646 A .2d 1021 (1994 ). The Circuit Court reinstated the contem pt Order a nd reissued the body attach ment; petitioner was apprehended again in Octob er 1994 . On December 12, 1994, petitioner filed a second petition in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a writ of habeas corpus, naming as defendant John Galley, Director of the Mon tgomery County Deten tion Center, where petitioner was then being held. Respondent's motion to intervene was granted on December 15, 199 4. After several continuances, petitioner supplemented his habeas petition

-2-

with letters he wrote to his family in Nigeria req uesting return of the children, an d letters written purportedly by his family indicating that they had no intention of returning the children . On September 13, 1995, the Circuit Court held a hearing on the habeas petition. At the hearing, respondent's co unsel opined that petitioner and his family were conspiring to keep the children from respondent and to obtain petitioner's release from incarceration, and that the letters were fabrications intended to further these ends. Respondent's counsel requested the opportunity to offer evidence to prove these allegations. Th e Circuit Court denied his re quest and gra nted the h abea s petition , ther eby re leasing p etitio ner f rom custody. Respondent noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion, that court vacated the Circuit Court's grant of the habeas petition and remande d to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. The court based its ho lding on tw o ground s: first, that the Circuit C ourt erred because it failed to make clear the grounds for its grant of the habeas petition, and s econd, tha t, to the extent th at the Circu it Court relied on the letters petitioner offered in support of his habeas petition, it erred by refusing to permit respondent to offer evidence that the letters were not genuine. We denied his petition for writ of certiora ri to this C ourt. Nnoli v. N noli , 344 Md. 118 , 685 A.2d 452 (1996). On remand to the Circuit Court, respondent filed a request for issuance of a bench warrant, body attachment, and order of incarceration against petitioner. On August 8, 1996, the Circuit Court granted this motion, reinstated the contempt finding and purge provisions

-3-

set out in the April 21, 1992 contempt Ord er, and directed the Sheriff to "apprehend, take into custody, and incarcerate" petitioner. The c ourt ordere d a hearing to be held in

accordance with the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals upon apprehension of petitioner. On January 28, 2000, petitioner filed in the Circuit Court a motion to dismiss the arrest warrant issu ed against p etitioner pursu ant to the August 1996 Order. In his motion, petitioner argued that the arrest warrant should be dismissed because the children had returned to the United States and were living with respondent. The Circuit Court held a hearing on the m otion o n Apr il 5, 2000. Petitioner's counsel appeared at the hearing, but petit ione r did not a ppear pe rson ally. The court denied the motion , indicating tha t it would not consider the motion if petitioner did not appear personally before the court. Petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus from this Court, which this Court denied on July 17, 2002. We turn now to the issue before this Court, petitioner's attempt to appeal the Circuit Court's denial of h is motion to quash the warrant for his arrest. After denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner filed on May 22, 200 3 a second mo tion in Circuit Court challenging the 1996 arrest warrant issued for him after his second habeas petition was remanded to the Circuit Court. This motion, captioned as a "Motion to Quash Arrest Warra nt," is the subject of the instant appeal. In this motion, petitioner argued that the arrest warrant should be quashed bec ause the ch ildren were now bo th emanc ipated, mak ing it impossible for him to s atisfy the purge provision se t forth in the A pril 1992 contem pt Order, and revived by the Circuit Court's August 1996 Order. The Circuit Court held a hearing on

-4-

this motion on July 7, 2003. Petitioner again failed to appear personally, and was represented by counsel at the hearing. During the hearing, petitioner's counsel indicated that he was prepared to offer birth certificates to prove that the children were e manc ipated. Once again, the Circuit Court indicated that it would not address the issue of whether petitioner lacked the present ability to purge unless he appeared personally in compliance with the arrest warrant. The Circ uit Court thus did no t permit petition er's counse l to offer the birth certificates into evidence , and denie d the motio n to quash the warran t. Petitioner noted a timely app eal to the Court o f Spec ial App eals. In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that, because petitioner had not appeared before the court, the Circu it Court did not have an y evidence before it from which it could conclude that petitioner lacked the present ability to perform the purge provision. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiora ri, and w e grante d his pe tition. Nnoli v. N noli , 385 M d. 511, 8 69 A.2 d 864 ( 2005) .

II. Before this Court ca n reach the merits of this appeal, we consider whether the Order of the Circuit Court denying petitioner's Motion to Quash the Warrant for his arrest is an appealable Order. It is important to note that petitioner is not appealing from an order

-5-

holding him in contempt, but rather from the Circuit Court's denial of a motion to quash a warrant fo r his arrest. 1 The general rule as to appeals is that, subject to a few, limited exceptions, a party may appeal only from a final judgment. Md. Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol., 2004 Cum . Supp.),

Download Nnoli v. Nnoli.pdf

Maryland Law