Preview:

R & D 20 01, LLC , et al. v. Doug las S. Rice, et a l., No. 33 , Septem ber Te rm 200 7. Opinion by Wilner, J. THE MERE FILING OF A FOREIGN JUDGMENT WITH CIRCUIT COURT CLERK DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENFORCEABILITY OF THAT JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BAR DEBTOR FROM CHALLENGING ENFORCEABILITY BY REASON OF A POST-JUDGMENT ACT THAT WOU LD HAV E TH E EFF ECT OF D ISCH ARG ING O R SA TISF YING THE JUD GM ENT . ACCORD AND SATISFACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMEN T SERVES TO SATISFY A VIRGINIA JUDGMENT AGAINST SEVERAL JOINT TORTFEASORS IN FULL, SO AS TO PRECLUDE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST A NONSETTLING JUDGMENT DEBTOR ONLY IF SETTLEMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR AS FULL SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.

IN THE COURT OF A PPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 33 September Term, 2007 _______________________________ R & D 2001, LLC, ET AL. v. DOUGLAS S. RICE, ET AL. _______________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Wiln er, A lan M . (Re tired , Spe cially Assigned), Cath ell, D ale R . (Re tired , Spe cially Assigned), JJ. _________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. _________________________________ Filed: January 4, 2008

This appeal has its roots in a $2.9 million money judgment entered against four joint tortfeaso r defenda nts by the Circu it Court for L oudoun County, Virg inia. There is no present contest as to the validity of that judgment. Three of the defendants entered into settlement agreements with the judgment creditor, appellant R & D 2001, LLC (R & D). In an attempt to enforce the judgment against the only non-settling judgment debtor, appellee Dou glas Rice, R & D filed proceedings in the C ircuit Court for How ard County, M aryland, the Circ uit Court fo r Montg omery Cou nty, Maryland, an d the Circu it Court for Fairfax County, Virginia.1 The case now resides simultaneously in this Court and the Su preme C ourt of V irginia. This ap peal is from a summ ary judgmen t entered in one of the two action s filed in the M ontgom ery County cou rt.2 Appellan ts importun ed us to gra nt certiorari prior to proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals "for the sole purpose of facilitating the resolution of an appeal before the

At some point, R & D made a partial assignment of its judgment to the Nap Foundation, which is also an appellant. It does not appear that there is any divergence of interest betw een R & D and N ap, so, for co nvenienc e, we shall re fer to them collectively as R & D. It appears that several actions or proceedings were filed in both Howard and Montgomery County. First, appellants enrolled the Loudoun County judgment in the Circuit Co urt for Ho ward C ounty. They then sought, in tha t court, a writ o f garnishm ent, attachment of an alleged interest that Rice had in a limited liability company, and sequestration of that interest. We are advised that, at some point, appellants filed a separate ac tion in Ho ward C ounty to annu l a transfer of that interest by R ice to himse lf and his wife, as tenants b y the entireties. A similar action was filed in the C ircuit Court for Mo ntgomery C ounty

Download R & D 2001 v. Rice.pdf

Maryland Law