Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2011 September Term, 2006

DEBORAH ROLLINS, ET AL. v. CAPITAL PLAZA ASSOC IATES, L.P.

Woodward, *Adk ins, Sally D ., **Sharer, J. Frederick (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinio n by Wo odwa rd, J.

Filed: September 4, 2008 *Sally D. Adkins, now serving on the Court of Appeals, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; she participated in the adoption o f this opinion as a specially assig ned mem ber of this Court. **Sharer, J. Frederick, J., participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; he participated in the adoption of this opinion a s a retired, spec ially assigne d mem ber of th is Cou rt.

The instant case involves a landlord-tenant dispute between Capital Plaza Associates, L.P. ("Capital Plaza") and Dr. Deborah Rollins ("Dr. Rollins") pertaining to a commercial lease agreement for D r. Rollins' medical office.1 Appellant, Dr. Rollins,2 appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in favor of appellee, Capital Plaza, in the amount of $95,000. As stated in her brief, D r. Rollins pres ents the follo wing issu es on app eal: I. Whether the court below erred in its reliance upon the doctrine of res judicata by not allowin g any testimony from [Dr. Rollins] regarding evidence of fraud and misrepresentation. Whether the court below erred in concluding that [Dr. Rollins] knowin gly ag reed to give up her righ t to a t rial b y jury. Whether the court below erred in not extending the discovery time period. Various m iscellaneou s questions p resented: A. The eviction of Dr. Rollins co nstitutes a retaliatory eviction prohibited under the laws of real property of Maryland and Pri nce G eorg e's C ounty. The occu pancy and hold over pen alty was excessive and outrageous and therefore not enforceable. As a matter of public policy, Capital Plaza's lease and contract with Dr. Rollins is voidable because it was

II.

III.

IV.

B.

C.

The tenant under the lease is Dr. Rollins' professional corporation, Deborah Rollins, M.D., P.C. Dr. Rollins, individually, is a guarantor on the lease. Both Dr. Rollins and Deborah Rollins, M.D., P.C. are appellants in the case sub judice. As used in this opinion, "Dr. Rollins" refers to both appellants.
2

1

signed under economic duress. D. As a matter of public policy, this lease and its terms are non-enf orceable because Capital Plaza's employees were not licensed professionals at the time of the agreeme nt. The outstanding rent and fees claimed by Capital Plaza are not collectible because of the fraudulent conduct of Capital Plaza and furthermore, the amount is not correct.

E.

Because of Dr. Rollins' many and substantial violations of the appellate rules of procedure, we shall exercise our discretio n, sua spon te , pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-602(a)(8), and dismiss this ap peal. BACKGROUND In light of our decision to dispose of the instant appeal on procedural grounds, we shall set f orth on ly a brief su mmar y of the fa cts to pro vide co ntext fo r our dis cussion . On July 31, 20 01, Dr . Rollins executed a lease and an addendum to the lease (collectively referred to as the "Lease") for approximately 2,010 feet of spa ce in a shopping center own ed by Cap ital P laza and loca ted in Prin ce G eorg e's C ounty, Maryland. Pursuant to the Lease, the tenancy had a term of five years, beginning on May 1, 2001 and terminating on April 30, 2006. Dr. Rollins leased the premises to operate her medical practice. The Lease contained the following provision: " Landlord 's Termin ation Righ t: (a) Landlo rd shall have the righ t, at any time, for any reason, to terminate th is Lease . . . by prov iding ninety (90) days written n otice of suc h election . . . ." (E mphasis in original). Under the Lea se, Dr.

2

Rollins had a reciprocal termination right on th e sam e term s and conditio ns. A dditiona lly, the Lease provided that, if Dr. Rollins did not timely vacate, Dr. Rollins agreed to pay "an occupancy fee" of $1,000 per day, commencing on the day after the termination date and continuing thereafter fo r each day tha t she failed to tender pos session of th e premises to Capital Plaza. On October 28, 2004, Ca pital Plaz a exe rcise d its r ight to ter minate b y giving Dr. Rollins notice of termination of the Lease effective January 27, 2005. Dr. Rollins did not vacate the premises by January 27, 2005. Shortly thereafter, Capital Plaza filed a complaint in the District Court of Ma ryland for Prin ce Georg e's Coun ty seeking to recover possession of the premises. At a hearing on March 14, 2005, counsel for Capital Plaza informed the court that it had reached an agreement with Dr. Rollins, whereby a judgment for possession would be entered, but the warrant of restitution would not to be executed until after April 5, 2005, if Dr. Rollins did not vacate by that date. Dr. Rollins ultimately vacated on April 5, 2005. On June 20, 2005, C apital Plaza filed the instant case agains t Dr. Rollins in the Circuit Court for Prince George's Cou nty, alleging brea ch of con tract. Capital P laza sough t to recover $5,199.91 "for unp aid rent . . . for the period to December 31, 2004, and $1,772.42, as prorated rent, for the period of January 1, 2005, through the New Termination Date [, January 27, 2005]." In addition to back re nt, Capital Plaza sought Occupancy Fees in the amount of $ 68,000 "accrued for the period fro m the Ne w Term ination Da te through A pril

3

5, 2005." In total, Capital Plaza alleged damages in the amount of $73,119.98, "representing all Bac k Ren t and O ccupa ncy Fees , includin g all cred its and a djustm ents." 3 On August 10, 2005, Dr. Rollins filed an answer, counterclaim, and a jury demand. Dr. Rollins' counterclaim was ultimately dismissed on February 23, 2006. In response to Dr. Rollins' jury demand, Capital Plaza filed a Motion to Strike the Jury Demand 4 on March 9, 2006, which the court granted on May 24, 2006. A bench trial was held on S eptember 27, 2006. At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Capital Plaza in the amount of $95,000.5 The court stated: Despite the efforts, frankly, of all side s to expan d this beyond what I view it as. This is a fair ly simple a nd straig htforw ard actio n. A breach of a contra ct, a breach o f a lease an d damag es flowin g therefrom. It was clear that the parties entered into a lease agreement on July 31, 2001 which contained an addendum and it is admitted as [Capital Plaza's] Exhibit 15. It did provide for a lease term of five years commencing May 1, 2001 and terminating April 30, 2006 subject to the landlord['s] terminatio n right wh ich are set fo rth in Paragraph 9 of the addendum [to the Lease]. The addendu m did provide that the landlord shall have the right at any time for any reason to terminate the lease by providing 90 days written notice of that election by certified mail to the tenant. The - - such notice was given and it is contained as [Capital Plaza's] Exhibit 26. Providing

In its comp laint, Capital P laza ackno wledged that Dr. Ro llins was en titled to credit for one payment made prior to the termination date, in the amount of $1,835.00, and credit for "other accounting balances" in the amount of $17.35. Capita l Plaza b ased its m otion o n the jur y trial waiv er prov ision in th e Leas e. Dr. Rollins filed no opposition to Capital Plaza's motion.
5 4

3

This amount included attorney's fees and other costs. 4

for a termination of - - on January 27, 2005. And it further provided that in the event there was an early termination there was to be a termination payment according to a schedule and pursuant to that schedule January of 2005, the termination payment of $1,000.00 was proffered. Despite that [Dr. Rollins] did not vacate, but remained on the premises and thus b ecame a tenant ho lding over. The [L]ease further provided in the event of the termination of the [L]ease that the - - and if the tenant does not timely vacate, the tenant agrees to pay the landlord an occupancy fee of $1,000.00 per day payable weekly in arrears in lieu of the fixed minimum rent for the demise premises. And that's something that she's entitled to. The court finds it to be a term that w as agreed to and to be re asonable under the circumstances negotiate by two business peop le - businesses in this comm ercial lease ag reement. So [Dr. R ollins] - - the tena nt is obligated to pay that. *** Frankly the only defe nse raised a t this point, is that the - - she was a tenant holding over. Of course, a tenant holding over by the terms of the statute or by the terms of the agreement requires acceptance by the landlord or consent by the landlord and there was no con sent in th is case. In fact to the contrary, [Capital Plaza] made every effort to - - to enforce their rights, including the filing of a tenant holdin g over a ction. I don't know - - it is dated - - the signature on the c ompla int is Feb ruary 2. I don't - - I ca n't re ad, o n this cop y, the date in wh ich it was file d. Perhaps it is February 5, I thin k. So it was filed soon thereafter, came on hearing in March and in March there was an agreem ent that judgment for p ossession would be entered. The agreement not to execute on that judgment until April 5, is not the sam e as a cons ent for her to remain. It simply is an agre eme nt no t to have t he sh eriff go and th row her o ut, fr ankly. There's nothing in here about any agreement that she could remain. Nothing that she would be entitled to be treated as a holdover tenant with the . . . rent to be anything other than the occupancy of $1,000.00 a day. Nor with regard to the $200.00 is there anything in that regard. No waiver. That's stated there. There must - - in the 5

agreement any waiver has to be in writing. There's been no evidence of any writing. So for those re asons I do find that . . . [C apital Plaza] . . . is entitled to rent/occu pancy fees in the amount of $71,284.00 as against [Dr. Rollins]. The remaining issue is [Ca pital Plaza's] c laim under the [L]ease for - - as a prevailing party recovery for the fees for its attorney in such actio n including the cost of a ppeal if any in such amounts as the court adjudge reasonable. *** So I'm going to enter [judgment] in favor of [Capital Plaza], against [Dr. Ro llins] in the amount of [$95,000.00], which includes the costs, which I think were already billed. Dr. Rollins timely noted this a ppeal. DISCUSSION "[T]he Maryland Rules `are not guides to the practic e of law but precise rubrics established to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice and . . . are to be read and followed.'" Green v . State , 127 Md. App. 758, 774 (1999) (quoting Isen v. Pho enix Assurance Co. of N.Y., 259 Md. 564, 570 (1970) (internal quotation omitted)). Maryland Rule 8-602(a) provides the groun ds upon w hich this Court can enter an order dismissing an appeal. Its pro vides in per tinent part: (a) Grou nds. On mo tion or on its own initiative, the Court may dismiss an appeal for any of the following reasons: *** (8) th e style, contents, size, format, legibility, or method of 6

reproduction of a brief, appe ndix, or reco rd extract do es not com ply with R ules 8-1 12, 8-5 01, 8-5 03, or 8 -504[ .] Capital Plaza contends that Dr. Rollins , in preparing her brief an d record ex tract, ignored the rules and standards of appellate practice. Specifically, Dr. Rollins' record extract, Capital Plaza argues, was f iled in violation of Ma ryland Rule 8 -501(c), bec ause it contains documents that simply do not appear in the record . Capital Plaza notes that Dr. Rollins, in preparing the record extract, improperly included various papers produced during discovery or docum ents mark ed as an ex hibit at a deposition or bearing trial exhibit labels, but never introd uced or ad mitted at trial bef ore the circu it court. Worse yet, Capital Plaza points out that Dr. Rollins' record extract contains extraneous documents found nowhe re in the record and "seen f or the fi rst time b y Capital P laza in th e [r]eco rd [e]x tract itself ." Capital Plaza contends that, not only do es the record extract con tain improp er material, but Dr. Rollins relies on facts contained in that improper material as the basis for many of her argumen ts in this appea l. Capital Plaza also c harges D r. Rollins w ith failure to file a brief in complian ce with Maryland Rule 8-504(a). Substantial portions of Dr. Rollins' brief, Capital Plaza argues, contain statements of fact not supported by any citation or reference to the record extract or to the record. Instead, Capital Plaza states, D r. Rollins "relies heavily on facts that are asserted with no referen ce wh atsoev er to any so urce." Furthermore, Capital Plaza contends that Dr. Rollins' brief "contains multi-page sections of prose taken verbatim from appellate opinio ns with out quo tation m arks or o ther ind ication o f attribu tion." 7

Because of the abo ve violation s of the rules of appella te practice in Dr. Rollins' brief and record extract, Capital Plaza asserts that the "evaluation and drafting of a response to [Dr. Rollins'] brie f was ex tremely difficult." To provide this Court with an accurate response to Dr. Ro llins' brie f, Capital P laza states that it "was forced to painstakingly create a spreadsheet of every factual proposition in [Dr. Rollins'] [b]rief and then match each proposition with the record." Accordingly, Capital Plaza app ended to its brief a version of Dr. Rollins' brief that shows, by the use of strike-out text, those portions of Dr. Rollins' brief that rely upon facts not in the record. Additionally, Capital Plaza attached a similar strike-out version of the table of contents from Dr. Rollins' record extract, "illustrat[ing] how many of the docum ents include d in the [r]ecord [e]xtract should be excluded from consideration by this Co urt." We agree with Cap ital Plaza's contentions that Dr. Rollins committed numerous and substantial violations of several rules of appellate procedure. We turn first to Rule 8-501(c). It provides: (c) Contents. The record extract shall contain all parts of the record that are reasonably necessary for the determination of the questions presen ted by the ap peal an d any cross-a ppea l. It shall include the circuit court docket entries, the judgment appealed from, and such other parts of the record as are designated by the parties pursuant to section (d) of this Rule. In agreeing on or designating parts of the record for inclusion in the record extract, the parties shall refrain from unne cessary designation. The record extract shall not include those parts of the record that support facts set forth in an agreed statement of facts or stipulation made pursuant to section (g) of this Rule nor an y part of a memorandum of law in the trial court, unless it has independent relevance. The fact that a part of the 8

record is not included in the record extract or an appendix to a brief shall not prec lude an ap pellate court f rom con sidering it. (Emphasis add ed). Dr. Rollins' record extract does not "contain all parts of the record that are reasonab ly necessary for the determination of questions presented by the appeal." Md. Ru le 8-501(c). For example, the record extract does not contain any pleadings from the record related to Dr. Rollins' second issue on appeal

Download Rollins v. Capital Plaza.pdf

Maryland Law