Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 891 September Term, 2008 __________________________

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.

v.

PAULA HARRISON ET AL. _________________________ Davis, Woodward, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. _________________________

Opinion by Davis, J. _________________________ Filed: June 11, 2009

On July 27, 2006, Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., appellant, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, asserting claims of conversion and negligence against Middleburg Bank and Chesapeake Bank of Maryland (Chesapeake Bank), appellees, in relation to payment of a $140,000 check issued by Joint Insurance Association (JIA), which appellant, as a co-payee, neither indorsed nor authorized to be indorsed on its behalf. Appellant's complaint further alleged breach of contract on the part of JIA and asserted claims of conversion, fraud, intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract against Paula Harrison and Steven Siegel. On November 13, 2006, the negligence claim against Chesapeake Bank was dismissed. On June 21, 2007, the circuit court entered default judgments against Harrison and Siegel, neither of whom are parties to this appeal. On October 4, 2007, the circuit court awarded summary judgment in favor of JIA on the breach of contract claim. In addition, on October 4, 2007, the circuit court stayed a cross claim filed by Chesapeake Bank against Middleburg Bank. On October 31, 2007, the circuit court entered an order granting appellees' motions in limine and precluding appellant from introducing evidence at trial that appellant first disclosed after the discovery deadline. The circuit court subsequently denied appellant's motion for reconsideration of that decision. A bench trial on the conversion claims against appellees and the remaining negligence claim against Middleburg Bank commenced on May 6, 2008. At the close of appellant's case-in-chief, the circuit court granted judgment in favor of appellees on all counts and denied appellant's motion for judgment on the conversion claims. Appellant appeals from

the judgments against it1 and presents four questions for our review, which we have rephrased, reordered and consolidated as follows:2 I. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by precluding appellant from using evidence that it first disclosed after the court-ordered discovery deadline? Did the circuit court erroneously conclude that appellant, one of multiple payees of a check, had the initial burden, under

Download Saxon v. Harrison.pdf

Maryland Law