Beyer v. Morgan State University

Decision Date10 June 2002
Docket NumberNo. 104,104
Citation800 A.2d 707,369 Md. 335
PartiesJanet BEYER, Personal Representative of Betty Y. Keat v. MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

T. Sean Daugherty, Baltimore, for petitioner.

Mark J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Maryland, and Arthur L. Drager, on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.

Argued Before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.

BATTAGLIA, Judge.

In the present matter, petitioner Janet Beyer ("Beyer"), the Personal Representative for the Estate of Betty Y. Keat ("Keat"), challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on appeal, pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl.Vol.), Section 12-502(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, of two Orders of the Orphans' Court allowing payment of attorney's fees and extraordinary expenses out of the Estate. Petitioner further contends that the Circuit Court improperly vacated the Order of the Orphans' Court allowing for the payment of attorney's fees from the Estate based on an oral motion for summary judgment made by respondent Morgan State University ("MSU" or "University") at the hearing on the appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Circuit Court of Baltimore City had subject matter jurisdiction to hear MSU's appeal and properly granted summary judgment in favor of MSU, vacating the Order of the Orphans' Court authorizing the payment of attorney's fees.

I. Facts

On January 12, 1996, Betty Keat met with an untimely death from gunshot wounds inflicted by members of the Baltimore City Police Department during an altercation in which she menacingly approached the officers, crying, "There's no such thing as police in Baltimore City."1 Keat, who had been a professor at Morgan State University, executed a will on January 25, 1982, which stated, in part:

[T]his is a final will and testament to dispose of my property, Betty Y. Keat, being of sound mind and body.
1. House: to be sold. Proceeds to Morgan State University for repair of campus clocks.
2. Stocks, mutual funds, deferred compensation, pension. Converted to cash for litigation costs, if necessary, to enforce precedent provision. Any surplus to be donated towards fund to rectify heating plant of Soper [L]ibrary.
* * *
6. Books: on India: to Soper [L]ibrary for special collection.2

The house was her residence at 326 Taplow Road in Baltimore City. The will made various other distributions of Keat's personal affects, such as her china, crystal, jewelry, and personal papers; it did not contain a residuary clause.

On January 18, 1996, Keat's sister and sole heir at law, Janet Beyer, retained attorney Anton J.S. Keating ("Keating") to file a survival action3 against the Baltimore City Police officers who shot Keat. At the same time, Beyer made the first of four payments of attorney's fees to Keating.4 On or about February 20, 1996, Keat's will was admitted to probate and Beyer was appointed as Personal Representative of the Estate. Beyer engaged the services of a second attorney, David Allen ("Allen"), to handle the legal affairs associated with administering Keat's Estate. On April 6, 1996, Allen notified University Counsel for MSU of Keat's bequest, and informed the University that Keat's relatives were conducting an investigation of the circumstances surrounding Keat's death, which would require use of funds from the Estate to cover the costs of the investigation and any subsequent litigation arising out of it. In response, on April 29, 1996, MSU informed Allen in writing:

We acknowledge the intention to investigate the circumstances surrounding Ms. Keat's death. However, we do not understand why you have suggested that costs associated with those efforts take precedence over the Morgan bequest. In accordance with § 8-105(b) of the Estates and Trusts Article (Order of payment) the Morgan bequest takes precedence. Moreover, the testator did not specify that funds from the estate be used for this purpose.

Neither Beyer nor Allen responded to the University's letter.5 Despite MSU's expressed concern about the costs of litigation, the Personal Representative filed a survival action on October 3, 1996.6

On June 28, 1996, Beyer sold Keat's house for $95,045.94 and failed to inform MSU of the sale. On August 13, 1997, after having not heard anything from the Personal Representative or her attorneys, MSU's Office of General Counsel sent a letter to Allen inquiring as to the disposition of Keat's house and the bequest of Keat's books on India which were supposed to have been turned over to the Soper Library. Again, MSU received no response.

On February 4, 1998, Beyer filed a Petition to Approve Expenditure of Extraordinary Expenses of Administration ("Expenses Petition") in the Orphans' Court for Baltimore City. The Expenses Petition requested more than $13,000 for distribution to Beyer and her relatives to compensate them for expenditures associated with cleaning and repairing Keat's house and property for sale. Although Allen was aware of communications from MSU's Office of General Counsel, notice of the Expenses Petition was served on the Soper Library, rather than on MSU's attorney. Thereafter, on March 30, 1998, Beyer filed a Petition for Attorney's Fees ("Fees Petition") with the Orphans' Court for services performed by Keating in the survival action. Once again, counsel for MSU did not receive notice of the Petition because it had been mailed to the Soper Library. On April 20, 1998, the Orphans' Court approved Beyer's Expenses Petition. On April 29, 1998, however, the Orphans' Court delayed acting upon the Fees Petition pending receipt of a verification, a certificate of service to interested parties, a detailed list of services performed by Keating, and a first and final administration account of the Estate. Keating subsequently filed a Petition for an Extension for filing these requested documents with the Orphans' Court on May 19, 1998. On May 6, 1998, counsel for MSU entered his appearance in the Orphans' Court when he learned about Beyer's Expenses Petition and took exception thereto. Beyer filed a motion to strike MSU's exceptions on the basis that they were untimely filed and allegedly contained "inaccurate and false allegations."

On June 8, 1998, Keating filed another Fees Petition requesting $40,000 from the Estate, although the Personal Representative previously had paid Keating $30,000 for his services. The Orphans' Court granted Keating an extension of time to provide the Court with the information it had requested in its April 29th Order. The Court also ordered Keating to provide his retainer agreement with the Personal Representative for his representation of the Estate in the survival action.7

On July 2, 1998, over two years after the sale, MSU learned that Keat's house had been sold. MSU responded by immediately filing a Petition to Order Distribution of Property ("Petition for Distribution") with the Orphans' Court to facilitate its receipt of the bequest. In the Petition for Distribution, MSU objected to Beyer's failure to file a first and final administration account for the Estate and to the proposed payment of attorney's fees for any litigation arising out of Keat's death and requested that the Orphans' Court stay any further expenditures from the Estate pending review by the court.8 The Orphans' Court scheduled a hearing on MSU's Petition for Distribution for September 29, 1998.

On September 9, 1998, without notice to MSU or a hearing, the Orphans' Court approved payment of $30,000 in attorney's fees to Keating and allowed him to request additional payment for services rendered following the disposition of the survival action. Thereafter, on September 11, 1998, the Orphans' Court denied MSU's exceptions to Beyer's Expenses Petition without a hearing. MSU did not receive a copy of the September 11th Order until September 25, 1998.

On October 1, 1998, MSU sent a letter to the Chief Judge of the Orphans' Court for Baltimore City protesting the failure to receive notice of the petitions and the lack of hearings prior to the issuance of the Orphans' Court's Orders of September 9 and September 11, 1998. Counsel for MSU did not learn of the June 8, 1998 Fees Petition or September 9, 1998 Order approving of those fees until he appeared before the Orphans' Court on September 29, 1998, for the hearing on the Petition for Distribution. Although MSU requested that the Orphans' Court immediately remediate the situation, the Court declined to intervene. MSU then filed an appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol.) Section 12-502 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article9 challenging the legitimacy of the Orphans' Court's Orders of September 9 and September 11, 1998. MSU asserted that, despite filing pleadings in opposition to the payments of attorney's fees and extraordinary expenses from the Estate, it never had been given the opportunity to be heard on the merits of the issues underlying the Orphans' Court's Orders of September 9 and September 11, 1998.10 MSU also alleged that Beyer breached her fiduciary duty "to settle and distribute the estate ... as expeditiously and with as little sacrifice of value as is reasonable under the circumstances," as set forth in Maryland Code (1974, 2001 Repl.Vol.), Section 7-101(a) of the Estates and Trusts Article.

The Circuit Court consolidated MSU's appeal with the ongoing survival action brought by Beyer as Personal Representative of the Estate of Betty Y. Keat against members of the Baltimore City Police Department, which had been set for trial in February of 1999. In addition, the Circuit Court, acting sua sponte on January 15, 1999, appointed attorney Arthur Drager to serve as counsel to represent the interests of the Estate of Betty Y. Keat.

On February 23, 1999,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
95 cases
  • Huggins v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 7, 2022
    ...or are otherwise illogical or unreasonable. Beyer v. Morgan State Univ. , 139 Md. App. 609, 631, 779 A.2d 388 (2001), aff'd , 369 Md. 335, 800 A.2d 707 (2002). With these principles guiding our way, we turn now to the task at hand. Maryland Rules 4-252 and 4-323 Maryland Rule 4-252 governs ......
  • Waldt v. Umms, 2623, September Term, 2006.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 5, 2008
    ...rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions. Witte, 369 Md. at 526, 801 A.2d 160 (citing Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 369 Md. 335, 349-50, 800 A.2d 707 (2002) and Liverpool v. Baltimore Diamond Exchange, Inc., 369 Md. 304, 317-19, 799 A.2d 1264 (2002)). See also Ishola v......
  • Hemmings v. Pelham Wood, 56
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 16, 2003
    ...... from gunshot wounds later that morning at the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center. .         After ... the Hemmings lived, 5 Lynfair Court, recalled the state of the lighting around their building prior to the Hemmings ... See Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 369 Md. 335, 359, 800 A.2d 707, 721 ......
  • Plank v. Cherneski
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 14, 2020
    ...A.2d 758 (2004) ; Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Willis Corroon Corp. of Md. , 369 Md. 724, 802 A.2d 1050 (2002) ; Beyer v. Morgan State Univ. , 369 Md. 335, 800 A.2d 707 (2002) ; Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Miller , 362 Md. 361, 765 A.2d 587 (2001) ; Hartlove v. Md. School for the Blind , 344 Md. 72......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Maryland Register, Volume 41, Issue 21, October 17, 2014
    • United States
    • Maryland Register
    • Invalid date
    ...ones. Category 6 consists of amendments to Rules 2-501 and 2-504 to address a matter arising most recently from Beyer v. Morgan State, 369 Md. 335 (2002). In that case, the Court noted that, under Rule 311 (a), a motion presented at a trial or hearing need not be in writing and that there w......
  • Maryland Register, Volume 41, Issue 21 , October 27, 2014
    • United States
    • Maryland Register
    • Invalid date
    ...ones. Category 6 consists of amendments to Rules 2-501 and 2-504 to address a matter arising most recently from Beyer v. Morgan State, 369 Md. 335 (2002). In that case, the Court noted that, under Rule 311 (a), a motion presented at a trial or hearing need not be in writing and that there w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT