Newsom v. Brock & Scott, PLLC

• Decision Date: 24 November 2021
• Docket Number: No. 532, Sept. Term, 2019,532, Sept. Term, 2019
• Citation: 253 Md.App. 181,264 A.3d 283
• Parties: Mary T. NEWSOM v. BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

253 Md.App. 181

264 A.3d 283

Mary T. NEWSOM

v.BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, et al.

No. 532, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

November 24, 2021

Argued by: Phillip R. Robinson(Consumer Law Center, LLC and Peter A. Holland, The Holland Law Firm, PC, Annapolis, MD, on the brief), Rockville, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by: Richard Oliveri(Brock & Scott, PLLC, on the brief), Warrenton, VA, for Appellee.

Panel: Meredith,^* Graeff, James R. Eyler(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Meredith, J.

This case arose from efforts by Capital One to collect a debt by initiating foreclosure proceedings against real estate owned by Mary T. Newsom, appellant.Mrs. Newsom and her husband had held title to the property jointly as tenants by the entireties from 1979 through the time of Mr. Newsom's death in 2015.According to Mrs. Newsom, prior to her husband's death, her husband had, without her knowledge, apparently borrowed money from Capital One.The loan was evidenced by a promissory note signed by the husband alone.But the husband also signed a deed of trust (the "Deed of Trust") that purported to create a lien upon the residence that had been owned by the married couple as tenants by the entireties.The Deed of Trust also bore the purported signature of Mary Newsom, but she steadfastly denied signing or having any knowledge about the loan or the signing of the Deed of Trust.

After the husband died and payments on the loan ceased, Capital One sent letters—addressed first to the husband, and later to Mrs. Newsom—demanding payment and threatening that the house would be sold at a foreclosure sale if the loan was not brought current.Mrs. Newsom notified Capital One that her husband had died, and that she had no knowledge about her husband's loan.She explained that she never executed either a promissory note or Deed of Trust in connection with the loan.

Capital One nevertheless continued to treat the debt as collectible, and engaged the law firm of Brock & Scott, PLLC (hereafter sometimes referred to as "Brock & Scott" or "B&S")—one of the appellees—to pursue collection.B&S assigned several of its attorneys, including Christine Johnson(the second appellee), to serve as substitute trustees under the Deed of Trust and proceed with foreclosure upon the property owned by Mrs. Newsom by virtue of being the surviving tenant by the entireties.Mrs. Newsom's attorney sent Brock & Scott copies of letters that had been sent to Capital One denying knowledge of the loan and the Deed of Trust.Nevertheless, B&S sent Mrs. Newsom notice of its intent to foreclose upon her home, and Ms. Johnson and other B&S attorneys initiated a foreclosure action by filing an order to docket suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.

Mrs. Newsom, through counsel, filed a motion pursuant to Maryland Rule 14-211 to dismiss the foreclosure action.She also filed a separate suit (which is the subject of this appeal) against Capital One and Brock & Scott, alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), Maryland Code, Commercial Law Article ("CL"), §§ 14-201 et seq.; and the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act, Maryland Code, Real Property Article ("RP"), §§ 7-401 et seq.Capital One eventually entered into a settlement with Mrs. Newsom that terminated the foreclosure proceeding and resulted in Capital One being dismissed as a defendant in this case.

In an amended complaint that omitted Capital One and added Christine Johnson as a defendant, Mrs. Newsom alleged that Brock & Scott and Christine Johnson had violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (Count I) and the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act (Count II), and had committed the tort of malicious use of process (Count IV).The amended complaint also alleged that Brock & Scott had committed the tort of injurious falsehood (Count III).A jury trial proceeded on those claims, and, at the close of Mrs. Newsom's case-in-chief, the appellees moved for judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-519.The trial court granted the appellees’ motion for judgment as to all counts.This timely appeal followed.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The questions presented by Mrs. Newsom, which we have reordered and rephrased, are the following:¹

1.Did the circuit court err in denying Mrs. Newsom's pretrial motion for partial summary judgment?

2.Did the trial court err in granting the appellees’ motion for judgment on the counts alleging violations of (1) the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and (2) the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act?²

3.Did the trial court err in excluding certain evidence from being introduced in Mrs. Newsom's case-in-chief?

4.Did the trial court err in denying Mrs. Newsom's motion for recusal of the trial judge?

For the reasons explained herein, we will vacate the judgment of the circuit court granting the appellees’ motion for judgment on Count I (alleging violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act) and Count II (alleging violation of the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act), but we will affirm the unchallenged judgment in favor of the appellees with respect to Counts III and IV.We will remand the case for a new trial on Counts I and II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to Mrs. Newsom, included the following facts.

In 1979, Mrs. Newsom and her husband, Leslie "Boh" Newsom, received, as a wedding gift from Mr. Newsom's aunt, a parcel of unimproved real property located at 13010 Old Fletchertown Road in Bowie, Maryland ("the Property").Several years later, they developed plans for a residence they constructed upon the Property.They moved into that home in 1987, and lived together in that home until Mr. Newsom died in 2015.The Newsoms held title to the Property as tenants by the entireties.Mrs. Newsom still resided in the home at the time of the trial in this case.

After Mr. Newsom died intestate on May 24, 2015, Mrs. Newsom opened an estate and was appointed personal representative.Based upon information she received from a staff person at the office of the register of wills, Mrs. Newsom notified all known creditors of Mr. Newsom's passing as well as the opening and administration of his estate.She also published a notice to creditors.

After her husband's death, Mrs. Newsom began to receive correspondence from Capital One about a line of credit her husband had obtained from Capital One in 2011.Because the Newsoms had customarily kept their business affairs separate, Mrs. Newsom was surprised to learn that her husband was indebted to Capital One.By letter dated October 22, 2015, Mrs. Newsom notified Capital One of her husband's death and further advised the creditor:

I have reported Mr. Newsom's demise to local bank representatives (along with documentation that I am providing with this letter).Still, several pieces of correspondence from your bank were sent to his attention following his death.I am responding [to] the most recent of those items; Home Equity Line of Credit Statement.

As the Estate Administrator (document enclosed), I inform you that Mr. Newsom's estate is insolvent.Only the estate of the deceased is liable for the debt owed and family members are not personally responsible for payment of this debt.

If there is any other information that you feel is relevant to this account, please provide written documentation for legal consideration.

According to Mrs. Newsom, on February 23, 2016, Alice G. Pinderhughes(Mrs. Newsom's attorney at the time) notified Capital One in writing that "Mrs. Newsom never executed a Promissory Note and/or deed of trust for the [Property]," and "Mrs. Newsom has no knowledge of this debt."Ms. Pinderhughes requested that all correspondence to Mrs. Newsom concerning this matter cease immediately, but if there were any questions, "please do not hesitate to contact me."Neither Ms. Pinderhughes nor Mrs. Newsom received a response to the letter of February 23, 2016.

On March 31, 2016, Mrs. Newsom received correspondence from Capital One's Loss Mitigation Department, addressed to the Estate of Leslie B. Newsom, stating that the loan had been "referred to an attorney with instructions to begin foreclosure proceedings," and any questions could be directed to Brock & Scott, appellee.

On April 27, 2016, Ms. Pinderhughes sent another letter to Capital One via fax, with a copy to Brock & Scott, again reiterating that "Mrs. Newsom never executed a Promissory Note and/or deed of trust for the [Property]," and "has no knowledge of this debt."The letter restated that Mr. Newsom had died, and the property had been titled to both of them.Ms. Pinderhughes faxed a copy of her April 27 letter to Brock & Scott.Mrs. Newsom did not receive a response from Brock & Scott—either directly or through Ms. Pinderhughes—to Ms. Pinderhughes's April 27 letter.

On May 17, 2016, Brock & Scott sent a letter addressed to The Estate of Leslie B. Newsom at the Property address, stating: "The above referenced loan has been placed with Brock & Scott, PLLC (‘B&S’) for foreclosure."The letter asserted that Capital One, N.A. was owed $52,501.06.Among other statements, the letter included an advisement stating: "THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT, AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. "(Capitalization and boldface in original.)When Mrs. Newsom read the letter, she understood it to mean "that Capital One was escalating their efforts to take my house."

Capital One sent a "Notice of Intent to Foreclose," dated August 18, 2016, to Mrs. Newsom.Among other statements, the notice stated: "You are at risk of losing your home to foreclosure.You have missed one or more payments on your mortgage loan or you are otherwise in default."(Boldface in original.)The notice further stated that the names of the "Borrower(s)" were "LESLIE NEWSOM[and]MARY NEWSOM," and the name of the Mortgage Lender was: "Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B."The Notice of Intent to Foreclose stated...