O'Brien v. Bank of Am., N.A.

• Citation: 214 Md.App. 51,75 A.3d 964
• Decision Date: 09 September 2013
• Docket Number: Sept. Term, 2012.,No. 0824,0824
• Parties: Michael Robert O'BRIEN, Sr., et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

214 Md.App. 51

75 A.3d 964

Michael Robert O'BRIEN, Sr., et al.

v.BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

No. 0824, Sept. Term, 2012.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 9, 2013.

Albert McCarraher (Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner, PA, on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Steven M. Sullivan (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD. John D. Wilburn (McGuire Woods LLP, Tysons Corner, VA, Craig Haughton, McGuire Woods LLP, on the brief, Baltimore, MD), for appellee.

Panel: WRIGHT, HOTTEN and JAMES P. SALMON (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

HOTTEN, J.

This case arises from a garnishment of bank accounts jointly held by a married couple, Dorothy O'Brien (“Dorothy”) and appellant, Michael O'Brien (“Michael”), as well as another bank account held by Dorothy, Michael, and appellant, Lavelle O'Brien (“Lavelle”),¹ who is Michael's mother, to satisfy a judgment entered against Dorothy.² Appellants filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against appellees, Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and the Attorney General of Maryland, Douglas Gansler (“Attorney General”), in his official capacity, alleging conversion and/or trespass to chattel, breach of contract, and a violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act. Appellants further requested a declaratory judgment that appellees violated Md.Code (1974, 2013 Repl.Vol.), § 11–603(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article³ [hereinafter Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. § 11–603(c) ], the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Article 3, Section 43 of the Maryland Constitution.⁴ Appellees filed their respective motions for judgment, which the trial court granted. Appellants noted an appeal, and present five issues for our consideration:

1. Did the trial court erroneously fail to give [ ][a]ppellants a reasonable opportunity to introduce materials pertinent to whether Lavelle O'Brien's account was a joint account?

[214 Md.App. 56]2. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that subsection 11–603(c) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

3. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that subsection 11–603(c) does not violate Article [3], [S]ection 43 of the Maryland Constitution?

4. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding and declaring that subsection 11–603(c) does not violate Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?

[5]. Did the trial court commit a legal error by finding that the seized accounts were “available for withdrawal” under the Expedited Funds Availability Act?

For the reasons that follow, we answer all of the above-mentioned questions in the negative. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2009, Citi Financial, Inc. (“Citi Financial”) obtained a judgment against Dorothy in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County (“District Court”).⁵ Citi Financial filed a request for a writ of garnishment, seeking garnishment of Dorothy's Bank of America accounts. On July 26, 2010, the District Court issued service of a writ of garnishment on Bank of America, which directed it “to seize and hold all of Dorothy's property that was in the bank's possession.” ⁶ On August 20, 2010, Bank of America filed a plea, stating:

1. Garnishee holds property in a checking account no. XXXXXXXX6220, savings account no. XXXXXXXX9379, savings account no. XXXXXXXX9382 and checking account no. XXXXXXXX7801 all accounts are in the name of two (2) or more persons, one (1) or more of whom but fewer than all of whom, are judgment debtors.

2. Pursuant to Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 11–603, Garnishee is holding in said accounts the amounts of $241.87, $15.17, $10.01, and $900.00, respectively, pending further order of the [c]ourt.

According to the Bank of America Deposit Agreement and Disclosures (“Deposit Agreement”), signature cards, and bank statements, Dorothy and Michael jointly owned three of the above-mentioned bank accounts, and in 2000 or 2001, pursuant to a power of attorney, Dorothy and Michael were authorized to use and withdraw funds from the remaining account, which belonged to Lavelle.

Thereafter, Dorothy filed a motion for release of garnished funds, prompting Citi Financial, Bank of America, and Dorothy to enter into an agreement. ⁷ As a result, the District Court issued an order on September 14, 2010, which granted Dorothy's motion, stating (strike-outs omitted) (signatures omitted):

Upon review and consideration of the Judgment Debtor's Motion for Release of all Garnished Funds, other than wages, any opposition thereto, and for good cause demonstrated, it is this 14[th] day of Sept., , 2010

ORDERED, that Judgment Debtor's Motion for Release of Garnished Funds other than wages be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; by agreement; and

ORDERED, that the garnishment directed to the Garnishee be, and the same hereby is, QUASHED; and it is further

ORDERED, that any monies being held by the Garnishee other than wages pursuant to the Garnishment in the name of the Judgment Debtor be released forthwith to the Judgment Debtor.

On July 26, 2011, appellants filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against appellees,⁸ alleging conversion and/or trespass to chattel, breach of contract, and a violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act. Appellants contended that Bank of America did not release the funds, despite notification that the garnishment neither applied to the joint marital accounts nor Lavelle's account. On September 9, 2011, Bank of America filed its motion to dismiss. On September 26, 2011, appellants filed their opposition to Bank of America's motion, to which Bank of America filed a reply on October 14, 2011.

On December 6, 2011, appellants filed an amended complaint, adding the Attorney General to the action. Appellants further requested a declaratory judgment that appellees violated Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. § 11–603(c), the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Article 3, Section 43 of the Maryland Constitution. On December 27, 2011, Bank of America filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 4, 2012, the Attorney General filed his motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. On January 17 and January 23, 2012, appellants filed their respective oppositions to Bank of America's and the Attorney General's motions. On January 31, 2012, Bank of America filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss and a response to the Attorney General's motion. Following a motions hearing, the court treated Bank of America's and the Attorney General's motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment. On May 24, 2012, the court issued a memorandum opinion, final declaratory judgment, and order, granting the motions for summary judgment and holding that Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. § 11–603(c) did not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, or Article 3, Section 43 of the Maryland Constitution.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The question of whether summary judgment under Maryland Rule 2–501 was properly granted is one of law, which we review de novo in order to determine whether the trial court was legally correct. David A. Bramble, Inc. v. Thomas, 396 Md. 443, 453, 914 A.2d 136 (2007) (citing Walk v. Hartford Cas., 382 Md. 1, 14, 852 A.2d 98 (2004); Todd v. Mass Transit Admin., 373 Md. 149, 154, 816 A.2d 930 (2003); Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp., 378 Md. 509, 533, 836 A.2d 655 (2003); Southland Corp. v. Griffith, 332 Md. 704, 712, 633 A.2d 84 (1993)). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and ... the party [in whose favor judgment is entered] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Md. Rule 2–501(f). Upon any given statement of facts, or upon clear facts, the legal relation that existed between the parties must be decided by the court. Whitehead v. Safway Steel Prods., Inc., 304 Md. 67, 73–74, 497 A.2d 803 (1985).

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, “ ‘we independently review the record to determine whether the parties properly generated a dispute of material fact and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Charles County Comm'rs v. Johnson, 393 Md. 248, 263, 900 A.2d 753 (2006) (quoting Myers v. Kayhoe, 391 Md. 188, 203, 892 A.2d 520 (2006)). Our examination is limited to the same record and legal reasoning that the trial court analyzed to grant the motion for summary judgment. D'Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549, 575, 36 A.3d 941 (2012) (citing Messing v. Bank of Am., N.A., 373 Md. 672, 684, 821 A.2d 22 (2003); Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of the Gables on Tuckerman Condo., 404 Md. 560, 571, 948 A.2d 11 (2008)) (parenthetical phrase omitted); see also River Walk Apartments, LLC v. Twigg, 396 Md. 527, 541–42, 914 A.2d 770 (2007) (quoting Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439, 451, 910 A.2d 1072 (2006)). “So long as the record reveals no genuine dispute of any material fact necessary to resolve the controversy as a matter of law, and it is shown that the movant is entitled to judgment, the entry of summary judgmentis proper.” Appiah v. Hall, 416 Md. 533, 547, 7 A.3d 536 (2010) (internal quotation omitted) ( O'Connor v. Baltimore County, 382 Md. 102, 111, 854 A.2d 1191 (2004)).

DISCUSSION

I. Whether The Trial Court Provided Appellants A Reasonable Opportunity To Introduce Materials Pertinent To Whether Lavelle's Account Was A Joint Account.

Appellants allege that Bank of America first argued during the motions hearing that Lavelle's account was jointly owned. As a result, appellants maintain that the trial court did not provide them...