Fleschute v. Nikmorad
| Docket Number | 1509-2022 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 2024 |
| Parties | FARIMAH FLESCHUTE v. HENGAMEH NIKMORAD, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
1
FARIMAH FLESCHUTE
v.
HENGAMEH NIKMORAD, et al.
No. 1509-2022
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
January 16, 2024
UNREPORTED [*]
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. C-15-CV-22-001165
Friedman, Leahy, Gill Bright, Robin D. (Specially Assigned), JJ.
OPINION
Leahy, J.
Farimah Fleschute, ("Appellant"), challenges an order by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County dismissing her complaint with prejudice on the ground of res judicata. Finding no error, we shall affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts in this case are largely undisputed. Because of the procedural posture of the case, we recite the facts as stated in Appellant's complaint,[1] which we must assume true for purposes of this appeal. See, e.g., Parker v. Hamilton, 453 Md. 127, 132 (2017).
Appellant, a resident of Florida, owned, for investment purposes, a residential property in Potomac, Maryland. When, in 2014, she fell ill, she enlisted the help of her half-sister, Hengameh Nikmorad, whom she hired to manage the property because the previous manager (Appellant's brother) had died. Ms. Nikmorad and her husband, Andrew Omid Omidvar, ("Appellees"), then fraudulently induced Ms. Fleschute to sign a quitclaim deed, purporting to convey the property to Ms. Nikmorad.[2] Appellees thereafter, unbeknownst to Appellant, recorded the deed in the land records of Montgomery County and then executed a deed of trust and a promissory note, secured by the property, in the amount $625,500, using the proceeds to satisfy their own debts.
When Appellant discovered Appellees' scheme, she filed a civil action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Case No. 433541-V, the "prior case" or "prior action"),
alleging numerous causes of action, including unjust enrichment, against Appellees.[3]Ultimately, the matter proceeded to a jury trial, which concluded with a verdict in favor of Appellant for $515,000, which the court subsequently reduced to $235,000. At Appellant's election, the fraudulent quitclaim deed was declared void.
No appeal ensued from that case. Shortly after the judgment became final, Appellees defaulted on the loan, and the lender subsequently filed a foreclosure action. Appellant ultimately sold the property to stave off foreclosure and used the sale proceeds to satisfy the entire loan balance, $739,923.39, even though she was not a party to the loan. She then filed a new civil action in the in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Case No. C-15-CV-22-001165) against Appellees, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking damages of $739,923.39 plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. In that complaint, Appellant averred:
4. On or about June 15, 2017, [Appellant] filed a civil action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland styled as Fleschute v. Nikmorad, Civil Case No. # 433541V, wherein [Appellant] successfully asserted that she was the lawful owner of the Property
5. The above matter concerned a Deed, dated June 16, 2014 which conveyed the Property from [Appellant] to Ms. Nikmorad [one of the Appellees] for no consideration. Exhibit 1.
6. The Property [was] not encumbered by any liens at the time of the Deed transfer from [Appellant] to Ms. Nikmorad.
7. On or about April 25, 2019, the Court entered an Order, in the aforementioned prior civil matter wherein it declared that the Deed transferring title from [Appellant] to Ms. Nikmorad was void as of the date of the filing of the original Complaint. Exhibit 2.
8. Prior to the commencement of the prior litigation, on March 17, 2016, [Appellees] took out a loan against the Property and executed a promissory note in the amount of $625,500.00. The loan was secured by a Deed of Trust against the Property.
9. At the time [Appellees] took out the loan and encumbered the Property, Ms. Nikmorad was the record title owner of the Property.
10. Although, [Appellee] Omidvar was not a record title owner[,] Mr. Omidvar was a Borrower on the Loan. Ms. Nikmorad executed a Deed of Trust against the Property as [the] record title owner. Exhibit 3.
11. [Appellees] received the loan proceeds at closing and used those proceeds to pay their personal debts, including but not limited to, paying off existing mortgages upon other real estate they owned together.
12. On or about December 2, 2018, following the Court's declaration that the Deed conveying the Property to Nikmorad was void, [Appellees] defaulted on the Loan. Exhibit 4.
13. At all times relevant to this Complaint, [Appellees] were responsible for the payment of the Loan.
14. On or about March 30, 2020, the Lender initiated foreclosure proceedings because [Appellees'] loan was in default.
15. The lender scheduled a foreclosure sale date for January 7, 2022. 16. [Appellant], through counsel, was able to obtain a postponement of the scheduled sale date.
17. On or about January 14, 2022, [Appellant] sent a demand to [Appellees] advising that the loan was in default and that [Appellees] immediately take steps to bring the loan current. Exhibit 5.
18. On or about February 28, 2022, [Appellant] sold the Property to a third party.
19. To sell and transfer the Property to a third party, [Appellant] was required to pay-off [Appellees'] delinquent loan so that [Appellant] could convey to the third-party purchasers clear title to the Property.
20. At closing, [Appellant] caused to be paid, in full, [Appellees'] loan in order to obtain a release of the Deed of Trust securing [Appellees'] loan against the Property.
21. At closing, [Appellant] paid to Lender $739,923.39 which is the full payoff of the loan which [Appellees] took out against the Property. Exhibit 6.
22. Despite demand, [Appellees] have made no effort to pay [Appellant] the monies she paid to satisfy [Appellees'] delinquent loan.
23. [Appellant's] payment of [Appellees'] loan was not intended as a gift to [Appellees]. Rather, [Appellant] sold the Property and caused the Deed of Trust to be satisfied so as to prevent the Property from going to foreclosure.
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial