Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc.

Decision Date15 July 1974
Docket NumberNo. 794,794
Citation22 Md.App. 115,321 A.2d 838
PartiesHerbert C. JACOBER et al. v. HIGH HILL REALTY, INC., et al.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Anne Kay Kramer, Stevenson, for appellants.

Marvin I. Singer, Baltimore, with whom were Sullivan, Wiesand & Singer, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellees.

Argued before ORTH, C. J., and THOMPSON and MENCHINE, JJ.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Herbert C. Jacober et al, appellants, appeal from the order dated October 16, 1973, of Judge John E. Raine, Jr., granting a motion to dismiss their appeal from the decision of the County Board of Zoning Appeals to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

The question presented is:

Did the trial judge err in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the record within the period of time prescribed in Md. Rule B7?

FACTS

The recitation of facts necessarily emphasizes chronology, which shall determine the question before us. On April 10, 1973, the County Board of Zoning Appeals, finding 'error' in the comprehensive map, reclassified property held by the appellees to a more intensive high density residential use. On the last day for timely filing appeal, May 10, 1973, appellants, by their attorney, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County an Order for Appeal from the Board's decision. The appellants next filed, on May 18, 1973, a Petition for Appeal which named Herbert C. Jacober, Roy B. & Carolyn J. Maguire, and Gardner T. Smith to be protestants to the proceedings before the Board. The aforementioned pleadings were timely filed.

The Board had considered two cases involving different properties held by the same parties. The hearings entailed a significant amount of testimony which was to be transcribed by the Court Reporter, C. Leonard Perkins. With firsthand knowledge of the logistical problems the court reporter faced in preparing such voluminous transcripts, counsel for appellants, for reasons not explained in the record, waited a full 21 days from the date the order for appeal was filed before ordering that the testimony be transcribed. On June 1, 1973, appellants sent to Mr. Perkins a written instruction to commence the transcription in the High Hill case.

A Motion for a 90 day Extension of Time for Filing of the Record was filed by the appellants. That same day, June 14, 1973, Judge Kenneth C. Proctor signed an ex parte order that the period to file the record be extended for a ninety (90) day period from June 14, 1973 until September 13, 1973 (in fact, ninety-one (91) days).

Between mid-July and early August, Mr. Perkins received a phone call from Mrs. Kramer, attorney of appellants. During this conversation, Mrs. Kramer advised Mr. Perkins that settlement negotiations were under way and to 'hold off' preparation of the transcript. At this point, 850 pages had been completed but 3 or 4 more weeks of rush work were required in order to finish the transcript. Mr. Perkins stopped work as directed by appellants' counsel.

On August 16, 1973, Mr. Perkins left for a three (3) day vacation in New Hampshire. He was hospitalized there for emergency surgery. The board was contacted in order to advise the people with records pending to seek extensions. Acting upon this information, the appellants moved for a second extension, on September 5, 1973, for a sixty (60) day period. That same day Judge Lester L. Barrett signed an ex parte order extending the time for filing the record for a sixty (60) day period from September 16, 1973 to November 16, 1973.

On September 10, 1973, appellees filed a motion to strike or rescind the order for extension of time rendered on September 5th by Judge Barrett, and filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of appellants to the Circuit Court.

Mr. Perkins had returned to Baltimore around September 1st. A subsequent illness required that he spend three days at Greater Baltimore Medical Center. But he was not instructed by appellants to resume transcribing the High Hill record until the last week in September.

On October 16, 1973, Judge John E. Raine, Jr. held a hearing on appellants' motions to strike and to dismiss the appeal. Judge Raine, on October 16th, rescinded the September 5th order for a sixty (60) day extension and further granted the motion to dismiss appellants' appeal. During this hearing, Mr. Perkins, testifying for appellants, stated that he still needed two weeks of work to complete the transcript, which he had resumed transcribing in the last week of September after being told to hold off in mid-July.

Md.Rules Chapter 1100, subtitle B prescribes the rules to be followed in appealing from administrative agencies. In accord with subtitle B, we will apply the facts in the instant case to the requirements for timely transmittal of the record, as set out by Rule B7 a-c. 1

On April 10, 1973, the Board entered its decision; appellant timely filed his order for appeal on the last day permitted for such under Rule B4 a, on May 10, 1973. Eight days later, on May 18, 1973, appellant filed his petition for appeal within the time frame authorized by Rule B2 e. The petition for appeal, as filed by appellant on May 18, 1973, certified that a copy had been forwarded to the Board the day before. Rule B7 a requires that the record be transmitted promptly and in any event within thirty (30) days after a copy of the petition filed in the Circuit Court is received by the administrative agency, unless a court order pursuant to section b fixes a different time. Section b authorized the court for sufficient cause shown to extend the time for transmittal of the records, but the extension is not to exceed ninety (90) days beyond the date on which the copy of the petition for appeal was received by the agency. In the instant case, under the terms of sections a and b, an extension of the 'time prescribed' for transmitting the record could not extend beyond August 16, 1973. To transmit the record after mid-August would be to act without the 'time prescribed' in sections a and b, thereby requiring appellant to resort to section c for such authority. This section requires that the appeal not be dismissed for failure to transmit the record within the time prescribed, if the appellant can show to the satisfaction of the court that 'such delay' was occasioned by the 'neglect, omission or inability' of someone other than the appellant. By necessary inference, the motion to dismiss must be granted, however, if the appellant fails to sustain his burden of proof.

On June 14, 1973, Judge Proctor ordered that the time for filing the record be extended for a ninety (90) day period purportedly under Rule B7 to September 13, 1973, which is almost a month beyond the ninety (90) day time limitation prescribed by subsection b. On September 5, 1973, which likewise is beyond the period of time prescribed by subsection b for extension, Judge Barrett ordered a further sixty (60) day extension to November 16, 1973. The legal effect of these two ex parte rulings comprises our threshold question.

This question has not been considered under Rule B7 b, however, it has been considered in cases interpreting Rule 825 b, substantially identical in terms 2 to B7 b, which permits lower courts' extensions of time for transmittal of records to the Court of Appeals. Though perhaps not controlling, we find the cases interpreting Rule 825 b to state the proper interpretation to be applied to Rule B7 b. The order may not extend the period for transmittal of the record one day beyond the ninety (90) day period of time prescribed in Rule 825 b. Goldman v. Tauber, 258 Md. 174, 176, 265 A.2d 225 (1970), accord, Rossen & Cohen v. Novak, 259 Md. 508, 509, 270 A.2d 465 (1970). In Viner v. Manor Country Club, 258 Md. 299, 303, 265 A.2d 857 (1970), the Court of Appeals held a second extension order, which authorized transmittal beyond the prescribed period, to be a nullity:

'Minus a showing by appellant that the delay in transmitting the record was caused by 'the neglect, omission or inability of the clerk of the lower court, the court stenographer or appellee,' as specified in Rule 825 d, this Court has no authority to extend the period 'after the time for transmitting the record has expired.' Goldman v. Tauber, 258 Md. 174, 265 A.2d 225 (1970). In the present case there was no showing the delay was due to any of the enumerated reasons constituting an excusable delay set forth in Rule 825 d. Goldman v. Tauber, supra; Presstman v. Fine, 162 Md. 133, 159 A. 265 (1932). The order of this Court dated May 6, 1969 extending the time to June 5, 1969 would be a nullity.

Consequently this appeal must be dismissed.'

See also Committee Note to Rule 825 b; A. Scanlan, Effective Appellate Advocacy, 29 Md.L.Rev. 126, 128 (1969).

Applying the rationale of the aforementioned authority to the express terms of subsection b of Rule B7, we agree with the trial judge below that both orders extending time for filing the record were invalid to the extent not authorized by the Rules. Consequently, appellant's transmittal of the record from the administrative agency was dehors the 'time prescribed' in subsections a and b of Rule B7. To avoid mandatory dismissal of his appeal, the appellant had to sustain his burden of proof under Rule B7 c, that the delay was due to the neglect, omission or inability of someone other than himself.

We will now proceed to analyze the principal question before us, whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding as fact that the appellant did not sustain his burden of showing that the delay in transmitting the record was due to the neglect, omission or inability of persons other than himself.

In reaching our determination of whether under all the facts and circumstances the trial court was clearly erroneous in its evidentiary determination of fact, under Rule 1086 we must assume the truth of all the evidence and of all the favorable inferences fairly deducible therefrom tending to support the factual conclusion of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Leese v. Baltimore County
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1984
    ...... See also Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc., 61 Md.App. 381, 388-92, 486 A.2d 798, cert. denied, 303 ... Next, borrowing from Dep't of Gen. Serv. v. Cherry Hill Sand and Gravel Co., 51 Md.App. 299, 443 A.2d 628 (1982), ... See Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc., 22 Md.App. 115, 125, 321 A.2d ......
  • UNION MEMORIAL v. Dorsey
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 26, 1999
    ...... Casper v. Charles F. Smith & Son, Inc., 71 Md.App. 445, 472, 526 A.2d 87 (1987) . The defendant ..., and argument in support of the party's position); Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc., 22 Md.App. 115, 125, 321 A.2d ......
  • Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 3, 2013
    ......du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Forma–Pack, Inc., 351 Md. 396, 407, 718 A.2d 1129 (1998). Catler argues ... of the party's position on each issue.”); Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc., 22 Md.App. 115, 125, 321 A.2d ......
  • Harrison v. Harrison, 1232
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1995
    ......v. Harrisons' Nurseries, Inc., 181 Md. 291, 29 A.2d 668 (1943) (where the court's ...372, 376, 562 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (1990); M. & M. Realty Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 267 Wis. 52, 64 N.W.2d 413, 416 ... raised in reply brief and will not be considered); Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc., 22 Md.App. 115, 125, 321 A.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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