Mettee v. Boone

• Decision Date: 12 November 1968
• Docket Number: 435,Nos. 346,s. 346
• Parties: N. Boyd METTEE v. Arthur P. BOONE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 332

251 Md. 332

247 A.2d 390

N. Boyd METTEE v. Arthur P. BOONE.

Nos. 346, 435.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 12, 1968.

Louis A. Scholz, Sykesville, for appellant.

James Willard Davis, Westminster, (William B. Dulany and Dulany & Davis, Westminster, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.

McWILLIAMS, Judge.

Appellant (Mettee), who was the plaintiff in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, docketed his suit against appellee (Boone) on 17 May 1967. He alleged the breach of a contract, dated 3 September 1959, between himself and Boone for the construction of a house on River Road in Howard County for the sum of $20,527. The contract, consisting of 32 pages, was filed with the declaration. The architect's drawings were omitted. He alleged further that Boone 'particularly agreed in said written contract that all water pipes should be concealed in the walls and ceilings' and 'particularly that all cold water lines shall be of 'L' copper tubing as manufactured by Revere Copper and Brass Company or of equal quality.' Mettee went on to allege 'that on or about October 1965 * * * (he) observed for the first time a stain showing on one of the ceilings,' that it 'came from a leaking water pipe,' that Boone, in violation of the contract 'had used inferior non-specification materials which had been concealed from normal view and inspection.' He charged that Boone 'knew or ought to have known that this piping, which is now defective * * * was not of the kind specified.' Whether or not the leaky pipe was a cold water pipe is not mentioned. Nor is it stated in what respect the leaky pipe was defective. Mettee claimed $1,000 damages.

Attached to the declaration was an 'affidavit in support of summary judgment,' in which it is said 'that through negligence chargeable to * * * (Boone) damages were caused' in the amount and as described 'on the attached itemized estimate or repair bill.'

There is no motion for summary judgment in the record nor is there an itemized estimate or repair bill. But how a piece of paper can be at the same time both an 'estimate' and 'a repair bill' is not explained.

Boone appeared seasonably and filed the traditional general issue pleas and a plea of limitations. He then filed an answer to Mettee's non-existent 'motion for summary judgment,' which he supported with an affidavit. His answer alleges a genuine dispute as to certain facts 'material to * * * (Mettee's) claim.' He states that the materials, including the water pipes, were installed in accordance with the contract, that Mettee's claim is barred by limitations, that the pipes were not concealed from Mettee, that they were noticeable by ordinary inspection during construction and in some places are still noticeable, and that the quality and kind of all water pipes were in accord with the agreed specifications. All of this is reiterated in the supporting affidavit which states additionally that, during construction, Mettee 'visited the site and inspected the work * * * almost daily, and observed the installation of (the) water pipes, some of which were installed within walls and some of which * * * remained exposed,' and that the work, which was completed before 1 March 1960, was inspected and passed by the plumbing inspector of Howard County and by representatives of the prospective mortgagee.

Boone thereupon moved for summary judgment claiming 'no dispute as to any material fact' and that he was 'entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the pleadings filed.' Mettee's affidavit in opposition agrees there is 'no dispute as to a material fact' including the fact that his action was filed 'more than three years after the date of the contract' but not 'more than three years after * * * (his) discovery of * * * (Boone's) breach of duty.' Mettee agrees that the pipes were 'visible in part' but that the markings thereon were understandable to 'the ordinary layman is disputed.' He claims he did not know the significance of the letter 'L' used in specifying the water lines until October 1965, when the plumber who was 'called in' to fix the leak explained it to him. He says further that when he complained to Boone, Boone told him to 'call him plumber and get him to do what was right and replace the pipe.'

On 11 August 1967, a few days after hearing arguments of counsel, Judge Weant filed an opinion stating his reasons for granting Boone's motion for summary judgment. Judge Weant, in part, said:

'Certainly, the Plaintiff's Nar, without Motion for a Summary Judgment, without an itemized statement of the claim, and in face of the affidavit of the Defendant, could not be entitled to a summary judgment.

'On the other hand, the Defendant would be entitled to a Summary Judgment by reason of the Plaintiff's action being barred by the Statute of Limitations unless the effect of said Statute had been tolled by Article 5(7), Section 14 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. However, in order for Section 14 to be controlling the Plaintiff must have been kept in ignorance of his cause of action by the fraud of the Defendant until the 'time at which such fraud shall or with usual or ordinary diligence might have been known or discovered.' There is no allegation in the Plaintiff's plea to the Defendant's Motion for a Summary Judgment that there was any fraud on the part of the Defendant by which the Plaintiff was kept in ignorance of his cause of action. There are certain allegations relative to the kind of pipe installed in the house built by the Defendant. These, however, do not necessarily indicate fraud nor is there any indication that this could not have happened without the involvement of any element of fraud.'

Six weeks later, 28 September 1967, Mettee filed a new suit against Boone. Under the heading 'First Cause, First Count' he recites virtually the same facts, adding only that Boone 'held himself out to be' competent to construct the house, that 'the inferior quality of the pipe was at least a partial cause of the damage' and that the pipe was 'fraudulently, deceitfully installed.' He alleges that cas a result of the negligence, recklessness, and carelessness, and/or as a result of accidental means, * * * (Boone) negligently performed his duties under the contract.' (Emphasis added.) He claims $1,600 damages. In 'Second Count' he alleges that 'by reason of * * * (Boone's) negligence he was impaired in the use of his home for entertaining and for business connected entertaining,' claiming $300 damages. In 'Second Cause, First Count' he alleges a breach of 'the expressed and implied warranties' in the contract and claims $1,600 damages.

Boone, on 16 October 1967, pleaded the general issue, limitations and res judicata and, at the same time, filed a motion for summary judgment. In his answer and the supporting affidavit Mettee, for the most part, repeated what had been submitted in the first suit.

On 30 November 1967, Mettee, with leave of court, 'submit(ted) for interlineation * * * (an) amendment' to the declaration. This appears to restate the allegation that the pipe 'was fraudulently and deceitfully installed by' Boone. After refiling the same pleas Boone again moved for summary judgment which was granted after a hearing on 5 February 1968.

The appeal to this Court in No. 346 was filed on 8 September 1967, 20 days before the second suit was docketed in the Circuit Court for Carroll County. The appeal in No. 435 was filed 26 February 1968.

No. 346

We are under the impression that Mettee has all but abandoned the notion that he is entitled to a summary judgment. It does indeed seem to be a lost cause. As Judge Weant observed, there is neither a motion for summary judgment nor an itemized statement of claim. Even more troublesome is the admission that included in the amount ($1,000) said to be 'justly due and owing' are other 'damages whose exact value cannot be estimated.'

The only question then is whether Judge Weant reached a correct result in granting the summary judgment in favor of Boone. In his motion for summary judgment Boone asserted there was no dispute as to any material fact but in his answer to Mettee's non-existent motion for summary judgment he insisted there was a dispute as to certain facts 'material to * * * (Mettee's) claim.' Nevertheless it seems clear to us that there is no dispute as to the material facts bearing on the question of limitations. As Judge Weant said the statute is a bar to Mettee's claim unless it can be said that Code, Art. 57 § 1 (1968 Repl.Vol.) ¹ has tolled the statute. It will be noted that nowhere in Mettee's pleadings will there be found the averment of any facts or circumstances which could be said to constitute, or even suggest, fraud. In fact, the very words 'fraud' and 'fraudulent' are not used. See Brack v. Evans, 230 Md. 548, 187 A.2d 880 (1963). Boone declares, in his affidavit of defense, that the water pipes were in accord with the specifications and he denies installing any 'non-specification' pipes. Moreover, he says, Mettee, who inspected the work 'almost daily,' actually 'observed' the installation of the pipes, some of which (in the basement) remained exposed. Mettee, in his affidavit, does not deny the daily inspections and he admits that some of the pipes remained exposed, but, he says, he did not understand the markings on the pipes at that time. We think it odd that nowhere in the...