Mohamed v. Michael, No. 83

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: ELDRIDGE
• Citation: 279 Md. 653,370 A.2d 551
• Docket Number: No. 83
• Decision Date: 18 March 1977
• Parties: James A. MOHAMED v. Russell MICHAEL, Jr.

Page 653

279 Md. 653 370 A.2d 551 James A. MOHAMED
v.
Russell MICHAEL, Jr. No. 83. Court of Appeals of Maryland. March 18, 1977.

Page 654

Matthew J. Kastantin, Rockville, for appellant.

Henry E. Weil, Bethesda (Belli, Weil & Jacobs, Bethesda, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ.

ELDRIDGE, Judge.

In this case we are again presented with questions relating to the reach of the Maryland long-arm statute, Maryland Code (1974), § 6-103 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

James Mohamed, a Canadian citizen, instituted an action against Russell Michael, a resident of Kentucky, in the Circuit [370 A.2d 552] Court for Montgomery County, for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and defamation. Michael, pursuant to Maryland Rule 323, filed a motion raising preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The circuit court, after a hearing, granted the motion and dismissed the declaration. Mohamed appealed from this order to the Court of Special Appeals, and we issued a writ of certiorari prior to a decision by that court.

The allegations contained in the declaration pertinent to the issue of personal jurisdiction are as follows. Mohamed had entered into a contract with Michael in Kentucky, agreeing to purchase from Michael some race horses. Mohamed also executed a promissory note payable to Michael requiring periodic payments of the contract purchase price. Several payments were made on the note by checks drawn on the account of Medicrown Farms, Ltd., signed by officers of Medicrown other than Mohamed. These checks were accepted by Michael in satisfaction of the

Page 655

promissory note. None of these checks was ever signed by Mohamed, either individually or in a corporate capacity.

On April 30, 1975, a check was sent to Michael, again drawn on the account of Medicrown Farms, Ltd., and signed by the secretary of Medicrown, for the amount due on May 1, 1975, on the note executed by Mohamed. Again, Mohamed's signature did not appear on the check, either individually or in a corporate capacity. Upon presentment, the check was returned to Michael for insufficient funds. It is alleged that Michael thereafter caused his agents, Maryland attorneys, to engage in 'intensive negotiations' with Mohamed in Maryland, where Mohamed was temporarily residing, to obtain payment on the note. It is further alleged that there were 'numerous telephone conversations and meetings conducted in the State of Maryland' and that during these negotiations 'the Defendant Michael and his agents consistently threatened criminal prosecution against the Plaintiff personally, if the payments were not made as demanded.'

Ultimately, according to the declaration, Michael caused criminal proceedings to be instituted against Mohamed in the State of Kentucky. The declaration further stated that Michael claimed in the criminal proceedings that Mohamed personally had issued a bad check in satisfaction of the payment due for the horses. Mohamed was charged with 'theft by deception.' As a result of the criminal proceedings instituted in Kentucky, a fugitive warrant was issued in Maryland, and Mohamed was arrested in Maryland. After the arrest 'the Defendant Michael, personally and through his agents, continued to negotiate with the Plaintiff in the State of Maryland' to secure payment on the note. It was agreed that if payment on the note were made, the criminal complaint would be withdrawn and that Michael would 'use his best efforts' to have the criminal proceedings dismissed. Subsequent to these negotiations, satisfactory arrangements for the payment of the note were made and Michael had the criminal proceedings dismissed. It was further alleged that at all times the defendant Michael and his agents knew that the check, which was the basis of the criminal action, was

Page 656

not signed by Mohamed either individually or in a corporate capacity.

In a memorandum in support of his motion raising preliminary objection, Michael contended that the allegations of the declaration were insufficient to satisfy the...