Prince George's County v. Aluisi

• Decision Date: 08 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. 65,65
• Citation: Prince George's County v. Aluisi, 731 A.2d 888, 354 Md. 422 (Md. 1999)
• Parties: PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland v. James V. ALUISI, et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

731 A.2d 888

354 Md. 422

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland v.James V. ALUISI, et al.

No. 65, Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 8, 1999.

Reconsideration Denied July 27, 1999.

Sean D. Wallace, Deputy County Atty., Upper Marlboro, for appellant.

Lawrence P. Fletcher-Hill, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Julia M. Freit, Asst. Atty. Gen., Margaret Wwitherup Tindall, Staff Atty., on brief), Baltimore, for appellees.

Charles W. Thompson, Jr., County Atty., Karen L. Federman Henry, PrincipalCounsel for Appeals, Judson P. Garrett, Jr., Chief, Opinions and Advice, amicus curiae for Montgomery County, MD.

Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER, WILNER and DALE R. CATHELL(Specially assigned), JJ.ELDRIDGE, Judge.

This case arises out of a dispute over whether the State of Maryland or Prince George's County has the responsibility of funding the security and service of process associated with the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Prince George's County.

I.

The present litigation began with a "Complaint for Writ of Mandamus" filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by a management corporation that operates residential apartment communities.The initial defendants were Prince George's County and the Sheriff of Prince George's County, James Aluisi.The management corporation alleged that the Sheriff's office failed to serve process in landlord-tenant actions involving the management corporation.The complaint requested that the Sheriff be required to serve all process and that the County be required adequately to fund the Sheriff's office.The Sheriff, in his answer to the complaint, claimed that inadequate funding from the County was the reason that he was unable to serve process.The Sheriff filed a cross claim against Prince George's County, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the issue of inadequate funding.Thereafter, the management corporation dismissed its complaint, without prejudice, against Prince George's County; the corporation sought relief only against Sheriff Aluisi.Prince George's County then filed a cross claim against Sheriff Aluisi, alleging waste and mismanagement of county funds by the Sheriff's office and requesting an audit and the appointment of a receiver.Contending that many of the duties that Sheriff Aluisi alleged he was unable to perform because of inadequate funding were actually the responsibility of the State to fund, the County also filed a third-party complaint against the State of Maryland, the Honorable Martha F. Rasin who is Chief Judge of the District Court of Maryland, and the Honorable Frank M. Kratovil who is the District Court Administrative Judge for District 5 (Prince George's County).The County requested a declaratory judgment, an "injunction" requiring the State and the State Officials to provide process service and court security for the District Court at state expense, reimbursement for the costs of those services already provided "from 1971 to present," and a writ of mandamus directing the state officials to appoint constables to serve process.

Initially, the circuit court granted the relief sought by the management corporation, issuing a writ of mandamus requiring the Sheriff's Office to serve all district court"summonses concerning failure to pay rent suits" and requiring the Sheriff's Office to "execute all warrants of restitution issued in landlord/tenant cases as directed by the" judges of the District Court in Prince George's County.Thereafter, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court on May 22, 1997, filed a comprehensive written opinion containing a declaration of the duties and obligations of the various parties.At the same time, the circuit court filed an order providing in pertinent part as follows:

"1.The Sheriff of Prince George's County shall provide security for the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County; including, but not limited to, courtroom security and the transportation of individuals in custody, and that Prince George's County, Maryland, shall provide necessary funding to the Sheriff to pay the costs of maintaining the District Court security function; and

"2.The Sheriff of Prince George's County shall serve all civil and criminal process as directed by the Administrative Judge of the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County(District 5) and that Prince George's County, Maryland shall provide the necessary funding to the Sheriff to pay the costs of the Sheriff to serve all District Court process...."

The circuit court's declaratory judgment and orders disposed of all claims and issues involving the management corporation, the State of Maryland, Chief Judge Rasin, and Administrative Judge Kratovil.The declaratory judgment and orders also disposed of all claims and issues between Prince George's County and Sheriff Aluisi except for the County's cross claim against the Sheriff alleging waste and mismanagement of county funds and seeking the appointment of a receiver.The circuit court indicated that this separate claim against the Sheriff should be considered at a subsequent hearing.In addition, the circuit court, expressly finding no just reason for delay, certified the filed judgment and orders as final pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-602(b).

Prince George's County filed a notice of appeal from the declaratory judgment and orders.Prior to any proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals, the County filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari.The three issues presented by the County are whether the Sheriff must provide security for the District Court in Prince George's County at the County's expense, whether process service by the Sheriff's Office is part of the costs of the District Court which should be borne by the State, and whether "the District Court[can] avoid its obligation to appoint constables by directing [that] all its process ... be served by the Sheriff."Because of the importance of these questions, we granted the County's petition.Prince George's County v. Aluisi,346 Md. 632, 697 A.2d 915(1997).

II.

Before addressing the parties' specific arguments, we shall set forth some of the pertinent constitutional and statutory background.

Prior to July 1971, the trial courts of limited jurisdiction in Maryland, other than the Orphans' Courts, consisted of Justices of the Peace sitting as Trial Magistrates, People's Courts in Baltimore City and a few counties, and the Municipal Court of Baltimore City.These courts"var[ied] in jurisdictional authority, facilities, clerical assistance, and their judges var[ied] in qualifications, term, pay and method of selection.As had been said many times, the system [was] a hodgepodge and badly in need of revision...."Maryland State Bar Association's Committee on Judicial Administration(1968), quoted in William H. Adkins II, The District Court: Past, Present, Future, 3 Md. Bar Journal (No. 4) 6, 7 (1971).With regard to these pre-1971courts of limited jurisdiction, Judge Adkins observed that "each political subdivision went its own way and diversity, non-professionalism, political influence and confusion were the watchwords."Id. at 7.The funding of these pre-1971courts of limited jurisdiction was the obligation of the counties and Baltimore City.

In 1969, Governor Marvin Mandel proposed to the General Assembly a constitutional amendment abolishing the office of Justice of the Peace, Trial Magistrates' Courts, People's Courts, and the Municipal Court of Baltimore City, and replacing them with a single statewide court of record named the District Court of Maryland, with basically uniform jurisdiction throughout the State, with full time judges having the same qualifications as judges of the circuit courts, Court of Special Appeals and Court of Appeals, with a single Chief Judge appointed initially by the Governor and thereafter by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, and funded entirely by the State.The General Assembly passed the proposed constitutional amendment, Ch. 789 of the Acts of 1969, and the voters of Maryland ratified it on November 3, 1970.

In addition, the Governor proposed and the General Assembly enacted in 1970 and 1971 comprehensive legislation implementing the constitutional amendment creating the District Court.SeeCh. 528 of the Acts of 1970 and Ch. 423 of the Acts of 1971.At the same time, this Court, pursuant to its constitutional authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure and rules for the administration of the judiciary, Article IV, § 18, of the Maryland Constitution, adopted rules to implement the District Court constitutional and statutory provisions.Pursuant to the constitutional amendment and implementing legislation and rules, the District Court became fully operational on July 5, 1971.

Although the District Court is a single unified statewide court, with basically uniform jurisdiction and with each judge having territorial jurisdiction throughout the entire State, the implementing legislation does divide the State into twelve districts "solely for purposes of operation and administration."Birchead v. State,317 Md. 691, 699, 566 A.2d 488, 492(1989).The geographic perimeters of the districts correspond to county boundary lines.Baltimore City and the five largest counties each constitute a single district, and each of the remaining districts consist of two or more counties grouped together.SeeMaryland Code(1974, 1998 Repl.Vol.), § 1-602 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.A District Court judge in each of the twelve districts is designated by the Chief Judge of the District Court, subject to the approval of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, as the administrative judge of the district.The "administrative judge is responsible for the administration, operation, and maintenance of the District Court in that district and for the conduct of ...