Reigh v. Schleigh

• Citation: 595 F. Supp. 1535
• Decision Date: 29 October 1984
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. M-83-245.
• Parties: Esther v. REIGH, Ivery Mae Simpkins, David Michael Simpkins, and Lenora C. Dannie v. Charles L. SCHLEIGH, in his official capacity as Principal Clerk of the District Court for Washington County; Nancy E. Mueller, in her official capacity as Clerk of the District Court for Howard County; and William A. Dorsey, in his official capacity as Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Baltimore City.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

595 F. Supp. 1535

Esther v. REIGH, Ivery Mae Simpkins, David Michael Simpkins, and Lenora C. Dannie v. Charles L. SCHLEIGH, in his official capacity as Principal Clerk of the District Court for Washington County; Nancy E. Mueller, in her official capacity as Clerk of the District Court for Howard County; and William A. Dorsey, in his official capacity as Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Baltimore City.

Civ. A. No. M-83-245.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

October 29, 1984.

Elizabeth Renuart, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Frederick, Md., Julie Landau, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Ellicott City, Md., and Mark Davis, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs.

Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. of Md., and James G. Klair, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES R. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.

On January 24, 1983, the plaintiffs, Esther V. Reigh, Ivery Mae Simpkins, David Michael Simpkins, and Lenora C. Dannie, filed this suit against Charles L. Schleigh, in his official capacity as Principal Clerk of the District Court for Washington County; Nancy E. Mueller, in her official capacity as Clerk of the District Court for Howard County; and William A. Dorsey, in his official capacity as Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Baltimore City. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, in issuing orders of attachment pursuant to the post judgment procedures in Rules F1 through F5 of the Maryland District Rules, have deprived the plaintiffs of property without due process of law by failing (a) to cause a timely notice to be served upon the judgment debtor prior to, or immediately subsequent to, service of the Order of Attachment upon the garnishee; (b) to serve notice which would inform the judgment debtor of the available state and federal exemptions and the procedure whereby he or she can obtain a hearing to contest the attachment; and (c) to require a hearing within a specified number of days to resolve a contested attachment when requested by the judgment debtor. The plaintiffs prayed for a judgment declaring the then current Maryland District Rules governing post judgment attachment unconstitutional; the permanent enjoining of the issuance of post judgment orders for attachments by defendants until the Maryland District Rules are revised to require timely, adequate notice and timely opportunity for a hearing; an award of reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper (Paper No. 2).

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that (1) no case or controversy existed, and (2) the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (Paper No. 9). Thereafter, with the consent of counsel for defendants, plaintiffs amended their complaint asserting as an additional cause of action, based on the same acts underlying the original complaint, a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Paper No. 12).

On May 6, 1983, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, incorporating their memorandum in support of their Opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and submitting affidavits of the plaintiffs (Paper Nos. 13-15, 22). The defendants filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and a response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on July 1, 1983 (Paper No. 18), in which they reasserted contentions made in their Motion to Dismiss and also asserted that (1) the rule changes sought by the plaintiffs were then under consideration for adoption by the Maryland Court of Appeals, mooting this case, and (2) that the Maryland District Rules, as then currently codified, did not violate the plaintiffs' due process rights or the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs filed a response to defendants' Cross Motion (Paper No. 19). A hearing was held on the motions on December 2, 1983.

I. Factual Background

A. Plaintiff Reigh

Plaintiff Esther Reigh is a seventy-year-old woman whose monthly income consists of $380.00 in Social Security and $43.14 from a pension from Fairchild Republic. Both checks are directly deposited into her account with the First National Bank of Maryland (FNB).

On September 23, 1981, the C & P Telephone Company obtained a judgment against plaintiff Reigh in the District Court for Washington County. On July 6, 1982, an Order of Attachment on Judgment was issued by an agent of the defendant Schleigh and, on July 7, 1982, was served on FNB. FNB immediately froze the plaintiff's bank account on the same day and also mailed her notice informing her that it had been served with a writ of attachment and enclosing a copy of the Order for Attachment. On July 13, 1982, FNB mailed the plaintiff a copy of the garnishee's Confession of Assets.

On or about July 15, 1982, plaintiff Reigh, acting pro se, asked the District Court in Washington County to exempt her account at FNB from attachment. Her request was granted on July 29, 1982.

Plaintiff Reigh continues to be a judgment debtor to the C & P Telephone Company (Paper No. 2, ¶¶ 11-15; Paper No. 15, Reigh Affidavit).

B. Plaintiffs Ivery Mae and David Simpkins

Plaintiffs Ivery Mae and David Simpkins are mother and son. Ivery Mae Simpkins is 52 years old and disabled. Her sole source of monthly income is $421.50 from Social Security. Although married to a member of the merchant marine, she seldom receives any support from him and has received none from him since her bank account was attached in May of 1982. David Simpkins is 21 years old and attends Towson State University on a grant. His sole source of monthly income is $162.00 from Social Security.

On August 11, 1982, a judgment was entered in the District Court for Howard County against these plaintiffs in favor of the American Express Company. On October 7, 1982, an agent of the defendant Mueller issued an Order for Attachment on the plaintiffs' checking and savings accounts at Union Trust Company of Maryland (UT). The plaintiffs learned of the attachment on or about October 21, 1982 when they received copies of two letters from UT to the attorneys for UT which revealed that the plaintiffs had four bank accounts, two checking and two savings, containing $426.20 with UT. A Garnishee's Confession of Assets was served on the plaintiffs on October 27, 1982 by UT.

On November 5, 1982, through counsel, Ivery Mae and David Simpkins filed a claim of exemption with the District Court for Howard County. On December 6, 1982, the exemption was granted.

These plaintiffs continue to be judgment debtors to the American Express Company (Paper No. 2, ¶¶ 17-23; Paper No. 13, Simpkins Affidavit).

C. Lenora C. Dannie

Plaintiff Lenora C. Dannie is 26 years old and lives with three dependent children. Her sole source of income is $355.00 a month from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.

On November 3, 1979, the Equitable Trust Bank obtained a judgment against the plaintiff and on December 13, 1982, an Order for Attachment was issued. On December 13, 1982, her checking account containing $24.11 from AFDC at FNB was frozen. On December 14, 1982, FNB mailed a letter to the plaintiff, informing her that they had received the Order for Attachment.

On December 17, 1982, a claim of exemption was filed with the District Court of Baltimore City. The exemption was granted on December 29, 1982.

Dannie continues to be a judgment debtor to the Equitable Trust Bank (Paper No. 2, ¶¶ 25-30; Paper No. 13, Dannie Affidavit).

II. Existence of a Case of Controversy

The defendants assert that each plaintiff, who was subjected to the garnishment procedures outlined in Maryland District Rules, F1-F5, has since had the attachments quashed pursuant to Rule G51, Maryland District Rules. Therefore, since none of these plaintiffs have funds currently frozen under the Maryland Post Judgment Attachment statute, defendants contend there is no case or controversy in existence as required by Article III of the United States Constitution and that the case must be dismissed.

Those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging a case or controversy, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 732, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-101, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1949-1953, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421-25, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1848-51, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969), for the courts are precluded from issuing advisory opinions, Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911), and may only decide questions that can affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). Plaintiffs must demonstrate a "personal stake in the outcome" in order to ensure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentations of the constitutional issues to be resolved. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). A plaintiff must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct, policy or statute and that the injury or threat thereof is real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77, 91 S.Ct. 758, 27 L.Ed.2d 696 (1971); Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 109-10, 89 S.Ct. 956, 960, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923). An actual controversy must exist at all stages of review. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). The law, however, is not so rigid as to deny review in those instances in which the conclusion of the adjudication of the claims...