Ruffin v. Forde
| Decision Date | 22 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1914-2019 |
| Parties | PATRICIA A. RUFFIN v. MERLENE FORDE |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CAL17-13781
OPINION [*]
The sage advice of not mixing business with pleasure rings true in the case at bar between Patricia Ruffin ("Appellant") and Merlande Forde ("Appellee"). In May of 2005, the parties met and became friends and disputedly romantic partners. Shortly thereafter, the parties began working together in a screen-printing and embroidery business. Unfortunately, the issue in which the case at bar originates does not end in the parties living "happily ever after".
After a series of disagreements between the parties, they sought the dissolution of the screen-printing and embroidery business and contested the nature of the business's ownership and assets. Appellant alleged she and Appellee entered a business partnership agreement and began operating a business together on or around June 12, 2005. Appellant also alleged that she and Appellee were strictly friends and business partners. Appellee claims that she was in a romantic relationship with Appellant and Appellant allowed Appellee to assist her in operating her business. The business relationship ended either after a business dissolution agreement or after the romantic relationship ended.
Compounded with the business dispute, the Appellant moved in with the Appellee in March of 2017, and alleged that she entered a rental agreement. After an uninvited sexual incident in the Appellant's room, Appellant left the Appellee's home and was prevented from returning to the property. In her amended complaint, Appellant sought the return of business equipment, personal property, and damages for other offenses on seven counts, ranging from breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, tort battery, and malicious use of property.
The Circuit Court for Prince George's County scheduled trial for June 26-27, 2019 and issued a scheduling order on September 19, 2018. The scheduling order states, inter alia:
This order is your notice of dates and required court appearances. It may not be modified except by order of the court upon a showing of good cause. Stipulations between counsels are not effective to change any deadlines of this order. Failure to comply with all terms of this Order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions . . . 60 days prior to trial, the [parties] complete the following: 1. All discovery. 45 days prior to trial, complete the following: 1. File dispositive motions.
Appellee's previous counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw from representing Appellee on May 13, 2019. While Appellee's previous counsel's Motion to Withdraw was pending, Appellant served Notice for the Deposition to Appellee's previous counsel on May 17, 2019 and scheduled the deposition for May 30, 2019. Appellee did not attend the deposition and Appellant filed a Motion for Sanctions on May 31, 2019. On July 10, 2019, the Motion for Sanctions was denied by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County citing the concurrent issue of the status of the Appellee's legal representation and the need to employ new counsel at the time of the deposition. Appellee's new counsel entered his appearance on or about August 9, 2019.
On June 21, 2019, Appellant filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance after being hospitalized. Appellee also filed a Motion to Continue Trial Dates on June 25, 2019 for more time to obtain new counsel. The continuance for Appellant's Emergency Motion was granted that same week, moving the trial to August 28 and 29, 2019.
However, prior to the start of trial on August 28, 2019, Appellee's counsel presented Appellant's counsel with a witness list that included an unknown witness. Appellant's counsel objected to trial proceeding, requesting time to depose the unknown witness. Appellant's Motion was granted and Appellant was given an additional thirty days to depose the witness. Appellee complied and the witness was deposed on September 13, 2019. Trial was continued to September 23, 2019.
After a series of continuances, the trial originally scheduled June 26-27, 2019 began on September 23, 2019 in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. At the close of Appellant's case, counsel objected to Appellee being called as a witness in her own defense, arguing that Appellee's failure to appear for her deposition should prevent her from testifying. The circuit court gave Appellant's counsel the option to depose Appellee that evening and continue with trial the next day. Appellant declined and Appellee was permitted to testify. At the conclusion of trial on September 24, 2019, the case was submitted to the jury which ruled in favor of Appellant on one count of battery and awarded her $3000 in damages.
For the following reasons, we answer all three questions presented by Appellant in the negative and affirm the decision of the circuit court.
Appellant and Appellee disputed the business ownership and formation of Forde Designs, LLC, CreativeUS, LLC, and RuffinStuff, LLC, embroidery and screen-printing businesses, based on their contradicting positions of being solely in a business partnership or solely being in a romantic relationship. Appellant alleges that the parties entered a business relationship. Appellee testified that the parties began a romantic relationship and Appellant allowed Appellee to assist her in operating her business. The parties agreed that Appellant would handle marketing while Appellee did the embroidering for orders and managed the business's finances.
To refute the notion that the parties strictly shared a romantic relationship, Appellant testified to a dissolution of partnership agreement, signed by the parties in September 2011. Appellant alleged that Appellee suggested the business be dissolved so the two signed the dissolution of partnership agreement. Appellant testified that she did not take a salary from the business because she had other income, but she expected to be paid when the business dissolved. The agreement calculated the salary owed to Appellant for six years of working the business minus expenses at $52, 825.00. In contrast, Appellee testified that she paid Appellant in cash whenever an order was completed for a client.
When asked about her signature on the dissolution of partnership agreement, Appellee testified that she only signed the document because Appellant threatened to tell Appellee's mother about their same-sex relationship, which was a "disgrace in Appellee's home country." Appellee testified that Appellant also threatened to make false statements that could impact Appellee's immigration status as a permanent resident. Appellee reiterated "[t]here was no business relationship . . . she was my girlfriend and she assisted me in the business." While Appellant asserted the dissolution agreement was replaced by another business partnership agreement, Appellee testified that no other partnership or business agreements existed between the two after they reconciled around November 2011.
Appellant testified that after ending her 30-year marriage in 2016, she moved into an apartment in Hanover, Maryland with a lease from March 2016 to March 2017. At the end of her lease, Appellant testified she moved in with Appellee under a lease agreement from March 24, 2017 to May 24, 2017 for $100 per week and moved in furniture, clothing, a motorcycle, and Corvette to Appellee's residence.
Appellant testified that she paid for the entire eight weeks in advance and alleged that she and Appellee agreed at the start of the lease that their business partnership would, once again, dissolve when her lease ended, and that Appellant was owed $225, 190 in earnings. Appellee testified that Appellant had been staying with her since January 2017, that there was no lease agreement, and no rent was paid because she wanted to help the Appellant "get back on her feet".
Appellant testified that on April 1, 2017 she returned to Appellee's house around 5:30 a.m. after work at a part time job. Appellant testified that Appellee entered her room, where the doorknob had been removed completely, and "put her nude body" on Appellant. Appellant testified that she became very distressed and called her son.[2] Appellee began crying, begging her not to call law enforcement. Afterwards, Appellant testified that Appellee left the house. Appellant also left to stay with her adult children in Middle River, Maryland. Appellee denied engaging in such behavior on April 1, 2017.
Appellee also testified that on April 8, 2017, Appellant entered the property, became aggressive, and destroyed Appellee's property. Appellant testified that when she returned, the locks on the gates to the property had been changed, an unknown man blocked her from going in to retrieve her personal items, and the Appellee called the police. This incident prompted Appellee to file a Protective Order against Appellant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial