Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Decision Date | 11 July 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 798,798 |
Citation | 163 Md. App. 220,878 A.2d 628 |
Parties | ARTHUR H. SPENGLER, JR. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
B. Robins, IV, Salisbury, for appellant.
Matthew T. Angotti, Baltimore (Jona-than D. Fink, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, P.C., on the brief), Los Angeles, CA, for appellee.
Panel: JAMES R. EYLER, SHERER, MEREDITH, JJ.
Arthur J. Spengler, Jr., appellant, declined to pay certain credit card debt, which he maintained he did not owe, to appellee, Sears, Roebuck & Company.As a result, Sears reported Spengler's delinquencies to various credit rating agencies, causing impairment to his credit standing.
Spengler filed a four-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, alleging: (1) that he was entitled to a declaratory judgment relieving him of the debt; (2) breach of contract; (3) defamation; and (4) interference with business relations.The trial court granted Sears' motion for judgment as to the breach of contract and defamation counts; Spengler voluntarily withdrew the count for declaratory judgment; and the case went to the jury on the single count of interference with business relations.Favoring appellant, the jury awarded $145,000 in damages.Sears filed a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which, following a hearing, the court granted.Aggrieved at the loss of his favorable verdict, Spengler has noted this appeal.
Spengler presents for our consideration seven questions, which, as distilled and recast are:1
Our answer to each of the questions is "No"; thus, we shall affirm.2
In 1989, Spengler opened a credit card account with Sears.He added his wife to the account as an "authorized user" in 1996.In 1997, in what Spengler asserts was an effort to terminate his account, he paid the account balance and destroyed the account credit card.The last date of purchase on the card was July 17, 1997.In a lapse that would become central to this litigation, Spengler never notified Sears that he wished to close the account — he merely destroyed the card — nor did he ever advise Sears that his wife was no longer an authorized user.
The relationship between Spengler and Sears involved three account user agreements, the first in 1996.3That agreement provides, in pertinent part:
(Alterations added.)
In 1997, the account agreement was revised, providing in relevant part:
(Alterations added.)
Finally, the account was again revised in July 1999:
(Alterations added.)
A significant distinction among the three agreements is that neither the 1996 nor 1997 agreement contains a provision detailing what an account user must do to terminate an account.The 1999 revision is more precise in that regard.
In January 2001, Spengler and his wife separated, and Spengler moved out of the marital residence.He did not provide Sears with his new address.
A few months later, in approximately March 2001, Sears sent out a bulk mail "campaign mailer" to its account holders, one of which was addressed to the Spengler household where, of course, appellant no longer resided.Because he had not advised Sears of a new address, Spengler did not receive the mailing.The face of the mailer contained the following words: Additionally, the mailer provided: On the reverse side of the mailer was the advice:
Spengler's wife received the mailer and activated the new Sears Gold MasterCard.Subsequently, she transferred a balance of $4,446.50 from another credit card.4The Sears Gold MasterCard account statement of April 20, 2001, reflects an outstanding balance due of $5,638.43.In some manner, not abundantly clear from the record, Spengler became aware of that statement.
Having learned of the balance, Spengler promptly contacted Sears and did...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Marcas, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of St. Mary's Cnty.
...on the part of the defendant[] (which constitutes malice); and (4) actual damage and loss resulting.'" Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md. App. 220, 242, 878 A.2d 628, 641 (citing Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App. 470, 504, 665 A.2d 297 (1995) (quoting Alexander & Ale......
-
Marcas, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of St. Mary's Cnty., Civil Action No. WGC–07–196.
...on the part of the defendant[ ] (which constitutes malice); and (4) actual damage and loss resulting.’ ” Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md.App. 220, 242, 878 A.2d 628, 641 (2005) (citing Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 106 Md.App. 470, 504, 665 A.2d 297 (1995)) (quoting Alexand......
-
Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc.
...on a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must plead and prove "the falsity of a particular statement." See Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 163 Md.App. 220, 878 A.2d 628, 640 (2005). However, falsity does not require absolute precision: "[f]or the purpose of a defamation claim, a statement ......
-
View Point Med. Sys., LLC v. Athena Health, Inc.
...which incidentally affect another's business relationships are not a sufficient basis for the tort.”); Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md.App. 220, 243, 878 A.2d 628, 642 (2005) (no claim for the tort of interference exists “ ‘when there is merely a breach of contract that has an inci......
-
The Spoliation Doctrine in The Court of Special Appeals
...Attorney would have been under a duty to disclose the audio tape." Id. at 613, 861 A.2d at 104. In Spengler v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 163 Md. App. 220, 878 A.2d 628 (2005), the Court of Special Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision not to instruct on spoliation. The court determined that ......
-
The Interference Torts
...App. 2006) (reciting elements of tortious interference with business relationship under Indiana law); Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 878 A.2d 628, 641 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005) (Maryland law recognizes tort of interference with business relationships); Wagner-Smith Co. v. Ruscilli Const.......
-
B. [§ 3.160] Defamation of A Private Individual
...357 F. Supp. 2d 837 (D. Md. 2005); Smith v. Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98, 115, 928 A.2d 795, 805 (2007); Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md. App. 220, 240, 878 A.2d 628, 640 (2005); Carter v. Aramark Sports & Entm't Servs., 153 Md. App. 210, 835 A.2d 262 (2003); Samuels, 135 Md. App. 483, 7......
-
A. [§ 3.134] Business Relationships
...The tort of interference with business relationships was reviewed by the Court of Special Appeals in Spengler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 163 Md. App. 220, 878 A.2d 628 (2005). Judge Sharer there wrote as follows: Maryland recognizes the tort of interference with business relationships. See e.......