Taylor v. Ward

• Decision Date: 07 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1432,1432
• Parties: PAUL TAYLOR, ET AL. v. CARRIE M. WARD, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

PAUL TAYLOR, ET AL. v. CARRIE M. WARD, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES

No. 1432

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2017

November 7, 2018

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. 03-C-15-010733

UNREPORTED

Kehoe, Berger, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Berger, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

This appeal arises out of foreclosure proceedings as to a property located at 9005 Forest Oaks Road in Owings Mills. The foreclosure was initiated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by substitute trustees Carrie M. Ward, Howard N. Bierman, Jacob Geesing, Pratima Lele, Tayyaba C. Monto, and Joshua Coleman (collectively, the "Substitute Trustees"), appellees, against mortgagors Paul Taylor, Jr. and Cheryl Taylor ("the Taylors"). Terry and Ellen Trusty, appellants, moved to intervene in the foreclosure proceedings. The Trustys resided at the property at the time and claimed that they had entered into a lease agreement and a contract to purchase the property from the Taylors in an arrangement they characterized as a "land installment contract."

As we shall explain infra, this is the third time the Trustys challenge to the foreclosure action has been before this Court on appeal. This appeal specifically stems from the circuit court's order granting the motion for possession filed by foreclosure purchaser MTGLQ Investors LP ("MTGLQ").¹ In this appeal, the Trustys present five questions for our consideration.² For reasons explained herein, we shall hold that theTrustys have no standing to pursue this appeal. We, therefore, shall not address the merits of the various issues raised by the Trustys on appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The Trustys' challenges to the foreclosure of the property have previously formed the basis of a per curiam opinion issued by this Court, Terry Trusty v. Carrie M. Ward, et al., Substitute Trustees, No. 2571, Sept. Term 2015 (filed May 5, 2017). In setting forth the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, we draw from the prior per curiam opinion of this Court.

This Court's prior per curiam opinion set forth the following:

On October 5, 2015, appellees, Carrie Ward, et al., Substitute Trustees,1 initiated foreclosure proceedings as to a residential property owned by Paul Taylor, Jr. and Cheryl Taylor ("the Taylors") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. A month later, Terry L. Trusty and his wife Ellen, appellants, filed a motion to intervene in the foreclosure proceedings as defendants, either by right or by permission ofthe court, based on their purported "equitable, leasehold, or contract interest" in the property. Appellants, who then resided at the property, claimed that in 2008, they had entered into a lease agreement and a contract to purchase the property from the Taylors in an arrangement they claim was a "land installment contract."

Appellants also filed motions for mediation or alternative dispute resolution and to appoint a trustee to "settle" the property in equity, and, after that, a motion to stay the foreclosure sale and/or dismiss the foreclosure action, contending that appellees were not authorized to foreclose on the property. After the circuit court denied all of their motions, appellants noted this appeal.

Trusty v. Ward, supra, No. 2571, Sept. Term 2015, slip op. at 1. We affirmed the circuit court, reasoning as follows:

Rule 2-214 (a) provides:

Upon timely motion, a person shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when the person has an unconditional right to intervene as a matter of law; or (2) when the person claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and the person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest unless it is adequately represented by existing parties.

A ruling on a motion to intervene as a matter of right, premised on any ground other than untimeliness, is, on appeal, subject to de novo review, Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. Mirant Ash Management, LLC, et al., 197 Md. App. 179, 185 (2010), and a ruling on permissive intervention is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 193.

Appellants failed to provide evidence demonstrating that they had a valid ownership interest in the property. Appellants' claims of ownership pursuant to a "landinstallment contract" are not supported by the record. In fact, the contract between appellants and the Taylors, executed in 2008, does not satisfy the elements of a valid land installment contract pursuant to § 10-101 et seq. of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code. Specifically, the contract did not refer to five or more subsequent payments as required by RP § 10-103(b)(7) , it was never indexed and recorded in the office of the clerk of court of the county where the property is located as required by RP § 10-104, and several statutorily mandated notices were not incorporated into the agreement as required by RP § 10-103.

Instead, the record reflects that the appellants executed both a contract to purchase the property from the Taylors and a lease to rent until the sale occurred. Although the appellants took possession of the premises and made some payments to the Taylors, the sale never took place and hence there is no deed of trust transferring ownership of the property to appellants. Based on the forgoing, the appellants were not entitled to intervene "as a matter of law" in the foreclosure matter. For the same reasons, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion for permissive intervention. Because appellants failed to establish an interest in the foreclosure proceedings sufficient to give them standing to intervene, the circuit court did not err by denying their remaining motions.

Id. at 1-3 (footnote omitted).

MTGLQ purchased the property on September 15, 2016, and the Substitute Trustees subsequently reported the sale. The Trustys filed exceptions to the sale and a motion to review and dismiss. The circuit court denied the exceptions and ratified the foreclosure sale on December 29, 2016. The Trustys filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On February 16, 2017, the Substitute Trustees conveyed the property to MTGLQ. The deed was recorded in the Baltimore County land records.

On May 5, 2017, this Court issued its opinion affirming the circuit court's denial of the Trustys motion to intervene. On June 11, 2017, the Trustys noted a second appeal to this court raising issues related to their exceptions to the foreclosure sale. That appeal was dismissed by this Court. Terry Trustee v. Carrie M. Ward et al., Substitute Trustees, No. 485, Sept. Term 2017 (appeal dismissed Nov. 6, 2017).

MTGLQ filed a motion for possession on July 20, 2017, which the circuit court subsequently granted. On August 21, 2017, the Trustys sought to remove the proceeding to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Judge Hollander of the United States District Court determined that the Federal District Court lacked diversity or federal question jurisdiction, and, therefore, remanded the case to the circuit court. Carrie M. Ward et al. v. Paul A. Taylor et al., No. ELH-17-2386 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2017).

The Trustys filed their third notice of appeal on September 11, 2017.

DISCUSSION

The Trustys have continued to file pleadings and notices of appeal in the instant foreclosure action despite the circuit court's denial of their motion to intervene, which was affirmed by this Court. We shall hold, again, that the Trustys' lack of standing to intervene in the foreclosure precludes our consideration of the merits of any of the issues raised on appeal.

MTGLQ asserts that the Trustys' appeal is barred by the law of the case doctrine, and we agree. In Grandison v. State, we explained the law of the case doctrine as follows:

Under the law of the case doctrine, "once an appellate court rules upon a question presented on appeal, litigants and lowercourts become bound by the ruling, which is considered to be the law of the case." Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170, 183, 840 A.2d 715 (2004). Moreover, "'[d]ecisions rendered by a prior appellate panel will generally govern the second appeal' at the same appellate level as well, unless the previous decision is incorrect because it is out of keeping with controlling principles announced by a higher court and following the decision would result in manifest injustice." Id. at 184, 840 A.2d 715 (quoting Hawes v. Liberty Homes, 100 Md. App. 222, 231, 640 A.2d 743 (1994) ). And, more recently, in Holloway v. State, 232 Md. App. 272, 282, 157 A.3d 356 (2017), we observed that the law of the case doctrine applies, not only to a claim that was actually decided in a prior appeal, but also to any claim "that could have been raised and decided."

234 Md. App. 564, 580 (2017).

This Court has already determined that the Trustys "failed to provide evidence demonstrating that they had a valid ownership interest in the property." We held that the Trustys "were not entitled to intervene 'as a matter of law' in the foreclosure matter" and that "the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying [the Trustys'] motion for permissive intervention." We further held that "[b]ecause [the Trustys] failed to establish an interest in the foreclosure proceedings sufficient to give them standing to intervene, the circuit court did not err by denying their remaining motions."

The Trustys acknowledge that they were not parties to the underlying proceeding, but nonetheless maintain that they have the right to pursue this appeal as non-party appellants. In support of this assertion, the Trustys cite the case of St. Joseph Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cardiac...