Won Sun Lee v. Won Bok Lee, 1732, Sept. Term, 2017

• Citation: 201 A.3d 1,240 Md.App. 47
• Decision Date: 30 January 2019
• Docket Number: No. 1732, Sept. Term, 2017,1732, Sept. Term, 2017
• Parties: WON SUN LEE v. WON BOK LEE
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

240 Md.App. 47

201 A.3d 1

WON SUN LEE

v.WON BOK LEE

No. 1732, Sept. Term, 2017

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

January 30, 2019

Argued by: Henry A. Andrews (Thomas & Libowitz P.A., on the brief) Baltimore, MD., for Appellant.

Argued by: Weon G. Kim, McLean, VA, for Appellee.

Panel: Fader, C.J., Beachley, James A. Kenney, III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Fader, C.J.Won Sun Lee, the appellant, challenges the Circuit Court for Howard County's refusal to vacate a renewed judgment the court's clerk entered against him and in favor of his brother, Won Bok Lee. Before we can address the merits of this appeal, Mr. Bok Lee asks us to determine whether it is timely. We conclude that it is. The clerk's entry of the order from which Mr. Sun Lee appeals initially failed to comply with the requirements of Maryland Rule 2-601(b) because the docket entry available through the case search feature on the Judiciary website did not identify the date on which judgment was entered. As a result, the appeal period did not start to run and Mr. Sun Lee's appeal was premature when it was filed. However, subsequent changes to the docket entry fixed the problem and Mr. Sun Lee's appeal is now properly before us.

Turning to the merits, Mr. Sun Lee asks us to decide whether his brother's 2015 attempt to renew a judgment in the circuit court was effective. The answer to that question revolves largely around two others: (1) whether Mr. Bok Lee's 2004 filing in the circuit court of notice of a 2002 federal court judgment created a new state court judgment or just a lien; and (2) if that filing created a lien only, whether it extended the period for renewal of the underlying judgment, which otherwise expired by operation of law in 2014. We conclude that the 2004 filing created a lien, not a judgment, and so could not be renewed once the underlying federal court judgment had expired. We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand with instructions to vacate the renewed judgment.

BACKGROUND

Initial Proceedings in Federal and State Court

In 2002, Mr. Bok Lee obtained a judgment by default in the amount of $ 141,059.44 against Mr. Sun Lee in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

In May 2004, Mr. Bok Lee filed a "Request to File Notice of Lien" in the Circuit Court for Howard County based on the federal judgment. On June 1, 2004, the circuit court entered a "Notice of Lien of Judgment Received From United States District Court" and made the following docket entry: "Judgment entered on 06/01/04."

The Howard County case remained dormant until July 23, 2015, when Mr. Bok Lee filed a "Request to Renew Judgment." The request stated that "[j]udgment in this case was entered on June 1, 2004," claimed that it had "not expired (12 years from entry)," and asked the clerk to renew it. The clerk promptly entered the renewed judgment on the docket.

On March 24, 2016, Mr. Sun Lee moved to vacate the renewal. He argued that Mr. Bok Lee's 2004 filing had created a lien, rather than a new judgment, and so could no longer be renewed once the federal judgment had expired. Although the circuit court agreed with Mr. Sun Lee that the 2004 filing had created a lien, not a new judgment, it also agreed with Mr. Bok Lee that it was nonetheless still subject to renewal.

Three writings relating to the circuit court's ruling are central to our discussion below, so we present them in some detail. First, after a hearing, the court issued a one-page written order containing a single substantive sentence that identifies what the court considered (the motion to vacate, the opposition, and the arguments of the parties) and states that the motion to vacate is denied. The order is dated June 2, 2016 and bears (1) the signature of the judge, (2) a stamp identifying that it was "ENTERED" on June 3, 2016, (3) a true test certification, and (4) a notation of "6000" in the bottom right corner. We refer to this order as the "June 2 Order."

The second and third writings of significance are both docket entries. Each appears slightly differently in the circuit court's own system than it appeared as viewed through the case search feature on the Judiciary website at the relevant time—which, for purposes of determining the timeliness of the appeal, is the period between June 3 and July 6, 2016. The first, which we refer to as "Docket Entry 6000," appears in the court's case management system as:

At the relevant time, that same entry appeared through the case search feature on the Judiciary website as:¹

The second entry, which we refer to as "Docket Entry 14000," appears in the court's case management system as:

At the relevant time, that same entry appeared through the case search feature on the Judiciary website as:

We discuss both docket entries in more detail below.

Mr. Sun Lee noted an appeal on July 6, 2016. Mr. Bok Lee moved to strike the notice as late, arguing that the June 2 Order had been entered on June 3 and that any appeal—after accounting for weekends and a holiday—was due by July 5. The circuit court granted the motion and struck the notice of appeal. Mr. Sun Lee then appealed timely from the order striking his first notice of appeal.

The First Appeal

In an unreported opinion, a panel of this Court concluded that the record did not reflect when, or even if, Mr. Sun Lee's time to appeal had begun to run.

Lee v. Lee , No. 945, Sept. Term 2016, 2017 WL 3634056, at *3 (Aug. 24, 2017). The panel identified three factors that are necessary for there to be a valid appeal: (1) under Rule 2-601(a), the final judgment must be "set forth on a separate document" that is signed by a judge or the clerk of court; (2) under Rule 2-601(b), the judgment must be entered on the court's electronic case management system; and (3) under Rules 2-601(d) and 8-202(a), an appeal must be noted within 30 days of the date on which the judgment was entered in that court's electronic case management system. Lee , 2017 WL 3634056, at *1.

Based on the record as it then stood, the panel found insufficient evidence to determine either (1) whether the separate document required by Rule 2-601(a) had been signed or (2) whether such a document had been entered on the court's electronic case management system. Id. at *2. With respect to the separate document, the panel considered it plausible that the June 2 Order was the required separate document setting forth the judgment, but it was uncertain because of a perceived inconsistency between the date of that order and Docket Entry 14000. That entry, although not made until June 6, seemed to contemplate that a separate order was still yet to come. Id.

With respect to the entry of such a document, the panel first considered, and rejected, Mr. Bok Lee's contention that Docket Entry 6000 reflected the entry of the order in the court's electronic case management system. The panel's confusion in attempting to interpret this docket entry is perhaps best reflected in a footnote in which it observed that neither party had "ventured an explanation, nor can we invent one, to explain why the portion of the docket entry that says ‘06/03/16 copies mailed’ was made on (or added to) the March 24 docket entry." Id. at *2 n.3. In the absence of any such explanation, the panel concluded that this could not possibly reflect entry of the separate document by which the court had entered judgment and, therefore, that "there is no way that June 3 can be the date of entry of judgment." Id. at *2.

As an alternative, the panel considered whether Docket Entry 14000 could constitute entry of the separate document on the court's electronic case management system. Id. The panel concluded that this docket entry might constitute entry of a separate order on the electronic docket, but was uncertain in light of the same perceived inconsistency as to dates between that June 6 entry—and its indication that an order still had to be submitted—and the June 2 Order. Id. at *2-3.

Out of that uncertainty, the panel posited three possibilities: (1) if a separate document had been executed before June 6 (such as the June 2 Order), and Docket Entry 14000 constituted its entry on the electronic case management system (on June 6), then Mr. Sun Lee's appeal would be timely; (2) if a separate document had been executed after June 6, then—still treating Docket Entry 14000 as the (premature) entry of that separate document on the court's electronic case management system—the appeal would be "ripe to proceed," with June 6 being its operative date; or (3) if a separate document was never signed, the judgment "has still not become final," and the appeal "was, and remains, premature." Id. at *2. "Under none of these three possible scenarios," the panel concluded, "was Mr. Sun Lee's appeal late." Id. at *3. The panel therefore reversed the order striking the notice of appeal and remanded to the circuit court with the following mandate:

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT TO

DETERMINE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT ON A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEE.

Id.

Proceedings on Remand

On remand, the circuit court asked the court clerk to explain his practices with respect to the relevant entries in the court's electronic case management system. The clerk's responsive memorandum explained that the June 2 Order is the separate document reflecting the court's judgment and that it was entered on the court's electronic case management system on June 3 as part of Docket Entry 6000. With respect to the date of entry, the clerk's memorandum explained that:

• "It is the clerk's practice that when the clerk enters a ruling/order from the Court, the Order is ‘entered’ stamped. Which in this case was June 3, 2016."

• "It is the clerk's practice to update the original motion in [the court's electronic case management system]. In this case the clerk entered the ruling of Denied under docket entry 6000 as of June 3, 2016 and

...