Arteno v. Arteno

Pee Cueiam. On June 21, 1967, the parties to this proceeding, then being husband and wife, entered into an agreement providing for certain payments to be made to the wife “for support and maintenance of herself and the infant children of the marriage”, the children being described in the agreement as 17 and 15 years of age. When payments were not made in accordance with what she understood to be the terms of the agreement, the wife instituted an action at law in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to recover the alleged arrearages. She also prayed for a declaratory judgment.

On August 15, 1969, Chief Judge Digges, after an earlier argument on motion for summary judgment, passed an order entering judgment in the amount of $3943.66 in favor of the wife against the husband. In the same order he denied the motion for summary judgment under the sixth count which had prayed for the declaratory judgment stating, “[T]he claim therein to be litigated as permitted by law.” The matter relative to declaratory judgment was heard on September 4 before Judge Meloy. The docket entry states : “Order and Oral Opinion to be transcribed by Reporter and submitted to the Court for signature.” On September 10 the husband filed a motion “to revise the Judgment obtained * * * on September 4, 1969”. On September 12 he entered an appeal to this Court.

The oral opinion of the court given on September 4 was signed and filed on September 15. We do not consider appeals on a piecemeal basis. In Silverman v. National Life Ins. Co., 255 Md. 148, 150 , ²²⁹ 257 A. 2d 156 (1969), we quoted from Maryland Rule 605 a which provides in pertinent part: “Where more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims only upon an express