Bakas v. Marjec, Inc.

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in favor of Marjec, Inc., and Don R. Lamborne (hereinafter collectively referred to as Marjec) against Gus Bakas and George Psoras in the amount of $22,800.00 (which included interest and an attorney’s fee) and costs on a note for $20,000.00 executed on 29 April 1971, due 28 April 1973, payment of which was in default. Bakas and Psoras have appealed, primarily relying upon the narrow issue of venue. It would seem that the note in question was executed in Olney, which is in Montgomery County.

However, when suit was instituted, Marjec, the ³⁵⁸ obligee on the note, believed Bakas to be a resident of Baltimore City and Psoras, a resident of Baltimore County. Relying on Maryland Code (1974), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 6-201 (b): “Multiple defendants. — If there is more than one defendant, and there is no single venue applicable to all defendants, under subsection (a),[ 1 ] all may be sued in a county in which any one of them could be sued, or in the county where the cause of action arose,” Marjec brought suit in Montgomery County, where the note had been executed, alleging that both defendants were regularly engaged in business in Montgomery County. After several unsuccessful: attempts, both Bakas and Psoras were ultimately served with process in Baltimore County. Represented by the same counsel, the defendants, pursuant to Maryland Rule 323, filed identical motions with the circuit court raising preliminary objection on grounds of improper venue.

The motions, which relied on Courts Article § 6-201, recited that each movant was neither a resident of Montgomery County, nor was employed in Montgomery County, nor carried on a business or vocation there. Identical affidavits were also filed stating that each affiant was a resident of Baltimore County and regularly conducted his business there and did not carry on a business or vocation in Montgomery County. Marjec responded with identical answers to the motions which averred that the note had been executed at Olney in Montgomery County and that the multiple defendants, as alleged in the declaration, transacted business in that county. Marjec cited Courts Article § 6-201 as authority for its contention that the motions raising preliminary objection should be denied.

Both motions raising preliminary objection were overruled and the trial court later entered ³⁵⁹ summary judgment in favor of Marjec against Bakas and Psoras. This appeal followed. While Bakas and Psoras have an armory of contentions, there is only one with which we need to be concerned — whether it was proper, under the facts of this case, for the trial court (Fairbanks, J.) to overrule the motions raising preliminary objection and enter judgment. We are satisfied that this was clearly improper.

In the past, this Court has addressed itself to the importance of proper venue, in order that defendants may avoid the necessity of defending an action in counties distant from their homes or places of employment, Zouck v. Zouck, 204 Md. 285 , 104 A. 2d 573 (1954). It has also been