Basiliko v. Royal National Bank of New York

Per Curiam. In this case appellant, Nick Basiliko (Basiliko), complains because of entry of judgment against him in fa ⁵⁴⁷ vor of appellee, Royal National Bank of New York (Bank), for $462,225.99 with interest at 6% from January 29, 1971, “on the outstanding balance.” This judgment was actually made up of $388,093.63 debt, $13,842.01 interest and $60,290.35 attorney’s fees, the latter figure being 15% of combined debt and interest. The attorney’s fees did not appear as a separate item, but were included in the total. In thus entering the judgment the admonition of this Court in Webster v. Peoples Loan etc., Bank, 160 Md. 57 , 152 A. 815 (1931), was overlooked.

Judge (later Chief Judge) Sloan there said for the Court: “It is the better practice to enter the fees or commissions as a separate item and not to include the amount in the judgment for the principal obligation. The judgment for the principal bears interest, while the fees or commissions do not, and the question of usury would thus be avoided.” Id. at 62 . The cause of action arises on a guarantee by Basiliko to Bank of sums to be borrowed by a Florida corporation. This case was heard on motion for summary judgment.

Basiliko contends that summary judgment was improperly entered, claiming there are two triable issues of fact. The first is whether an officer of the corporation “transferred funds from [the corporation] account to his own name and then made payments to the Appellee bank.” The second is whether there was authority for additional borrowing. To the first contention Basiliko adds some window dressing by stating that he has not had the opportunity to utilize his discovery rights under the Maryland Rules in order to ascertain whether such transfers have in fact been made, pointing out that the motion for summary judgment was filed one day after his pleas were filed and also pointing to an agreement between stockholders that no additional sums were to be borrowed. ⁵⁴⁸ The point about discovery is completely without merit. The pleas were filed on October 19.

The matter was argued before Judge Shook on January 29th. The intervening three and one-third months provided ample time for interrogatories and depositions. As a matter of fact, Basiliko was summoned on September 16. Had interrogatories been filed at the same time the pleas were filed, answers under Maryland Rule 417 b 1 would have been due 15 days thereafter, unless the court for good cause shown extended or shortened the time.

No interrogatories were filed. The presence of unanswered interrogatories having an obvious bearing on this proceeding might well have been a basis for postponement of a hearing on the motion for summary judgment if such hearing had been pressed for immediately, rather than being