Beck v. Beck

Oppenheimer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appeals were taken by the appellant, an alleged incompetent, from orders of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, passed on August 9, 1963, and September 11, 1963. The order of August 9 appointed a guardian ad litem for the appellant, to investigate his present and past mental incompetency and alleged irregularities in the conduct of his affairs by his wife, the appellee. The order instructed the guardian to set a trial for the determination of the appellant’s competency by a jury.

The order of September 11 appointed the appellee committee or trustee of the appellant’s person, and ordered him transferred to the Springfield State Hospital at Sykesville, pending compliance with the order of August 9. The appellee moved to dismiss both appeals. On March 2, 1964, this Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to further consideration of the appealability of each of the orders after the hearing of the appeal on the merits. There has been litigation involving the competency of the appellant and the administration of his affairs since April, 1961.

On April 7, 1961, the appellee filed a petition under Section 135, Article 16, Code (1957), alleging the incompetency of the ²⁶⁴ appellant to manage his estate and asking for her appointment as trustee of that estate. A supplemental petition .was filed on April 14, 1961, alleging that arrangements were being made to have the appellant removed from Harrisburg State Hospital in Pennsylvania to the home of the appellee in Silver Spring, Maryland, and praying an order of the court to have summons served upon the appellant in the manner provided by Section 135 in cases where the alleged incompetent resides with the petitioner. Judge Anderson, sitting in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, signed an order directing that summons be served on a Viola Morris, who resided near the appellee in Silver Spring, Maryland. It appears of record that Viola Morris was duly served, and on May 1, 1961, Judge Pugh signed a decree appointing the appellee trustee of the estate of the appellant.

On June 24, 1963, the appellant filed in the Circuit Court a petition to remove the appellee as trustee of his estate and asking for a show cause order. In that petition the appellant alleged that the May 1, 1961 decree appointing the appellee as trustee of his estate was void for the reason that he had no notice of the May 1 proceedings and that the decree was procured by fraud. He also alleged certain irregularities in the management of his estate by the appellee, and asserted his competency. Following this petition, the order of August 9 was passed.

That order was clearly interlocutory in nature. It related only to the method of trying the issue of competency, and left the rights of the parties on the merits entirely adjudicated. Such an order is not appealable before there has been a final judgment. Ex Parte Johnson, 215 Md. 391 , 138 A. 2d 347 (1958); Moale v. Smith, 86 Md. 683 , 37 Atl. 370 (1897).

It is not one of the specified interlocutory orders from which appeals are allowed by statute. Md. Rule 887; Section 7, Article 5, Code (1957). As to the order of August 9, the appellee’s motion to dismiss must be granted. The order of September 11, 1963, on the other hand, was final in nature and therefore appealable.

In appointing the appellee as committee or trusteee of the appellant’s person, it fixed the rights of the parties. It is true that the appellee’s petition on which the order was signed states that one of the reasons ²⁶⁵ for the relief prayed is to cooperate with the court in seeking a jury determination of the appellant’s sanity. The appellee argues that, while the order may be final in form, it is interlocutory in nature and does not