Blucher v. Ekstrom

ELDRIDGE, Judge. We granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case to consider the following question set forth by petitioner: “Whether the duty of an adult child to support and care for a destitute parent creates a concomitant cause of action entitling the adult child providing support and care to recover damages from the party who injured the parent, which injuries resulted in the parent becoming destitute?” Unfortunately, because there was no timely order of appeal filed from the final trial court judgment deciding that issue, there can be no appellate resolution of the question in this case. The plaintiff, Audrey Blucher, filed in the Circuit Court for Carroll County a three-count complaint, seeking damages from the defendants Doris Jean Ekstrom and Carroll Lee Ekstrom. The lawsuit stemmed from an automobile accident involving a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff Audrey Blucher and a vehicle owned by the defendant Doris Jean Ekstrom and operated by the defendant Carroll Lee Ekstrom.

The plaintiff’s mother, Betty J. Hoyer, was a passenger in the plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident. In Count I of the complaint, the plaintiff sought damages for her own personal injuries based on ⁴⁶⁰ theories of negligence and respondeat superior. Count II of the complaint encompassed the same damages but on a theory of negligent entrustment. Count III of the complaint represented a separate claim for different alleged damages based upon the asserted cause of action reflected in the previously quoted certiorari question.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Counts II and III of the complaint, and a hearing on the motion was held. At the conclusion of the hearing on December 23, 1985, an order was entered on the docket stating: “Motion Granted as to Count 3. Court reserved ruling as to Count 2.” The plaintiff then filed an order of appeal from the order granting the motion to dismiss Count III. On January 28, 1986, the Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal, stating that no order had been entered pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-602 and that there was no final judgment.

On March 18, 1986, the circuit court signed an order which recited that a motion to dismiss Count II and III had been filed and which went on to state: “ORDERED that Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. This Court thus enters final judgment for the Defendant on that Count. “It is further ORDERED, that this Court will reserve judgment as to Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint.” A docket entry on the same date contained the same language as the order. The plaintiff on March 27, 1986, filed an order of appeal from the March 18th order. Next, on April 9, 1986, the circuit court signed the following order: “ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC AS SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT ON MOTION TO DISMISS Upon review of the final Order presented and signed on March 18, 1986, it is, this 9th day of April, 1986, FURTHER ORDERED, that there is no just reason for delay and thereby expressly orders and enters judgment ⁴⁶¹ for the Defendant as to Count III of the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

All other portions of this Court’s previous Order remain.” This order was entered on the docket the following day, April 10, 1986. No order of appeal was filed from the order entered on April 10th. The last order of appeal filed was on March 27, 1986. The plaintiff and the defendants proceeded in the Court of Special Appeals on an expedited basis and an agreed statement of facts. 1 The agreed statement of facts recited that the circuit court’s decision on Count III “was finalized by Order dated March 18, 1986, in compliance with Maryland Rule 2-602.” The March 18th order was not quoted, and the agreed statement made no mention of the order signed on April 9th and filed on April 10th.

The Court of Special Appeals, proceeding on the assumption that it had jurisdiction, affirmed. Blucher v. Ekstrom, 68 Md.App. 459 , 513 A.2d 923 (1986). As previously mentioned, we then granted the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Rule 2-602, which was formerly numbered Rule 605 a, provides as follows: “Rule 2-602.

JUDGMENTS NOT DISPOSING OF ENTIRE ACTION “(a) Generally.—Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, an order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims in an action (whether raised by original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim), or that adjudicates less than an entire claim, or that adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties to the