Champion v. United Virginia Bank

GARY G. LEASURE, Judge, Specially Assigned. The appellant, Martha Anne Champion, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, United Virginia Bank, t/a VISA. Through this order a money judgment was entered against her in favor of appellee for $5,883.03 with interest, court costs and attorney fees. This case began in February, 1986, when the appellee filed suit against the appellant and a co-defendant, Clarence Paul Champion, in the District Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County.

The claim was predicated on an alleged account stated between the parties. Upon appellant’s demand for jury trial, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Thereafter, appellee filed a complaint and motion for summary judgment in the circuit court. This motion was denied due to lack of service on the defendants.

In May, 1988, appellee filed a first amended complaint and renewed its motion for summary judgment. In December, 1989, the motion was once again denied due to lack of proper service on the named defendants. Eventually, proper service of the complaint and motion was made on appel ⁴⁴¹ lant. 1 Appellant filed pro se answers to the complaint and motion for summary judgment as well as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment. On May 31, 1990, the circuit court granted the motion over appellant’s objection and entered the following order. “ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same hereby is granted, and judgment is entered in favor of United Virginia Bank, t/a VISA, A Corporation, Plaintiff against Martha Anne Champion, Defendant in the sum of $5,883.03 with interest at 6% per annum from 11/19/85 until date of judgment and thereafter at 10% per annum, plus court costs and 15% attorney fees of $882.00.” In her appeal the appellant pro se contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the motion, affidavit and exhibits submitted by the appellee.

She argues that these pleadings failed to establish that as a matter of law appellant was entitled to the money judgment. This Court agrees and must reverse and remand for the following reasons. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-501 summary judgment shall be entered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Rule further provides that the motion for summary judgment must be supported by affidavit when, as here, it is filed “... before the day on which the adverse party’s initial pleading or motion is filed.” Md. Rule 2-501(a).

To serve this function, the affidavit must contain evidentiary facts, not conclusions, and it should be full, certain and exact. Wyand v. Patterson Agency, Inc., 266 Md. 456, 460 , 295 A.2d 773 (1972). ⁴⁴² In support of its motion for summary judgment, appellee submitted the affidavit of Carol Y. Taylor. This affidavit sets forth the following: “That the affiant is a duly authorized representative of the Plaintiff, that the Affiant has personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and is competent to testify hereto. That the above-named Defendants] is justly indebted unto the Plaintiff in the full sum of $5,080.34 with interest thereon above all discounts, as reflected on the attached Exhibits including the interest worksheet, all of which are incorporated by reference herein.

That, in compliance with the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act of 1940 and amendments thereto as of October 6, 1942, affiant