Diener Enterprises, Inc. v. Miller

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We do not reach the merits of the controversy in this case because we conclude that the “judgment” from which this appeal is taken is neither final under Maryland Rule 605 a, nor is it one of the appealable interlocutory orders ⁵⁵³ or judgments permitted by Article 5 of the Maryland Code (1957, 1968 Repl. Vol.). This litigation was initially instituted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County as a complaint in equity filed by appellant, Diener Enterprises, Inc., against appellees, Gerald J. Miller, E. Fulton Brylawski and Melvin Lenkin, individually and trading as Nicholson Avenue Associates.

Diener, through the equity suit, sought to void its purchase from appellees of Lot 3 located in the Bethesda Industrial Center; enjoin foreclosure of a deed of trust given to secure an unpaid portion of the lot’s purchase price; and obtain indemnity for losses sustained as a result of allegedly false representations made by Associates in connection with that sale. Appellant claimed that it was fraudulently misled concerning the permissible uses of the lot under the then existing Montgomery County zoning laws and regulations. Before the equity case was decided, the property was sold under a first deed of trust which had priority over the rights of all parties to this case. At appellant’s request, Judge Miller then ordered the proceedings transferred to the law docket (Rule 515) with direction that an appropriate action be filed within fifteen days.

Diener complied by filing a declaration containing two counts. The first alleges that appellant was induced to purchase Lot 3 at a price far in excess of its true value as a result of the fraud, deceit, and misrepresentations employed by Associates to sell the property and demands $650,000 in damages. The second count repeats most of the factual allegations of the first and seeks damages in the same amount for breach of the contract by which Diener purchased the lot from appellees. Following a hearing Judge Miller concluded that the decision of this Court in Marathon Builders, Inc. v. Polinger, 263 Md. 410 , 283 A. 2d 617 (1971) prevented a recovery by Diener under the first count of its declaration and granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment on that count.

At the same time, the judge denied a similar motion as to the second count and a counterclaim. Ad ⁵⁵⁴ ditionally, Judge Miller directed “under Rule 605, the immediate entry of a final judgment in count one, and that there is an express determination by the Court that there is no reason for delay, and an express determination for an entry of judgment in favor of the defendants on that count.” Armed with this order, appellant filed an immediate appeal. We are of the opinion, however, that the appeal from this order or “judgment” is premature as it is not sanctioned by Rule 605. Subsection a of that rule states: “Where more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.

In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates less than all the claims shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims.” This rule was modeled after Rule 54 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and uses substantially the same language. This renders interpretations of the federal rule especially persuasive as to the meaning of the Maryland rule. Cf. Funger v. Mayor of Somerset, 244 Md. 141 , 223 A. 2d 168 (1966).

It is as clear to us as it was to the federal courts interpreting their similar rule that there is a condition precedent to entry of an appealable judgment under Rule 605 a. And, this requires that there be more than one claim 1 made in the action. When there is but one claim ⁵⁵⁵ the rule cannot be invoked so as to confer jurisdiction upon an appellate court. See Backus Plywood Corp. v. Commercial Decal.

Inc., 317 F. 2d 339 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U. S. 879 , 84 S. Ct. 146 , 11 L.Ed.2d 110 ; Bowling Machines, Inc. v. First National Bank of Boston, 283 F. 2d 39 (1st Cir. 1960). It is just as