Eastern Publishing, Inc. v. Jender Printing

MURPHY, Chief Judge. The question presented is whether an appeal from a final judgment in the District Court on a replevin action brought under Maryland Code (1984 Repl. Vol.) § 4-401(2) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article should be heard de novo or on the record. 1 Section 4-401(2) vests exclusive original civil jurisdiction in the District Court in “[a]n action of replevin, regardless of the value of the thing in controversy.” Section 12-401(d) provides, in pertinent part, that an appeal from a District Court judgment in a civil case “in which the amount in controversy exceeds $1,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees if attorney’s fees are recoverable by law or contract, and in any case in which the parties so agree, ... shall be heard on the record made in the District Court. In every other case ⁷¹⁷ ... an appeal shall be tried de novo.” 2 I. In 1986, Eastern Publishing, Inc. (Eastern) instituted a replevin action in the District Court in Baltimore County to recover certain materials in the possession of Jender Printing (Jender).

In particular, Eastern alleged that although it had never contracted with Jender, Jender had performed work in connection with the withheld materials and refused to return them until Eastern paid for Jender’s services. Jender filed a counterclaim for $744 in the replevin action, the amount allegedly due for its services to Eastern. The District Court granted Eastern’s claim for restitution in the replevin action. It also awarded Jender $372 on its counterclaim.

Eastern appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County from the judgment entered against it on the counterclaim. The circuit court (Turnbull, J.) affirmed the judgment in favor of Jender without a hearing and upon the record transmitted to it from the District Court. 3 Eastern subsequently filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, alleging that as the amount in controversy was less than $1,000, the appeal should have been heard de novo pursuant to § 12-401(d). In an order denying the motion, the court said: ⁷¹⁸ “According to Section 4-401(2) ..., an action of Replevin, regardless of the value of the thing in controversy, lies with the District Court. Any appeal taken from such an action should necessarily be heard upon the record in the Circuit Court as the amount in controversy is not at issue.” We granted certiorari to consider the significant issue involved in the case.

II

It is clear that the circuit court read the language of § 4-401(2), which vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the District Court in all replevin actions “regardless of the value of the thing in controversy,” to preclude the applicability on appeal of the “amount in controversy” provision of § 12-401(d). In so concluding, we think the circuit court was in error. The statutory scheme provides that all replevin actions, irrespective of the value of the property in controversy, must originate in the District Court. Appellate review of final judgments of the District Court is explicitly provided for under § 12-401(a). 4 See Burch v. State, 278 Md. 426, 428 , 365 A.2d 577 (1976) (§ 12-401(a) provides for right of appeal without qualification).

Section 12-401(d) then sets forth the manner in which the appeal shall be heard, i.e., those civil claims of $1,000 or less are to be tried de novo, while those which exceed $1,000 are on the record. No exceptions or qualifications are made to this clear line of demarcation between de novo and on-the-record civil appeals. By its plain wording, § 4-401(2) relates only to the initial original jurisdiction of the District Court in replevin actions; it does not implicate the appellate process. This section does not, therefore, prescribe the mode of appeal to be taken in the circuit court, which is covered by an entirely ⁷¹⁹ different section, namely, § 12-401(d).