Frederick Ward Associates, Inc. v. Venture, Inc.

ALPERT, Judge. Appellant, Frederick Ward Associates, Inc., appeals from a declaratory judgment entered in the Circuit Court for Cecil County (Cole, J.) in favor of appellees, Venture, Inc., and Charles Cupeto. The court ruled that appellant’s judgment against a “Chris Walker” did not constitute a lien against land deeded to a “John C. Walker” and subsequently transferred to appellees. Appellant asks: Did the court err in ruling that the judgment entered against “Chris Walker” does not constitute a lien against land owned by him, but titled in the name of “John C. Walker”?

We answer this question in the negative and, therefore, affirm. Facts and Proceedings On July 16, 1991,. a judgment was entered against “Chris Walker” and in favor of appellant in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. On August 21, 1992, John C. Walker trans ²⁵³ ferred to the appellees, for valuable consideration, his interest in a sixty acre parcel of land located in Cecil County. The parties stipulate that Chris Walker and John C. Walker are now known to be the same person.

The property was subdivided and seven of the lots were subsequently transferred to other buyers. Title searches by five attorneys failed to disclose a lien on the property. After a sixth attorney discovered the judgment against Chris Walker, 1 appellees filed their complaint, requesting that the court declare that the judgment against Chris Walker does not constitute a lien against the property titled to John C. Walker and purchased by appellees and subsequent buyers. Appellees’ complaint stated, inter alia: “property title searches did not reveal any judgments against the property holder, John C. Walker”; “the title search and lien and judgment search failed to reveal the judgment”; and “the title [was] examined by five lawyers ... each examination did not disclose the judgment.” The answer filed by appellant did not deny that five title searches had been conducted without disclosing the judgment.

During the hearing, appellees offered the testimony of Richard Jackson, an attorney. Mr. Jackson testified that he was experienced in the area of title examination. He stated that in conducting such an examination, he would search the title in the full given name of the property owner. Appellees’ attorney, Eugene F. Herman, represented to the court that he had personally searched the title in question and that he had not found the judgment against Chris Walker.

Additionally, during the course of the hearing, the court questioned counsel repeatedly regarding the title search conducted in this ease: THE COURT: Was the deed titled in John C. Walker? MR. HERMAN: Yes, sir. ²⁵⁴ THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what index you looked in, but some indexes ... have the last name first; then you check. MR.

HERMAN: Well, this suit was brought as indicated. THE COURT: I mean, if you would search the title, you go to the last name, then you could check under the last name. But other ones will have other indexes. If they merely have the name Walker, and then, you know, all on one spot, you go down and find John, Chris.

MR. HERMAN: There was no Chris Walker indexed that I found. THE COURT: All right. $ $ $ $ . sj: ;¡; THE COURT: You searched under John C.? MR.

HERMAN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Searched under John C.[; t]he judgment was in the name of Chris Walker? MR. HERMAN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do we all agree on that? Is that right? MR. HERMAN: [Judgment] was in the name of Chris Walker.

THE COURT: Right. That’s what I am asking. All right. We all agree on that. * * * # * * THE COURT: Did you, in fact, search the title?

MR. HERMAN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You didn’t find out—you found no- Chris at all. MR.

HERMAN: No Chris at all, Your Honor. Counsel for appellant made no objection to Mr. Herman’s representations regarding the title search that he had conducted. The court then stated, The way the facts are really conceded ... John Walker is known as Chris Walker.

That’s his nickname, but John C. ²⁵⁵ Walker is his Christian name and proper name; the title to the property was in John C. Walker’s name. John C. conveyed property to the plaintiff[s] in this case, who were holders in due course without knowledge of any judgment. The court ruled that the judgment entered in favor of appellant and against Chris Walker did not constitute a lien on the land owned by John C. Walker and conveyed by him to appellees and subsequent buyers. This appeal followed.

Discussion Appellant contends that (1) there was no evidence presented at the hearing to show that the title in question had ever been searched and (2) the court erred by applying the standard applicable to a reasonable title search, in determining whether the judgment should constitute a lien on the property. We disagree. Initially, we note that appellant’s answer did not deny appellees’ assertions, contained in the complaint for declaratory judgment, that title searches had been conducted without disclosing the judgment. “Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required ... are admitted unless denied in the responsive pleading or covered by a general denial.” Md.Rule 2-323(e) (1993). Appellees’ assertions in the complaint regarding the title searches are, therefore, deemed admitted.

Indeed, it was conceded as fact at the hearing that appellees had conducted a title search of the property owned by John C. Walker and that they had acquired this property, for valuable consideration, without knowledge of the judgment filed against the property owner in the name of Chris Walker. The court repeatedly