Goodman v. Goodman

GARRITY, Judge. The appellant, Joseph Anthony Goodman, asks us to review the decision of the lower court to deny his motion for a new trial. ⁴²⁹ Facts The appellant filed a complaint against the appellee, Denise Carole Goodman, seeking recision of a separation agreement on the grounds of fraud, duress, and undue influence. He claimed that the appellee pressured and misled him into signing the agreement by giving him the impression that the appellee’s attorney was also protecting his interests. On July 10, 1987, a trial on the merits was held in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Nickerson, J.).

The court found “no basis on which to set aside the separation agreement.” After closing arguments, counsel for the appellee moved for attorney fees pursuant to Rule 1-341. In granting the motion for attorney fees, the trial judge found that nothing “ha[d] been presented that amounts to substantial justification for the filing and prosecution of this action,” and granted the motion for counsel fees. The appellant appealed. Upon receiving a copy of the Transcript of Trial, the appellant’s counsel noticed that the portion of the trial from which he was appealing, specifically the appellee’s motion for attorney fees, was missing from the transcript.

He contacted the Court Reporter and was told that the portion in question had not been recorded as there had not been a request to do so. The appellant filed a Motion for New Trial and Administrative Investigation. Judge Nickerson denied the motion. I. On appeal, the appellant asks us to determine whether the forwarding of a faulty and incomplete record by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County deprives him of a meaningful and just appeal.

Our review of the record, however, reveals that the only issue before us is whether the lower court erred in denying the appellant’s Motion for a New Trial. New Freedom Corp. v. Brown, 260 Md. 383 , 272 A.2d 401 (1971). ⁴³⁰ In his Memorandum Opinion and Order of July 14, 19.87, Judge Nickerson pointed out that there had not been any evidence presented to the court that “remotely amounts to substantial justification” for the filing of the action. After a Motion to Amend the Judgment was filed by appellant’s counsel, the trial judge, on July 30, 1987, again stated his reasoning for awarding counsel fees. As further rationale, the trial judge cited the Rules of Professional