Halstad v. Halstad

Leigh S. Halstad v. Damian L. Halstad Case No.: 678 September Term, 2019 Opinion by Meredith, J. CIVIL PROCEDURE – VENUE – DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. The general venue statute in Maryland provides that a civil action may be filed in the jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or habitually engages in a vocation. In addition, an action seeking to annul a marriage may be filed in the jurisdiction where the marriage ceremony was performed; and an action seeking a divorce may be filed in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff resides. A party who contends that venue is not proper in the circuit court in which a complaint has been filed must raise the objection before filing an answer, and may do so by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322.

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-D-19-000359 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 678 September Term, 2019 LEIGH S. HALSTAD v. DAMIAN L. HALSTAD Meredith, Kehoe, Leahy, JJ. Opinion by Meredith, J. Filed: January 29, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2020-01-30 10:15-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk Leigh Halstad (“Wife”), appellant, filed a complaint (“the Complaint”) against her husband, Damian L. Halstad (“Husband”), appellee, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, asserting claims for annulment, divorce, and conversion. The court granted Husband’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of venue, and Wife appealed. QUESTION PRESENTED Wife presented six questions in her brief, but the dispositive issue before this Court is: Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City commit reversible error in granting the motion to dismiss the Complaint?

We answer “no” to that question, and shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.1 1 Wife phrased her questions presented in her brief as follows: 1. Did the Circuit Court commit an error of law in denying the Appellant a remedy and access to the courts by dismissing the Complaint for Annulment and Divorce on grounds of improper venue where proper venue was admitted? 2. Did the Circuit Court commit an error of law in failing to enforce the provisions of Md. Courts & Judicial Proc. Code Ann. § 6-202 concerning venue? 3.

Did the Circuit Court violate the separation of powers and the prohibition on the suspension of law by failing to enforce the state venue statute? 4. Should the pro se Appellant have to subsidize the Appellee’s attorney’s fees absent an order of the Circuit Court adjudicating the Complaint for Annulment and Divorce under Md. Fam. Law Art., § 7-107? 5. Should this Court condone a party’s use of and a court’s reliance on an admittedly incorrect defense of improper venue in order to coerce a settlement agreement, maintain a destructive relationship or manipulate the plaintiff’s choice of venue? continued… FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties to this case were married on June 8, 1991, in Baltimore.

They have resided since 1996 in Carroll County. They are the parents of three children. Both Wife and Husband are members of the Maryland bar. Husband is an attorney whose office is in Carroll County.

Wife’s license to practice law is on inactive status. On January 31, 2019, Wife, acting pro se, filed the Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The caption of the Complaint lists the same address in Carroll County for both Wife and Husband. The Complaint is spread over 134 pages, and sets forth 717 numbered paragraphs divided into three counts that are captioned: “COUNT I ANNULMENT”; “COUNT II ABSOLUTE DIVORCE (ALTERNATE COUNT)”; and “COUNT III WRONGFUL TAKING AND/OR CONVERSION.” After Husband was served in Carroll County on February 6, 2019, he filed (through counsel) a “Motion To Dismiss For Improper Venue Or, In The Alternative, To Transfer.” See Maryland Rule 2-322(a)(2), which provides: “The following defenses shall __________________________ continued… 6.

Did the Circuit Court err as a matter of law in failing to grant a request for a hearing in Divorce and Annulment case where child custody and child support was sought? In her brief, in the argument section regarding Question 4, Wife states that, while “there is no court order in the family court below awarding Appellee the fees and costs associated with divorce and annulment pursuant to Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 7-107,” she would like any future fee award to “make clear that Appellee (who is a practicing attorney) is barred from simply taking such funds from Appellant” without her consent and “absent obtaining such a ruling in the circuit court where the action was filed.” But it appears that there is, at present, no such order ripe for adjudication. 2 be made by motion to dismiss filed before the answer, if an answer is required: . . . (2) improper venue, . . . .” Husband’s motion asserted that, pursuant to Maryland Code (1973, 2013 Repl.

Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), § 6-201(a), the general rule on venue provides that “a civil action shall be brought in a county where the defendant resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or habitually engages in a vocation.” According to Husband’s motion, venue under CJP § 6-201(a) would not lie in Baltimore City, and would be proper only in Carroll County. Husband’s motion further asserted that, although CJP § 6-202(1) provides that a divorce action may also be filed in the venue “[w]here the plaintiff resides,” that statute would also provide for the action to be filed in Carroll County, and not Baltimore City.2 Wife filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 8, 2019. She noted that Husband’s motion had not addressed CJP § 6-202(2), which provides that an action for annulment may be brought “[w]here the plaintiff resides or where the marriage ceremony was performed.” Although Wife’s opposition asserted that Husband “has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that venue in this Court is improper,” Wife provided no additional information to support venue in Baltimore City. Her opposition 2 In the motion to dismiss, Husband asserted that Carroll County is the proper venue, but he also asserted that the case might “be better suited for transfer to Howard County” because of Husband’s “professional and personal relationships with the judges who sit in the Circuit Court for Carroll County.” But, as Wife pointed out in her opposition, Husband did not allege facts that would support a finding that venue was proper in Howard County.

Cf. Maryland Rule 2-327(b) (granting court authority to “transfer the action to any county in which it could have been brought”). Rule 2-327(c), permitting a transfer for convenience of the parties and witnesses, similarly limits the transfer “to any other circuit court where the action might have been brought.” 3 objected to Husband’s request for transfer of the Complaint. Neither party requested a hearing on the motion.

See Maryland Rule 2-311(f) (“A party desiring a hearing on a motion, other than a motion filed pursuant to Rule 2-532, 2-533, or 2-534, shall request the hearing in the motion or response under the heading ‘Request for Hearing.’ The title of the motion or response shall state that a hearing is requested.”). On March 13, 2019, Wife filed a “Request For Order Of Default.” In that document, Wife asserted that Husband was in default for failing to file an answer to the Complaint within 30 days after he was served with process. Wife’s allegation of a default was, however, in error because Maryland Rule 2-321(c) provides a party who files a preliminary motion pursuant to Rule 2-322—such as Husband’s motion to dismiss—an automatic extension of the time for filing an answer to the complaint. Rule 2-321(c) states, in pertinent part: “When a motion is filed pursuant to Rule 2-322 . . ., the time for filing an answer is extended without special order to 15 days after entry of the court’s order on the motion . . . .” On March 19, 2019, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City docketed an order granting Husband’s motion and dismissing the Complaint for lack of venue.

The case was ordered dismissed (and not transferred). On March 28, 2019, Wife filed a “Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment,” asking the circuit court to “vacate the order of dismissal.” In her motion, Wife asserted— apparently for the first time in any of the documents filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in this case—that the couple’s marriage ceremony had been performed in Baltimore City. She stated in her motion: “Plaintiff further alleges in this pleading that 4 the marriage ceremony, whether effective or ineffective, was performed in Baltimore City at the Church of the Redeemer.” Wife further stated in the motion that she “is willing to amend the Complaint to include this allegation pursuant to Md. Rule 2-341.” Husband filed an opposition on April 15, 2019, admitting Wife’s allegation that their marriage ceremony had been performed in Baltimore City at the Church of the Redeemer, but nevertheless arguing that the case was correctly dismissed because there was no basis for venue in Baltimore City for two of the three counts in the Complaint. Husband’s opposition stated, in part: “The marriage ceremony is the only contact this Court has with this complaint as both the Plaintiff and Defendant have resided in Carroll County for over twenty years.” On April 17, 2019, Wife filed a reply to the opposition, highlighting that Husband had now admitted that their marriage ceremony took place in Baltimore City, and that he had directed her to obtain a marriage license from the clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City prior to the marriage ceremony.

Consequently, she asserted, the court should retain the case even if venue was proper for only one of the three counts in the Complaint. On May 2, 2019, the circuit court summarily denied Wife’s motion to alter or amend. The court also denied Wife’s request for an order of default “as moot.” Wife noted her appeal to this Court on May 29, 2019. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo the decision of the circuit court on a motion to dismiss for improper venue.

See D.L. v. Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc., 465 Md. 339 , 350 5 (2019) (“When reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, the appropriate standard of review is whether the trial court was legally correct.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)); see also Lampros v. Gelb & Gelb, P.C., 153 Md. App. 447, 456 (2003) (reviewing de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of venue); Swanson v. Wilde, 74 Md. App. 57, 61 (reviewing de novo a dismissal for lack of venue), aff’d, 314 Md. 80 (1988). We review for abuse