Jones v. Office of Finance

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ⁶⁰² We shall here hold that a county must pay over to the owner of money seized the interest which accrued on that money between the time the court directed that the money be returned to its owner and the date of ultimate payment. Police in Baltimore County seized $11,066 in cash which they found in close proximity to a large quantity of heroin when they executed a valid search warrant at the residence of Kenneth Wayne Jones, the petitioner here, on April 9, 1974. In due season Jones was convicted of violating the narcotics laws and sentenced to imprisonment for a total of twenty-four years. The County sought forfeiture to it of the money seized.

Unfortunately, the County failed to file its petition within the time mandated by Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 297. See Baltimore County v. Jones, 46 Md. App. 419, 420 , 417 A.2d 470 , cert. denied, 288 Md. 740 (1980). 1 For that reason on March 7, 1979, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County dismissed the County’s petition for forfeiture. It passed two orders, one on March 7 and one on March 28, 1979, which directed that the sum in question be returned to Jones.

The County paid over to Jones the amount seized. This was done at a time subsequent to our denial on October 24, 1980, of the County’s petition for a writ of certiorari in that case. The County did not, however, pay any interest on the sum, despite the fact that the money in question had been deposited in an interest bearing account. Jones filed a petition seeking interest on the sum in question.

The County responded first by filing a motion under Maryland Rule 323 b raising preliminary objection on the ground that the County had not waived its governmental immunity. At the same time it filed an answer to Jones’ petition which, among other things, admitted that the sum in question had been kept in an interest bearing account since April 11, 1974. The matter came on for hearing. Interest prior to the date ⁶⁰³ of the refund order was denied on res judicata grounds with the comment made, "Interest . .. had been neither sought nor awarded before Judge Raine,” referring to the initial forfeiture action and Jones’ answer to the County’s petition for forfeiture.

The trial judge held that Rule 642 concerning interest on judgments was not applicable. He then granted the County’s motion raising preliminary objection. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in an unreported opinion, using virtually the same reasoning as that of the circuit judge. We then granted Jones’ request for a writ of certiorari in order that we might address the important public question here