Kasdon v. Westbury, Inc.

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant (Kasdon) is upset, justifiably so we think, because the trial judge, Pugh, J., ignored his request for a hearing. The facts seem not to be in dispute. In June 1968 Kasdon attended a Montgomery County tax sale.

He bought 12 parcels of land belonging to West-bury, Inc., for each of which he received a separate Certificate of Tax Sale. In July 1969, none of the properties having been redeemed, Kasdon filed 12 separate bills of complaint to foreclose the rights of redemption. This appeal concerns directly only one of those actions. Indirectly it concerns all of them.

In September 1969 West-bury filed a petition (in which, two weeks later, Belts-ville Investment Corporation joined) to redeem, to consolidate the 12 actions, and to fix the amount necessary for redemption. On 21 November, after a hearing, Judge Pugh denied the motion to consolidate but he did nothing about fixing the amount necessary for redemption. Kasdon, in a motion for reconsideration filed four days later, alleged that the court “did not allow [his] counsel to complete his argument or to be heard in any other way with regard to the amount necessary for redemption,” despite the fact that his title examiner was present and ready to testify. Kasdon concluded his motion with a request for a hearing at which testimony might be produced and argument permitted in respect of “the amounts to be paid in redemption.” The motion was denied on 9 December.

On 29 December Kasdon answered Westbury’s petition of 10 October to consolidate and to “fix costs necessary for redemption.” Kasdon set forth, in that answer, the amounts he contended should be paid and he appended two requests for a hearing. He claimed he was entitled to be reimbursed for the following: ²²⁴ “Taxes, interest and costs paid by Plaintiff $ 57.00 Plus 6% interest thereon from 6/10/68 to the date of payment [5.39] 46.00 Court costs paid by Plaintiff 170.72 Advertising costs 25.00 Title Search 100.00” Attorney’s fees $404.11 Without notice to any of the parties Judge Pugh, on 7 January 1970, passed and filed the following order: “ORDERED, that the amount necessary for redemption of Lot 14, Block A, ‘Muncaster Mill View’, be and the same is hereby fixed as follows : 1967 Taxes $ 57.00 Interest 5.39 $ 62.39 Montgomery County Sentinel 170.72 Clerks costs 6.50 Additional clerks fees 16.50 Plaintiffs appearance fee 5.00 Seven services of process 7.00 Title search 10.00 Attorneys fee 25.00 240.72 303.11 “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff pay the added costs of these proceedings. s/ James H. Pugh Judge” It is at once apparent, assuming only minor differences in the other 11 cases, that the cost of redemption, applying Kasdon’s figures, will be about $5,000. If Judge Pugh’s accounting is used it will be about $3,600. If all 12 •certificates had been joined in one proceeding the cost of redemption might have been even less but how much less can only be surmised. ²²⁵ The appellees say it was downright churlish of Kasdon to file 12 separate bills of complaint instead of joining all 12 in one proceeding.

Their pique is understandable but we do not share that view. Code, Art. 81, § 108 (1969 Repl. Vol.) provides that “[a]ny single holder of certificates * * * may include and join in one proceeding any number of the said certificates.” (Emphasis added.) Section 100 provides that “[t]he holder of any certificate of sale * * * may * * * file a bill in equity to foreclose all rights of redemption of the property to which such certificate relates * * (Emphasis added.) Section 102, dealing with the form of the bill of complaint, requires “ [£] he certificate of sale * * * [to] be attached to the bill of complaint.” (Emphasis added.) Kasdon stated in his brief that each of the 12 properties was encumbered by three separate deeds of trust and that some of the properties were subject also to mechanics’ liens upon which foreclosure proceedings had been commenced. During the argument in this Court he pointed out that under the practice prevailing in Montgomery County, in any case in which a number of certificates are joined, the final decree is withheld until all proceedings in respect of all properties have been