Kaufman v. Plitt

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This.suit was instituted by Harry J. Kaufman and his wife, of Baltimore County, against Clarence M. Plitt, ²⁷ of Baltimore City, to obtain (1) an injunction against the sale of the property at 1005 Leeds Avenue under execution, and (2) an accounting to determine the amount legally due on the judgment entered March 12, 1937. This is the second time the case has been appealed to this Court. Complainants alleged in their original bill of complaint that the judgment, which was obtained by confession in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, included usurious interest.

Defendant demurred to the bill of complaint, and from an order overruling the demurrer defendant appealed. On June 11, 1947, this Court said that a court of equity will enjoin the sale of land under execution on a judgment entered in a court of law by confession upon a promissory note given for a usurious consideration upon payment of the real amount of the debt with legal interest, but we held that the decisive question in this case was whether complainants were estopped from invoking the aid of equity on account of laches. Complainants had waited nine years before they entered suit and no explanation was offered for the delay. In the absence of any allegation to account for their delay, a case of laches was apparent on the face of the bill.

However, complainants informed the Court that defendant knew for some years that they disputed the judgment on the ground of usury, and since the filing of the bill they had come into possession of a photostatic copy of a letter which he wrote to them in 1937 stating the understanding with which the notes were signed and the judgment was to be entered. They declared that this letter would explain why they delayed so long in bringing suit. In view of these representations we reversed the order of the Court and remanded the case with direction to grant leave to complainants to amend their bill by explaining the delay. Plitt v. Kaufman, 188 Md. 606 , 53 A. 2d 673 .

On August 22, 1947, complainants filed their amended bill of complaint. In addition to the allegations of the original bill, it alleged: (1) That the note dated Feb ²⁸ ruary 1, 1936, on which the judgment was confessed, represented the same indebtedness as that evidenced by two notes previously executed by Roland H. Kaufman, son of complainants; that defendant agreed to look primarily to Roland for payment of the indebtedness and to credit any amounts collected from Roland on their note; and that this agreement and defendant’s further promise not to make unreasonable demands for the payment of any judgment entered upon the note were evidenced by a photostatic copy of a letter filed an an exhibit with the amended bill; (2) that in 1941 defendant and others filed a petition in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland to declare Harry J. Kaufman bankrupt, and during those proceedings Kaufman and his son Roland made known to defendant, and also to the referee and the trustee in bankruptcy, that the judgment included usurious interest, and defendant took no action to enforce his judgment by execution between 1941 and July 3, 1946. Defendant demurred to the amended bill, and the Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill, holding that the additional allegations did not sufficiently explain the delay of complainants in attacking the judgment against them, and consequently they were barred by laches. Complainants are now appealing from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the amended bill.

The doctrine of laches is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale demands for the peace of society. Where there is difficulty in doing complete justice by reason of the death of the principal witness or witnesses, or where the original transaction has become obscured by time because of gross negligence or deliberate delay, a court of equity will not aid the party whose application thus lacks good faith and reasonable diligence. Equity takes the view that such manifest neglect constitutes an implied waiver arising from a knowledge of the conditions and an acquiescence in them. In determining what will constitute laches so as to bar relief in equity, the court