Kosinski v. Evans

FISCHER, Judge. Gerald D. Kosinski appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County establishing child support and ordering payment of attorney’s fees, arrearages, and medical expenses of the child. Appellant presents the following questions for our review: I. Did the trial court err in passing an order dismissing the appellant’s exceptions to the report and recommendation of the Master as being untimely filed?

II

Did the trial court err in passing an order for child support, attorney’s fees and related relief when the Master’s report and recommendation contained insufficient findings of first level facts to permit the court to exercise its independent judgment concerning the proper conclusion to be reached from the Master’s fact finding? Facts Grace Kosinski was born on July 7, 1989, to appellant and appellee, Judy Evans. Appellee filed a complaint for child support against appellant for the support of their daughter on January 22, 1993. The matter was brought before the Master in Chancery for a hearing on September 7, 1993.

After testimony of appellee and appellant, the Master made findings of facts and a recommendation, which were filed in the circuit court. ⁵⁹⁷ The Master recommended that appellant be required to pay child support of $184.45 per week to appellee beginning on the date of filing, January 22, 1993, and that appellant also pay $46 per week toward any arrearages. Last, the Master’s recommendations provided that appellant pay $2,500 of the attorney’s fees of appellee. The only finding of fact released by the Master was a worksheet that detailed the income of both appellee and appellant. The Master did not record any basis for awarding appellee a portion of her attorney’s fees.

The Master’s recommendations were mailed to appellant and appellee on Monday, September 13, 1993. Appellant’s exceptions to the Master’s recommendations were received by and filed in the circuit court on September 23, 1993. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss appellant’s exceptions. On November 15, 1993, the circuit court dismissed appellant’s exceptions as not having been timely filed.

The circuit court signed an order adopting the Master’s recommendations on December 2, 1993. I. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his objections to the report and recommendations of the Master as being untimely filed. The circuit court determined that appellant’s filing of his exceptions violated Rule S74A(d), which requires that exceptions to the Master’s recommendations must be filed with the court clerk within five days of the service of the recommendations on the parties. Under Maryland Rule 2-541(g)(2), if exceptions are not filed properly, the circuit court can direct entry of an order consistent with the recommendations of the Master.

If appellant did not make a timely filing of his exceptions, his right to file exceptions is waived. Dobrow v. Dobrow, 50 Md.App. 465 , 439 A.2d 596 (1982). Maryland Rule 1-203 governs the computation of time under Maryland statutes. If service of notice is made by mail, the party required to act within a prescribed period is granted an additional three days to act.

Maryland Rule l-203(d). The Master’s recommendations were issued on Monday, September 13, 1993. As service on appellant was accomplished ⁵⁹⁸ through the mail, appellant is not charged with receipt of the recommendations until Thursday, September 16, 1993. The computation of appellant’s five day time limit to file his exceptions did not begin until Friday, September 17, 1993.

Under Maryland Rule l-203(a), any time period prescribed by the Maryland Rules that is less than seven days does not count Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays within the period. As appellant was required to file his exceptions within five days of his receipt of the Master’s recommendations, Saturday, September 18, and Sunday, September 19, would not be counted under the statute. Appellant’s final day to file the exceptions would be Thursday, September 23, 1993. Appellant did file his exceptions on that day, and the circuit court erred in dismissing