Kraft v. Sussex Construction Corp.

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 12, 1974, a summary judgment in the amount of $9,270.86 was entered in favor of Robert H. Kraft, the appellant, against Sussex Construction Corporation, Inc., appellee, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. On September 24, 1975, appellee filed a motion to strike out the judgment on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to enter the judgment because the appellee had been served as Sussex Construction Company and had not been re-served under its correct name, prior to the entry of the summary judgment. There is no contention here that the service on Richard Gildar, the resident agent of the appellant and its president and treasurer was otherwise improper.

On October 21, 1975, the court granted the motion to strike the enrolled judgment entered on July 12, 1974. On November 21, 1975, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration as well as an appeal to this Court. The appeal was not perfected, probably for the reason that it was filed one day too late. The motion to reconsider was denied May 27, 1976.

The instant appeal was timely filed from that denial. Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 12-301, this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only from final' orders. Certain statutory exemptions are set out in Courts Art. § 12-303. Other exceptions are established by case law such as the denial of a plea of double jeopardy, Neal v. State, 272 Md. 323 , 322 A. 2d 887 (1974).

The Court of Appeals has ³¹¹ also held that the granting of a motion to strike out an enrolled judgment under Md. Rule 625 is in the nature of a final judgment and, therefore, appealable. The same rule applies to the denial of a motion to strike out an enrolled judgment. First Federated Commodity Trust Corp. v. Commissioner of Securities, 212 Md. 329, 322 A. 2d 539 (1974). In the case at bar the appellant allowed the appealable order striking out the judgment to become final by not filing a timely appeal and by allowing 30 days to pass before he filed his motion to reconsider.

We will, therefore, treat the motion to reconsider as a motion to strike a final judgment under Maryland Rule 625 a, 1 which requires a showing of “fraud, mistake or irregularity” as to an enrolled judgment to justify favorable action. We do not find any “fraud, mistake, or irregularity” during the course of the hearing to strike the judgment. 2 The only mistake alleged by the appellant is that the trial judge erred in