La Valle v. La Valle

BELL, C.J. The sole issue in this case is whether a court may extend a domestic violence protective order, pursuant to a motion timely filed during the term of the order, without also holding a hearing on the motion during the term of that order. We will answer this question in the negative, and conclude that Maryland Code (1984, 2006 Repl.Vol.) § 4-507(a) of the Family Law Article (“FL”) 1 permits a domestic violence protective order ³⁴⁸ to be extended only upon a motion filed and a hearing on that motion held prior to the expiration of that order. In short, we hold that a court that is petitioned to extend a protective order is required, prior to expiration of the order, to hold a hearing to determine whether to extend that order. I. This case arose out of a domestic altercation between the petitioner, Lawrence La Valle, and his wife, the respondent, Janet La Valle.

Following the dispute, which occurred on the evening of May 25, 2006, the respondent filed, in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Montgomery County, a Petition for Protection from Domestic Violence against the petitioner. On May 80, 2006, the District Court issued a Temporary Protective Order pending a hearing, after which, on June 21, 2006, a Final Protective Order, effective until October 10, 2006, 2 was issued against her husband. The order granted the respondent exclusive use and possession of the parties’ marital home, and custody of the parties’ minor son. 3 ³⁴⁹ On September 14, 2006, prior to the expiration of the protective order, the respondent filed a motion, pursuant to FL § 4-507(a), to extend the protective order. Supra note 1.

The court scheduled a hearing on the motion for October 3, 2006, 4 two days after expiration of the protective order. On September 29, 2006, the petitioner opposed the motion to extend the order on the grounds that there was no factual ³⁵⁰ basis on which to extend the order, and that FL § 4-507(a)(1) allows extension only during the term of the original order. At the October 3 hearing, the petitioner repeated the arguments raised in his opposition and, noting the status of the order, that the original protective order had expired, further argued that, at that time, pursuant to FL § 4-507, the court lacked the authority to grant an extension. Nevertheless, rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, the District Court extended the protective order until March 1, 2007. 5 The petitioner appealed that judgment to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which, after having held a de novo review, affirmed the District Court, and concluded that the requirement that a protective order be modified only during its term was satisfied if the request for an extension was filed prior to the expiration of the order.

Thus, concurring with the District Court, the Circuit Court reasoned that, so long as a motion to extend a protective order is filed during the term of the protective order, that protective order may be extended, irrespective of when a hearing and argument on the motion is held; that they actually occur after the protective order has expired does not affect the validity of the extension. The petitioner noted an appeal of that judgment to the Court of Special Appeals. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed, in this Court, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The intermediate appellate court transferred the “appeal” to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-132. 6 We granted the ³⁵¹ petitioner’s petition for certiorari on April 11, 2007.

La Valle v. La Valle, 398 Md. 314 , 920 A.2d 1058 (2007). We shall reverse. I. The respondent asserts that the matter before us is now moot, because the protective order in question expired in March, 2007, prior to the Court’s grant of certiorari, the following month. The petitioner disagrees, however, explaining that, even though the order did expire, “the effects of both extensions may endure beyond the life of the protective order in question even as extended.” We agree with the respondent, that the question with which we are presented is moot.

This Court ordinarily does not render judgment on moot questions. State v. Ficker, 266 Md. 500, 506-07 , 295 A.2d 231, 235 (1972). A case is considered moot when “past facts and occurrences have produced a situation in which, without any future action, any judgment or decree the court might enter would be without effect.” Hayman v. St. Martin’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, 227 Md. 338, 343 , 176 A.2d 772, 775 (1962). See Ireland v. Shearin, 417 Md. 401, 406 , 10 A.3d 754, 757 (2010); Office of the Pub.

Defender v. State, 413 Md. 411, 422 , 993 A.2d 55, 62 (2010); Suter v. Stuckey, 402 Md. 211, 219 , 935 A.2d 731, 736 (2007) (citing Dept. of Human Resources v. Roth, 398 Md. 137, 143 , 919 A.2d 1217, 1221 (2007); Attorney Gen. v. A.A. County School Bus, ³⁵² 286 Md. 324 , 327, 407 A.2d 749 , 752 (1979)). Accordingly, in Ficker , we stated that, “[ajppellate courts do not sit to give opinions on abstract propositions or moot questions, and appeals which present nothing else for decision are dismissed as a matter of course.” 266 Md. at 506-07 , 295 A.2d at 235 . The protective order at issue here expired by both its original and extended terms prior to the grant of certiorari by this Court. As such, although, as the petitioner argues, some consequences of the protective order may persist beyond its expiration, this appeal is nonetheless moot, because a decision by this Court would be without effect as to those consequences.

There is a limited exception to the mootness doctrine, however, which provides that “where a case, while technically moot, presents a recurring matter of public concern which, unless decided, will continue to evade review, we have nonetheless considered the case on its merits.” Office of the Pub. Defender, 413 Md. at 423 , 993 A.2d at 62 (citing In re Julianna B., 407 Md. 657, 665-66 , 967 A.2d 776, 780-81 (2009); Suter, 402 Md. at 220 , 935 A.2d at 736 ; Arrington v. Dep’t of Human Res., 402 Md. 79, 91-92 , 935 A.2d 432, 439-40 (2007); Anne Arundel County Sch. Bus Contractors Ass’n, 286 Md. at 328, 407 A.2d at 752; Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore Cnty., 206 Md. 36, 43 , 111 A.2d 379, 381-82 (1954).) Indeed, if a matter’s “recurrence will involve a relationship between government and its citizens, or a duty of government, and upon any recurrence, the same difficulty which prevented the appeal at hand from being heard in time is likely again to prevent a decision, then Court may find justification for deciding the issues raised by a question which has become moot, particularly if all these factors concur with sufficient weight.” Lloyd, 206 Md. at 43 , 111 A.2d at 382 . Since this Court has consistently recognized “protection from domestic violence as a significant public policy concern to trigger review of moot cases,” we will apply this exception, and, on that basis, decide the matter before us.

Stuckey, 402 Md. at 221 , 935 A.2d at 737 . See Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 125 , 775 A.2d 1249, 1251 (2001). ³⁵³ II. The petitioner argues that Maryland courts’ routine extension of protective orders, for any reason after they have expired, violates FL § 4-507. In that regard, he submits that the clear and unambiguous statutory language of section 4-507 requires that any modification of a domestic violence protective order, including, but not limited to, its extension, must occur during its term.

He relies on our opinion in Torboli v. Torboli, in which we noted that, pursuant to FL § 4-507, “modification or rescission of a protective order must occur, by the court that issued it, during the term of the order and after notice and a hearing.” 365 Md. 52, 63 , 775 A.2d 1207, 1214 (2001). The petitioner also advances the alternative argument that a protective order that has expired may not, and should not, be extended. He contends that an untimely extension does not, and cannot, relate back to the date of the filing of a motion to extend. This is so, he argues, because “to allow a protective order to be reinstated, after a hiatus, days after it has expired, places the party subject to the order in an uncertain legal status during the interim” and a court may always enter a new protective order for cause upon application. 7 Conversely, the respondent argues that a trial court has the authority to extend a protective order, after notice and a hearing, when a party has filed a motion to extend that order prior to its expiration.

She submits that the petitioner’s reliance on Torboli, supra, for the proposition that a protective order must be extended during its term, is improper, because this Court’s statement regarding the permissible time frame for modification or rescission was dictum. The respondent additionally points out that our holding in Torboli is not dispositive of the question before us since the issue presented in that case “involve[d] the effect of the parties’ reconciliation ³⁵⁴ during the term of a protective order on the enforcement of an emergency family maintenance award, made as a part of the protective order, where the protective order was neither modified nor rescinded during its term and the enforcement petition was filed after the expiration of the term of the protective order,” a wholly separate issue from that before us in this matter. Torboli, 365 Md. at 54 , 775 A.2d at 1208-09 . The respondent challenges the petitioner’s interpretation of FL § 4-507(a) as violative of the canons of statutory construction.

Specifically, the respondent contends that the petitioner reads the language, “during the term of the protective order,” in isolation from the remainder of section (a), thus leading him to the erroneous conclusion that the language of the statute is unambiguous. Instead, the respondent submits that the language, viewed in context of the entire section, is ambiguous. That being so, she states that we must look to the legislative intent underlying it for guidance. Concluding that the intent of the Legislature in enacting the domestic violence statute was to protect those subject to abuse from potential further harm, while considering the procedural rights of the alleged abuser, the respondent explains that it would, therefore, “be illogical and inconsistent with [this] legislative intent to place the onus on the person seeking further protection from abuse to have to concern herself (or himself) with whether or not a hearing on her timely motion for extension can be held before the expiration of the protective order,” and “illogical to deprive a person eligible for relief of a hearing on her motion for extension simply because there may be a short delay in the Court conducting the hearing, whether it be due to a scheduling conflict of the petitioner, the responding party, Counsel for either party, the Court, inclement weather, or other circumstances beyond anyone’s control.” In answering the question this ease presents, we must consider whether, by expressly addressing the extension of a protective order, after having provided for modifications and rescissions, and, in doing so, omitting the phrase used by the Legislature to define when a modification or rescission can be made, the General Assembly intended for there to be a ³⁵⁵ difference between the handling and timing of modifications and extensions of protective orders.

Our goal, in interpreting § 4-507, “is to determine the intention of the legislature in enacting it.” Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 128 , 756 A.2d 987, 991 (2000). See Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24, 35 , 660 A.2d 423, 429 (1995); Jones v. State, 336 Md. 255, 260 , 647 A.2d 1204, 1206 (1994). In so doing, we direct our analysis, at the outset, to the plain language of the statute in question. Jones, 336 Md. at 261 , 647 A.2d at 1206 .

We do not view this plain language “in rote fashion and in isolation,” but, instead, keep in mind that “[t]he ‘meaning of the plainest language’ is controlled by the context in which it appears.” Kaczorowski v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 514 , 525 A.2d 628, 632 (1987) (quoting Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ins. Comm’r, 293 Md. 629, 642 , 446 A.2d 1140, 1147 (1982)). Nevertheless, “[i]f the words of a statute, construed according to their common and everyday meaning, are clear and unambiguous and express a plain meaning, we will give effect to the statute as it is written,” and our inquiry ends there.

Jones, 336 Md. at 261 , 647 A.2d at 1206-07 . See Oaks, 339 Md. at 35 , 660 A.2d at 429 ; Chase, 360 Md. at 128 , 756 A.2d at 991 . In the course of our interpretation, we must be sure to consider the whole context or scheme in which a statute appears. Ins.

Co. v. J.T.W., 397 Md. 71, 81 , 916 A.2d 235, 241 (2007) (citing Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 433 , 903 A.2d 388, 395 (2006)); Blake v. State, 395 Md. 213, 224 , 909 A.2d 1020, 1026 (2006). In so doing, we make every effort to read the statute in such a way “that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.” Collins v. State, 383 Md. 684, 691 , 861 A.2d 727, 732 (2004); See Fisher v. Eastern Correctional Inst., 425 Md. 699, 706 , 43 A.3d 338, 343 (2012); Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 453 , 879 A.2d 1111, 1115 (2005). As we have seen, FL § 4-507(a) provides: “(1) A protective order may be modified or rescinded during the term of the protective order after: ³⁵⁶ “(i) giving notice to all affected persons eligible for relief and the respondent; and “(ii) a hearing. “(2) For good cause shown, a judge may extend the term of the protective order for 6 months beyond the period specified in § 4-506(g) of this subtitle, after: “(i) giving notice to all affected persons eligible for relief and the respondent; and “(ii) a hearing.” We construed section (1)(a) in Torboli v. Torboli 365 Md. 52, 63 , 775 A.2d 1207, 1214 . We concluded that it was clear