Mason v. Wolfing

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Harold F. Wolfing, against the appellants, Albert E. Mason, his wife Margaret, and their real estate brokerage firm, A1 Mason, Inc. They claim there was vast damage to the heating and plumbing systems in the house they purchased from the Masons which fact was fraudulently concealed from them prior to consummation of the sale. The case was dismissed without being tried on its merits. Appellees filed a “Motion for Sanctions” asking that judgment by default be recorded against the Masons (Maryland Rules 414 a 2, 417 d and 422) for failure to fully answer the interrogatories propounded to them under Rule 417 and for failure to allow their depositions to be taken as authorized by Rule 401.

On September 1, 1971, Judge Raine granted this motion and directed that a default judgment be entered against the appellants. A few days later the judge, in a letter to the Masons’ newly appointed attorney, explained his reasons for imposing sanctions: “On March 3, 1971 a notice to take the deposition of the defendant on April 20th was filed, the case being set for trial on June 8th. On March 25th Mason wrote a letter acknowledging the trial date of June 8th, but he did not appear for the deposition on April 20th, and he failed to respond to a suggestion of plaintiff’s counsel that an ultimate date be set for the deposition. This suggestion was made in a letter of April 1st.

A motion for judgment by default was thereafter filed and Judge Menchine required an answer by May 15th. No answer was ²³⁶ filed. Judge Menchine further ordered that an answer be filed to supplemental interrogatories by June 30th and this order was not complied with. Failure to attend the deposition, failure to answer the motion for judgment by default and failure to answer the supplemental interrogatories seem to be a sufficient and reasonable basis for entering judgment by default, which was done, and nothing in your letter of September 13th seems sufficient to set aside the default judgment.

It is to be regretted when an individual is deprived of a trial on the merits of the case, but this occurs when an individual allows himself to be unrepresented by counsel and tries to conduct his case by mail from out of state.” In this State, a trial judge has a large measure of discretion in applying sanctions for failure to adhere to the discovery rules. Even when the ultimate penalty of dismissing the case or entering a default judgment is invoked, it cannot be disturbed on appeal without a clear showing that this discretion was abused. Lynch v. R. E. Tull & Sons, Inc., 251 Md. 260 , 247 A. 2d 286 (1968); Pappalardo v. Lloyd, 250 Md. 121, 124 , 242 A. 2d 145 (1968); Pfeiffer v. State Farm, 247 Md. 56 , 230 A. 2d 87 (1967); Peck v. Toronto, 246 Md. 268