McDermott v. BB & T BANKCARD CORP.

GRAEFF, Judge. This appeal arises from a dispute between appellants, George and Patricia McDermott (the “McDermotts”), and BB & T Bankcard Corporation (“BB & T”), appellee, over BB & T’s efforts to collect an unpaid credit card balance from the McDermotts. BB & T filed a collection action for $5,885.43, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County. The McDermotts demanded a jury trial, and the District Court transferred the case to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

The McDermotts subsequently filed counterclaims against BB & T, which sought damages exceeding $1,000,000. Upon motion by BB & T, the circuit court remanded the case to the District Court, concluding that it failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case because the amount in controversy alleged in the complaint did not exceed $10,000. The McDermotts appealed from the circuit court’s order, and they presented several questions for our review, which we have rephrased and consolidated as follows: 1. Was the circuit court’s order a final, appealable order? 2.

Did the circuit court err by striking the appellants’ request for a jury trial and remanding this case to the District Court? 1 ¹⁵⁹ For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 22, 2007, BB & T filed a complaint against the McDermotts in the District Court for Prince George’s County. BB & T sought to collect $5,885.43 due on an unpaid credit card balance, $320.68 in interest, and $882.81 in attorney’s fees, plus court costs. Several unpaid bills were appended to the complaint, as well as an affidavit executed by a BB & T employee.

This affidavit set forth that the McDermotts agreed to be bound “by the terms of the VISA/MASTERCARD Agreement,” which included a 17.60% interest rate and a provision for an award of attorney’s fees in the event of a lawsuit. On July 6, 2007, the McDermotts filed a notice of intent to defend the lawsuit, which included a demand for a jury trial. On July 27, 2007, the McDermotts filed a second notice of intent to defend, explaining their defense as follows: The subject matter of the complaint is inextricably intertwined with the subject matter of a decade-long series of the [sic] civil cases before the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County and which are now pending before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (McDermott, et al v. Bowie et al; Appeal No. [1239], Sept. Term 2006) as it [sic] evident from the enclosed 36-page-long transcript of the oral argument heard on June 26, 2007 by said Court of Special Appeals. Defendants George and Patricia McDermott (“the McDermotts”) will file a counterclaim and join additional parties within the time allowed by Md. Rule 3-331(d).

Also, a separate motion for a stay of the action will be filed pursu ¹⁶⁰ ant to Md. Rule 3—331 (f) and Md. Rule 3-311 -within the time allowed by Md. Rule 3-331(d). This notice also included a demand for a jury trial. On August 13, 2007, the McDermotts filed a Motion To Join Additional Parties and a Motion For Stay, arguing that “[tjhis action is inextricably intertwined with” a pending appeal. 2 On August 21, 2007, the District Court denied these motions. On August 29, 2007, based on the McDermotts’ demand for a jury trial, the District Court judge signed an order to transmit the record in this case to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

On October 3, 2007, the McDermotts filed a motion in the circuit court requesting that the court stay the proceedings “and/or” remove the case to another county. The McDermotts repeated their argument that this case was “inextricably intertwined” with a case that was pending in this Court and requested the court stay the proceedings until the issuance of this Court’s opinion. They further asserted that it would be impossible for them to receive a fair trial in Prince George’s County. On October 25, 2007, the circuit court denied this motion, noting that “there is no indication that this case is inextricably interwoven with the merits of other litigation in which the defendants are involved.” With respect to the request for a transfer of venue, the circuit court denied the request because “neither of the defendants’ statements [that allege prejudice against Mr. McDermott] comport with the requirements of Rule 2-505.... ” On October 29, 2007, BB & T filed a Motion To Strike Defendants’ Jury Demand, arguing that the Maryland Rules did not confer a right to a jury trial in the case because the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000.

BB & T ¹⁶¹ further argued that, because the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000, jurisdiction never vested in the circuit court, the McDermotts’ jury demand should be struck, and the circuit court should remand this case to the District Court for trial. On November 13, 2007, the McDermotts filed an opposition motion. There was no request for a hearing on the motion. On October 30, 2007, Mr. McDermott filed a motion to correct deficiencies in the court’s records, requesting that the “chief judge and the clerk of the court please look into matters of missing records within the court’s online data management system.... ” The next day, Mr. McDermott filed an amended motion addressing the same issues.

BB & T filed a motion to strike and oppose this pleading. On November 26, 2007, the McDermotts filed counterclaims against BB & T regarding matters unrelated to the credit card debt and asserted these same claims against third party defendants. 3 The McDermotts set forth the following claims: breach of contract; interference with prospective profit; disparagement of title; a second claim for interference with prospective profit; civil conspiracy; and fraud. The McDermotts alleged, among other things, that “BB & T caused the theft of George McDermott’s business and over 500,000.00 dollars in illegal liens on real and personal properties.” They further alleged that BB & T conspired with the other parties to defraud the McDermotts. Although some of the claims requested relief “in an amount yet to be determined,” several claims requested “an amount exceeding” $1,000,000, “its exact amount yet to be determined.” On December 19, 2007, the circuit court issued the following order, which, among other things, granted BB & T’s motion to remand the case to the District Court for failure of the circuit court to acquire jurisdiction: ¹⁶² Upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion and Request for the Court to Correct Numerous Deficiencies and the Defendant’s Amendment to said Motion, pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-308, 16-1001, 16-10, 16-101, & 16-301[,] the Plaintiffs Motion to Strike and Opposition thereto, and the Record herein, it is this 19th day of December, 2007, by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, ORDERED, that the Defendant’s Motion to Correct Deficiencies be and is hereby DENIED, and it is further, ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants Motion and Amendment, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(e), be and is hereby GRANTED, and it is further, ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion, pursuant to Articles 5 & 23 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights, to Remand this matter to the District Court of Maryland 5th District, sitting in Prince Georges [sic] County, is hereby GRANTED, for failure of the Prince Georges [sic] County Circuit Court to acquire jurisdiction.

(Emphasis in original.) This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION The McDermotts argue that the circuit court erred in striking their request for a jury trial and remanding the case to the District Court. Specifically, they argue that: (1) the court erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction over the case because, once the counterclaims and cross-claim were filed, the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000; and (2) the court erred in failing to grant them a hearing. BB & T contends that the circuit court’s order remanding this case to the District Court is not a final judgment, and therefore, it is not an appealable order.

It further argues that the circuit court properly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the amount in controversy alleged in the complaint did not exceed $10,000. Moreover, BB & T contends that no hearing was required because a hearing was not requested. ¹⁶³ I. Final Judgment Initially, we address BB & T’s contention that the circuit court’s order, which remanded the case to the District Court, is not a final judgment because the order was “not effectively unreviewable on appeal.” We conclude that this Court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the circuit court’s order, which concluded the McDermotts’ litigation in the circuit court, was a final judgment. Maryland Code (2006 Repl. Vol.), § 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (CJP) provides that “a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case by a circuit court.” Although a final judgment ordinarily entails resolving a case on the merits, the Court of Appeals has concluded that “an order is final if it terminates the litigation in a particular court.” Brewster v. Woodhaven Bldg. and Dev., Inc., 360 Md. 602, 611 , 759 A.2d 738 (2000).

The termination of litigation in a circuit court based on that court’s transfer of a case to the District Court is an appealable final judgment. Ferrell v. Benson, 352 Md. 2, 5 , 720 A.2d 583 (1998); Carroll v. Housing Opportunities Com’n, 306 Md. 515, 520 , 510 A.2d 540 (1986). In Carroll , the Housing Opportunity Commission of Montgomery County filed suit in the District Court to evict a tenant who breached a lease agreement. Id. at 518 , 510 A.2d 540 .

The tenant demanded a jury trial, arguing that she satisfied the amount in controversy requirement because the “value of continued possession of her townhouse exceeded” the requisite amount. Id. After the case was transferred to the circuit court, that court concluded that the amount in controversy was insufficient to give the circuit court subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and it remanded the case to the District Court. Id. at 519 , 510 A.2d 540 .

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court’s order constituted a “final appealable judgment” because the circuit court’s order denied Ms. Carroll all relief in the circuit court; it “completely terminated the action in circuit court, remanding the case to ¹⁶⁴ the District Court for trial. Nothing was left to be done in the circuit court.” Id. at 520 , 510 A.2d 540 . The same analysis applies here. The circuit court’s order remanding this case to the District Court constituted a final appealable order because it terminated the McDermotts’ ability to litigate in the circuit court.

II

Jury Trial Demand & Remand to District Court We turn next to the merits of the appeal. We find that the circuit court properly held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and we find no merit to the McDermotts’ claim that it was error to decide the issue without a hearing. A. Resolving the issue of which court had jurisdiction to hear the case requires review of the statutes granting jurisdiction to the courts. 4 Maryland Code (2006 Repl. Vol.), § 1-501 of CJP provides: The circuit courts are the highest common-law and equity courts of record exercising original jurisdiction within the State.

Each has full common-law and equity powers and jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases within its county, and all the additional powers and jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and by law, except where by law jurisdiction has been limited or conferred exclusively upon another tribunal. One statute conferring jurisdiction exclusively upon another tribunal is found in § 4-401 of CJP, which provides that, with limited exceptions, “the District Court has exclusive original civil jurisdiction” over tort and contract actions where “the debt or damages claimed do not exceed $25,000, exclusive ¹⁶⁵ of ... interest, costs, and attorney’s fees,” if applicable. 5 Actions that are tried in the District Court are tried without a jury. Pickett v. Sears, 365 Md. 67, 89 , 775 A.2d 1218 (2001). There are situations, however, in which a civil litigant with a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court has a right to demand a jury trial.

Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000, shall be inviolably preserved.” 6 Maryland Rule 3-325 sets forth the procedure for requesting a jury trial, requiring the parties to file a separate written demand for a jury trial and providing the time requirements for the demand. A timely demand for a jury trial pursuant to Rule 3-325 vests jurisdiction in the circuit court when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. Pickett, 365 Md. at 91 n.