Pickett v. Noba, Inc.

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIEME, Judge. Allan Pickett appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Frederick County (Dwyer, J., presiding) that enrolled a foreign judgment. This case illustrates how procedural pitfalls can trip up pro se litigants. While we recognize and sympathize with those whose economic means require self-representation, we also need to adhere to procedural rules in order to maintain consistency in the judicial system.

Although Pickett admirably attempted to navigate the often tricky path of civil procedure, he failed to note a timely appeal. For this reason, we shall affirm the judgment of the trial court striking Pickett’s first notice of appeal. We dismiss with prejudice his second notice of appeal. ⁵⁶⁹ Pickett operates an artificial breeding service in Frederick County, Maryland; his business involves the artificial insemination of cattle. Noba, Inc., is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Tiffin, Ohio.

It is in the business of collecting, processing, and distributing bull semen. Given each party’s unique specialties, it would seem likely that Pickett and Noba would get along swimmingly. This was not the case. Pickett ordered and received bull semen from Noba.

Noba never received payment for the bull semen, however, because Pickett’s checks were returned for insufficient funds. Noba therefore obtained, in the Municipal Court of Tiffin, Seneca County, Ohio, a default judgment against Pickett for $5,896.77, plus interest and costs. On 24 October 1995, the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland, enrolled the judgment of the Ohio court pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.

Proc. §§ 11-801 through 11-807 (1974,1995 Repl.Vol.). Thirty-one days later, on 24 November 1995, Pickett, pro se, filed a handwritten Motion to Remove and Not Enforce Lien, alleging, in part, lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. 1 The circuit court denied that motion in its 15 December 1995 Order. On 5 January 1996, Pickett, again pro se, filed a “Motion to Reconsider Motion to Remove and Not Enforce Lien.” That motion was denied in the court’s 80 January 1996 Order. Pickett had filed a notice of appeal one day earlier, on 29 January 1996.

On 28 March 1996, the trial court found Pickett’s appeal was not filed timely and ordered that it be stricken. Undeterred, on 15 April 1996, Pickett filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, pursuant to Rule 2-534, which was denied on 26 March 1996. Pickett filed a second Notice of ⁵⁷⁰ Appeal on 28 May 1996. Noba filed a motion to strike the appeal, but, before that motion was ruled on, former Chief Judge Wilner ordered the case to proceed to this Court for our review.

Pickett (now represented by counsel) presents the following issue(s) for our review: 1. Did the circuit court err when it struck Pickett’s Notice of Appeal? 2. Did the circuit court err by failing to make a determination under the Maryland Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act as to whether the purported Ohio judgment was entitled to full faith and credit? We shall answer “no” to the first question and do not reach the second question.

Discussion After judgment in a court trial, a litigant can file one of the following post-trial motions: a motion for new trial under Md. Rule 2-533; a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Md. Rule 2-534; or a motion for the court to exercise its revisory power under Md. Rule 2-535. Parties must file motions under Md. Rules 2-533 and 2-534 within ten days of the judgment. When parties file timely motions under Rules 2-533 or 2-534, the time the parties have to note an appeal is suspended until after the motion is decided. See Md. Rule 8-202; Unnamed Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 303 Md. 473 , 494 A.2d 940 (1985); Sieck v. Sieck, 66 Md.App. 37 , 502 A.2d 528 (1986).

If parties file a motion for new trial or a motion to alter or amend more than ten days after judgment, the time for filing an appeal will not be stayed. See Md. Rule 8-202(c); Stephenson v. Goins, 99 Md.App. 220 , 636 A.2d 481 , cert. denied, 335 Md. 229 , 643 A.2d 384 (1994). Parties must file a Rule 2-535 motion to revise within thirty days of the judgment; in instances of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, or failure of an employee of the court ⁵⁷¹ or of the clerk’s office to perform a duty required by statute or rule, however, parties can file timely a Rule 2-535 motion more than thirty days after judgment. See CJ § 6-408.

The timely filing of a motion under Rule 2-535 does not automatically stay an appeal. If the motion is filed within ten days of judgment, it stays the time for filing the appeal; if it is filed more than ten days after judgment, it does not stay the time for filing the appeal even if it is timely because the motion involves fraud, mistake, irregularity, or failure of an employee of the court or of the clerk’s office to perform a duty required by statute or rule. See Unnamed Attorney, 303 Md. at 486 , 494 A.2d 940 . In cases in which the movant files a motion to revise under Rule 2-535 more than ten days after judgment, the time for