Rollins v. Capital Plaza Associates, L.P.

WOODWARD, J. The instant case involves a landlord-tenant dispute between Capital Plaza Associates, L.P. (“Capital Plaza”) and Dr. Deborah Rollins (“Dr. Rollins”) pertaining to a commercial lease agreement for Dr. Rollins’ medical office. 1 Appellant, Dr. Rollins, 2 appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince ■George’s County in favor of appellee, Capital Plaza, in the amount of $95,000. As stated in her brief, Dr. Rollins presents the following issues on appeal: I. Whether the court below erred in its reliance upon the doctrine of res judicata by not allowing any testimony from [Dr. Rollins] regarding evidence of fraud and misrepresentation.

II

Whether the court below erred in concluding that [Dr. Rollins] knowingly agreed to give up her right to a trial by jury.

III

Whether the court below erred in not extending the discovery time period.

IV

Various miscellaneous questions presented: ¹⁹³ A. The eviction of Dr. Rollins constitutes a retaliatory eviction prohibited under the laws of real property of Maryland and Prince George’s County. B. The occupancy and hold over penalty was excessive and outrageous and therefore not enforceable. C. As a matter of public policy, Capital Plaza’s lease and contract with Dr. Rollins is voidable because it was signed under economic duress. D. As a matter of public policy, this lease and its terms are non-enforceable because Capital Plaza’s employees were not licensed professionals at the time of the agreement.

E. The outstanding rent and fees claimed by Capital Plaza are not collectible because of the fraudulent conduct of Capital Plaza and furthermore, the amount is not correct. Because of Dr. Rollins’ many and substantial violations of the appellate rules of procedure, we shall exercise our discretion, sua sponte, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-602(a)(8), and dismiss this appeal. BACKGROUND In light of our decision to dispose of the instant appeal on procedural grounds, we shall set forth only a brief summary of the facts to provide context for our discussion. On July 31, 2001, Dr. Rollins executed a lease and an addendum to the lease (collectively referred to as the “Lease”) for approximately 2,010 feet of space in a shopping center owned by Capital Plaza and located in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Pursuant to the Lease, the tenancy had a term of five years, beginning on May 1, 2001 and terminating on April 30, 2006. Dr. Rollins leased the premises to operate her medical practice. The Lease contained the following provision: “Landlord’s Termination Right: (a) Landlord shall have the right, at any time, for any reason, to terminate this Lease ... by providing ninety (90) days written notice of such election____” (Emphasis in original). Under the Lease, Dr. ¹⁹⁴ Rollins had a reciprocal termination right on the same terms and conditions.

Additionally, the Lease provided that, if Dr. Rollins did not timely vacate, Dr. Rollins agreed to pay “an occupancy fee” of $1,000 per day, commencing on the day after the termination date and continuing thereafter for each day that she failed to tender possession of the premises to Capital Plaza. On October 28, 2004, Capital Plaza exercised its right to terminate by giving Dr. Rollins notice of termination of the Lease effective January 27, 2005. Dr. Rollins did not vacate the premises by January 27, 2005. Shortly thereafter, Capital Plaza filed a complaint in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County seeking to recover possession of the premises.

At a hearing on March 14, 2005, counsel for Capital Plaza informed the court that it had reached an agreement with Dr. Rollins, whereby a judgment for possession would be entered, but the warrant of restitution would not to be executed until after April 5, 2005, if Dr. Rollins did not vacate by that date. Dr. Rollins ultimately vacated on April 5, 2005. On June 20, 2005, Capital Plaza filed the instant case against Dr. Rollins in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, alleging breach of contract. Capital Plaza sought to recover $5,199.91 “for unpaid rent ... for the period to December 31, 2004, and $1,772.42, as prorated rent, for the period of January 1, 2005, through the New Termination Date [, January 27, 2005].” .

In addition to back rent, Capital Plaza sought Occupancy Fees in the amount of $68,000 “accrued for the period from the New Termination Date through April 5, 2005.” In total, Capital Plaza alleged damages in the amount of $73,119.98, “representing all Back Rent and Occupancy Fees, including all credits and adjustments.” 3 On August 10, 2005, Dr. Rollins filed an answer, counterclaim, and a jury demand. Dr. Rollins’ counterclaim was ¹⁹⁵ ultimately dismissed on February 23, 2006. In response to Dr. Rollins’ jury demand, Capital Plaza filed a Motion to Strike the Jury Demand 4 on March 9, 2006, which the court granted on May 24, 2006. A bench trial was held on September 27, 2006.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Capital Plaza in the amount of $95,000 5 The court stated: Despite the efforts, frankly, of all sides to expand this beyond what I view it as. This is a fairly simple and straightforward action. A breach of a contract, a breach of a lease and damages flowing therefrom. It was clear that the parties entered into a lease agreement on July 31, 2001 which contained an addendum and it is admitted as [Capital Plaza’s] Exhibit 15.

It did provide for a lease term of five years commencing May 1, 2001 and terminating April 30, 2006 subject to the landlord[’s] termination right which are set forth in Paragraph 9 of the addendum [to the Lease]. The addendum did provide that the landlord shall have the right at any time for any reason to terminate the lease by providing 90 days written notice of that election by certified mail to the tenant. The — such notice was given and it is contained as [Capital Plaza’s] Exhibit 26. Providing for a termination of — on January 27, 2005.

And it further provided that in the event there was an early termination there was to be a termination payment according to a schedule and pursuant to that schedule January of 2005, the termination payment of $1,000.00 was proffered. Despite that [Dr. Rollins] did not vacate, but remained on the premises and thus became a tenant holding over. The [L]ease further provided in the event of the termination of the [L]ease that the — and if the tenant does not timely vacate, the tenant agrees to pay the landlord an ¹⁹⁶ occupancy fee of $1,000.00 per day payable weekly in arrears in lieu of the fixed minimum rent for the demise premises. And that’s something that she’s entitled to.

The court finds it to be a term that was agreed to and to be reasonable under the circumstances negotiate by two business people — businesses in this commercial lease agreement. So [Dr. Rollins] — the tenant is obligated to pay that. Frankly the only defense raised at this point, is that the— she was a tenant holding over. Of course, a tenant holding over by the terms of the statute or by the terms of the agreement requires acceptance by the landlord or consent by the landlord and there was no consent in this case.

In fact to the contrary, [Capital Plaza] made every effort to— to enforce their rights, including the filing of a tenant holding over action. I don’t know — it is dated — the signature on the complaint is February 2. I don’t — I can’t read, on this copy, the date in which it was filed. Perhaps it is February 5, I think.

So it was filed soon thereafter, came on hearing in March and in March there was an agreement that judgment for possession would be entered. The agreement not to execute on that judgment until April 5, is not the same as a consent for her to remain. It simply is an agreement not to have the sheriff go and throw her out, frankly. There’s nothing in here about any agreement that she could remain.

Nothing that she would be entitled to be treated as a holdover tenant with the ... rent to be anything other than the occupancy of $1,000.00 a day. Nor with regard to the $200.00 is there anything in that regard. No waiver. That’s stated there.

There must — in the agreement any waiver has to be in writing. There’s been no evidence of any writing. So for those reasons I do find that ... [Capital Plaza] ... is entitled to rent/occupancy fees in the amount of $71,284.00 as against [Dr. Rollins]. ¹⁹⁷ The remaining issue is [Capital Plaza’s] claim under the [L]ease for — as a prevailing party recovery for the fees for its attorney in such action including the cost of appeal if any in such amounts as the court adjudge reasonable. So I’m going to enter [judgment] in favor of [Capital Plaza], against [Dr. Rollins] in the amount of [$95,000.00], which includes the costs, which I think were already billed.

Dr. Rollins timely noted this appeal. DISCUSSION “[T]he Maryland Rules ‘are not guides to the practice of law but precise rubrics established to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice and ... are to be read and followed.’ ” Green v. State, 127 Md.App. 758, 774 , 736 A.2d 450 (1999) (quoting Isen v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of N.Y., 259 Md. 564, 570 , 270 A.2d 476 (1970) (internal quotation omitted)). Maryland Rule 8-602(a) provides the grounds upon which this Court can enter an order dismissing an appeal. Its provides in pertinent part: (a) Grounds.

On motion or on its own initiative, the Court may dismiss an appeal for any of the following reasons: (8) the style, contents, size, format, legibility, or method of reproduction of a brief, appendix, or record extract does not comply with Rules 8-112, 8-501, 8-503, or 8-504[.] Capital Plaza contends that Dr. Rollins, in preparing her brief and record extract, ignored the rules and standards of appellate practice. Specifically, Dr. Rollins’ record extract, Capital Plaza argues, was filed in violation of Maryland Rule 8-501(c), because it contains documents that simply do not appear in the record. Capital Plaza notes that Dr. Rollins, in preparing the record extract, improperly included various papers produced during discovery or documents marked as an exhibit at a deposition or bearing trial exhibit labels, but never introduced or admitted at trial before the circuit court. ¹⁹⁸ Worse yet, Capital Plaza points out that Dr. Rollins’ record extract contains extraneous documents found nowhere in the record and “seen for the first time by Capital Plaza in the [r]ecord [ejxtract itself.” Capital Plaza contends that, not only does the record extract contain improper material, but Dr. Rollins relies on facts contained in that improper material as the basis for many of her arguments in this appeal. Capital Plaza also charges Dr. Rollins with failure to file a brief in compliance with Maryland Rule 8-504(a).

Substantial portions of Dr. Rollins’ brief, Capital Plaza argues, contain statements of fact not supported by any citation or reference to the record extractor to the record. Instead, Capital Plaza states, Dr. Rollins “relies heavily on facts that are asserted with no reference whatsoever to any source.” Furthermore, Capital Plaza contends that Dr. Rollins’ brief “contains multipage sections of prose taken verbatim from appellate opinions without quotation marks or other indication of attribution.” Because of the above violations of the rules of appellate practice in Dr. Rollins’ brief and record extract, Capital Plaza asserts that the “evaluation and drafting of a response