Sampson v. First Credit Corp.

McWileiams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Maryland Rule 826 g 1 aims to reduce the bulk of transcripts and record extracts by allowing the parties, in certain circumstances, to supersede the pleadings and the evidence by filing with the clerk, subject to the trial court’s approval, a statement of the case containing only what may be essential for the decision of this Court. The parties in the case at bar have undertaken to bypass even our scanty requirements. The statement appears only in appellant’s brief (there is no appearance for appellee); it was not filed with the clerk; it was not ap ³¹⁹ proved by the court.

However, since the decision of the trial judge must be affirmed we shall consider appellant’s single contention but it must not be supposed that by doing so we condone such professionally unbecoming indifference to' the Rules of Procedure. The “Agreed Statement of Facts” as it appears in the brief is as follows : “In this case, the Appellant purchased on credit a new automobile under a form that met the requirements as set forth in the Retail Installment and Sales Act, Section 128 to 153, Article 83, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition), hereinafter called the Act. The cash price of the car was $2,900.00 to which was added the usual finance charges, and the insurance. The seller of the car assigned the said contract and the balance due thereunder to the Appellee herein. “Upon the failure of the Defendant to meet the required monthly payments as provided in said contract, the Appellee repossessed and sold the automobile and when applying the sale price plus the credit allowed for unearned finance charges and insurance against the unpaid balance, there remained a deficit for which this suit was filed to recover judgment. “It is agreed and the evidence clearly shows that the notice sent to the Appellant after the Appellee repossessed the car did not conform with the notice required under Section 141c of the Act.

It also clearly showed that the Defendant had not paid 50 per cent of the cash price of the car, and had not requested the Appellee to sell the car in any special manner as provided in Section 143a of the Act. The result is that if this sale came under the requirements of the said Act, then, because of the failure of compliance with Sections 141c and 143a of the Act, the Defendant would not be responsible for any deficiency. “The Lower Court found that because the sale was in excess of $2,000.00, Sections 141c and 143a of the Act did not apply and rendered a deficiency judgment in