Short v. Short

BUTANIS, Judge. From the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, this appeal arises from a divorce proceeding between Catherine Arlene Short, (“Mrs. Short”), appellant, and Jeffrey Ronald Short (“Mr. Short”), appellee. On February 19, 1986, appellant was granted an absolute divorce from appellee, and on January 29, 1987, an Earnings Withholding Order was entered, citing the obligation of appellee to provide child support pursuant to that judgment. Appellant, who now brings this action for contempt for failure to pay a monetary award and child support, presents the following questions for our review: 1.

Whether the trial court erred in failing to find enforceable money judgments in the Agreement and/or in the Judgment of Absolute Divorce and in denying Appellant’s Motion to Hold Defendant in Contempt, for Judgment, to Modify Earnings Withholding Order and for Other Appropriate Relief and Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Revise, Alter and Amend Judgment, for Further Hearing and for Other Appropriate Relief. 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s Motion seeking to record and index the money judgments nunc pro tunc. For the following reasons, we shall answer “no” to questions one and two, and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Background Appellant and appellee were married on June 2, 1979.

On August 80, 1980, Jason Michael Short, (“Jason”), the parties’ ⁵⁷⁴ only child, was born of that marriage. Appellant filed a Complaint for absolute divorce from appellee in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on March 14,1985. On February 14, 1986, appellant and appellee appeared before the Honorable James L. Ryan, then Domestic Relations Master in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, relative to their divorce proceeding. At that time, the parties reached an Agreement, which provided in pertinent part, as follows: (3) * * * The parties acknowledge that there is a $300 arrearage to date in said payments (i.e. $50 per month for 6 months).

Judgment for $300 is entered for Catherine Short against Jeffrey Short. * * * (7) judgment for Catherine Short against Jeffrey R. Short for payment of bills, past due child support and all other marital claims inclusive of waiver of military pension and retirement be and the same hereby is entered in the sum of $7,000.00 and Jeffrey R. Short is given a stay of execution in said judgment upon the condition that beginning 11/1/86, and on the first day of each month thereafter, he pay unto Catherine Short the sum of $50.00 per month until same is paid in full. In the event any payment is missed, or not paid within 10 days from the first of the month, the stay of execution in judgment is vacated and the balance may be collected in full at said time. (The parties acknowledge that $5000.00 of this judgment relates to past due and unpaid child support.) Ongoing child support was to be paid at $350/month, which did not include the payment toward arrears. The Agreement was reduced to writing by counsel for appellant, who was excused from attending the afternoon hearing.

In order to expedite the divorce proceeding and to avoid having to return on a later date, the parties agreed to proceed with the hearing that afternoon. 1 The parties proceeded ⁵⁷⁵ unrepresented and the hearing for absolute divorce ensued. At the conclusion of the hearing, Master Ryan made the following findings: All right. Mr. and Mrs. Short, the Court will grant you a judgment of absolute divorce. The terms of the agreement which has been marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 1 will be incorporated but not merged into this final judgment of absolute divorce as far as the Court has jurisdiction to do that, and will contain the required language of the Federal Wage Withhold Act, and the costs of this case will be assessed to the plaintiff.

The Judgment of Absolute Divorce was signed by the Master and was entered by the Court on February 20, 1986. 2 Appellee did not begin making payments towards the $7,000 on November 1, 1986. Consequently, on December 23, 1986, appellant filed a motion for entry of an earnings withholding order. The Court granted that motion on January 28, 1987. 3 *⁸ On April 30, 1999, almost twelve and a half years later, appellant filed a Motion for Contempt and Judgment 4 , alleging that appellee was more than $12,000 in arrears. 5 Appellee filed a cross-motion asking the circuit court to terminate the ⁵⁷⁶ earnings withholding, on the basis that their son, Jason, had turned 18 years old on August 30, 1998. The Court denied appellant’s motion.

On September 29, 1999, appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Revise, Alter and Amend Judgment, for Further Hearing and for Other Appropriate Relief and a Motion for Entry of Judgments Nunc Pro Tunc to February 20,1986. These motions were subsequently denied. This appeal followed. 6 Discussion I. Circuit Court’s Failure to Find Money Judgments Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to find enforceable money judgments in the parties’ prior agreements and in denying that requested relief. Appellant asserts that this Court has held that “an agreement that has been incorporated, but not merged into the final decree, may be enforced as a judgment or as an independent contract.” Fultz v. Shaffer, 111 Md.App. 278, 298 , 681 A.2d 568 (1996).

Although we agree with appellant on this point of law, that is not the only determinative factor for the issues at bar. Whether a final judgment has been entered must be determined by reference to the docket entry itself. See Waller v. Maryland Nat’l Bank, 332 Md. 375, 378 , 631 A.2d 447 (1993). 7 Further, “[i]f a ruling of the court is to constitute ⁵⁷⁷ a final judgment, it must have at least three attributes: (1) it must be intended by the court as an unqualified, final disposition of the matter in controversy, (2) unless the court properly acts pursuant to Md. Rule 2—602(b), it must adjudicate or complete the adjudication of all claims against all parties, and (3) the clerk must make a proper record of it in accordance with Md. Rule 2-601.” Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28, 41 , 566 A.2d 767 (1989); see also Anthony v. Clark, 335 Md. 579, 588 , 644 A.2d 1070 (1994)(“the judgment must be entered on the docket.”). “There are, however, no formal requirements regarding the rendition of a judgment.” Davis v. Davis, 335 Md. 699, 711 , 646 A.2d 365 (1994). Maryland Rules 1-202(n) 8 and Rule 2-601, “taken together, ‘make clear that two acts must occur for an action by the court to be deemed the granting of a judgment: the court must render a final order and the order must be entered on the docket by the clerk.’ ” Board of Liquor License Comm’rs for Baltimore City v. Fells Point Cafe, Inc., 344 Md. 120, 127 , 685 A.2d 772 (1996)(citing Davis, 335 Md. at 710 , 646 A.2d 365 ).

See also Doehring v. Wagner, 311 Md. 272, 275 , 533 A.2d 1300 (1987), rev’d on other grounds, 315 Md. 97 , 553 A.2d 684 (1989). Tn the case sub judice, although the circuit court entered a judgment for absolute divorce, the docket entry did not specify any amount of money. Further, the clerk was not directed by the court to enter money judgments. Therefore, even if the judgment of absolute divorce, by incorporating the Agreement, rendered a money judgment, no money judgment ⁵⁷⁸ was ever entered, and as such, no payments of interest accrued.

Generally, “when there is a conflict between the transcript of a trial and the docket entries, the transcript, unless shown to be in error, will prevail.” Waller, 332 Md. at 379 , 631 A.2d 447 ; see also Shade v. State, 18 Md.App. 407, 411 , 306 A.2d 560, 562 (1973). That principle would be applicable here if appellant filed a motion to correct the erroneous docket entry. “Where, however, the rules rely upon the form and date of the docket entry to establish the finality and date of finality of an order, the docket entry will control until corrected.” Waller, 332 Md. at 379 , 631 A.2d 447