Shreffler v. Haight

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Eleanor M. Shreffler, contends in this appeal that the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Pugh, C. J.) erred in refusing to strike out a judgment by confession entered against her in accordance with a power to confess judgment in a promissory note signed by her. The lower court, after a hearing and the taking of testimony in support of her motion to strike out the judgment, concluded that there was no evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence or coercion exercised upon her and that it could not be concluded that no consideration passed for her signature on the note. The note upon which the judgment was confessed is dated December 16, 1968, for $1,437.10, with interest at 6% per annum and payable six months from its date to the appellee, Seth A. Haight, at 5480 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland.

The power to confess judgment is in the usual Maryland form, but contains no provision for counsel fees for collection. The note is signed by Robert E. Shreffler and by the appellant, Eleanor M. Shreffler. Judgment by confession was entered in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on July 2, 1969, for $1,-437.10 with interest from July 2, 1969, and $22.00 costs. ⁴⁴¹ The usual military affidavit and authority of counsel for the entry of judgment were filed, together with the note itself. There is no challenge to the regularity of the entry of judgment by confession.

A summons as required by Maryland Rule 645 b was duly issued and the defendant makers were duly summoned on July 9, 1969. Mrs. Shreffier, on August 8, 1969, filed her motion to strike the judgment by confession and to file a defense on the merits, together with her Points and Authorities and an affidavit in support of her motion. Robert E. Shreffier, the other maker of the note and the estranged husband of Mrs. Shreffier, on September 17, 1969, filed his motion to vacate the judgment and for a hearing. Judge Moorman, on October 28, 1969, filed an Opinion and an Order of Court denying Mr. SheffleFs motion.

No appeal from this ruling was taken by Mr. Shreffier so that this matter is not before us. In her affidavit in support of her motion to strike out the judgment, Mrs. Shreffier stated that on a Saturday — - she could not remember the date — the payee, Mr. Haight, came to her home and asked her to sign the note in question, stating that her husband owed him $1,437.10 and that Haight “wanted to get [her] husband off a deed, so that he could sell Ms share and get out of the contract” inasmuch as the person from whom they had purchased the property “was going into Court and alleging fraud.” According to Mrs. Shreffier, Haight stated that if she did not sign the note “he would have to take [her] husband into Court” and told her that if he sold his share of the property he would give her half or even all of what he made over his initial investment. Mrs. Shreffier further stated that Haight, knowing of her financial problems, “offered, and [she] accepted, a check for Fifty Dollars ($50.00) upon execution of the note [,] the subject matter of this action.” Mrs. Shreffier also claimed that when she was served with process, she tried to call Mr. Haight but only got a recording that “they” were in ⁴⁴² the process of moving. She further stated that she did not receive any money or thing of value upon execution of the note except the sum of $50.00.

At the hearing on Mrs. Shreffler’s motion to strike out the judgment on June 11, 1971, counsel for her made an argument to the lower court and then called Mrs. Shreffler to testify as the only witness on her behalf. Mrs. Shreffler testified that Robert E. Shreffler was her former husband. She confirmed that it was her signature upon the note and stated that Mr. Haight had stated to her that if she would sign the note “it would clear Bob * * * of going into Court and making this payment” and that her husband “would not have to pay the note” if she signed it. Mr. Haight then offered her fifty dollars to sign it and told her that Mr. Shreffler “would not have to pay off the note if [she] signed that note.” He stated that he wanted to sell his interest out of the property in Rockville and anything over his initial investment “ [shej would have or maybe all of whatever he got.” When asked what Mr. Haight offered her, Mrs. Shreffler replied, “nothing special,” but that he gave her a check that night for $50.00 and that she never received anything but the $50.00 which she has never returned.

She tried to get in touch with Mr. Haight but “he was in the process of moving and [she] never did find him.” On cross-examination, Mrs. Shreffler testified that the reason she was signing the note was, “Well, we had just separated and I guess I wanted him back and I thought it would get him out of a bind.” She admitted that she knew the paper she signed was a note; that she knew that a note was “a form of showing indebtedness”; that she had signed notes with her husband before and understood that she and her husband “together would be responsible” but she did not think that she would