Staub v. Staub

Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John T. Staub, Jr., appellant, filed, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland, a paper writing purporting to ⁴⁷⁹ be a pleading, entitled “Motion for an Accounting and Appointment of a Trustee.” In the “motion” the appellant alleged that his grandfather had purchased five Series H, United States Savings Bonds, payable upon the death of the purchaser to his grandson, the appellant. The “motion” recites that the grandfather died in 1954, and the bonds’ ownership passed to the appellant, who was then a minor. According to the “motion,” sometime in 1959, the appellee, John T. Staub, Sr., 1 “cashed in” the bonds and purchased a radio station, which he sold later at a “. . . great profit. . . .” Appellee then, allegedly, invested the proceeds in “. . . waterfront property . . .” which was subsequently vended at “. .. a great profit. . .”, and another radio station was purchased.

Insofar as the record disclosed, the appellee still owns that station. Demand for an accounting by the appellee to the appellant has been refused. The appellee demurred to the “motion” on the grounds that, (1) a “motion” for the commencement of this type of proceeding was improper and (2) that the proper remedy for the appellant to seek was an action at law for conversion, which had already been brought by the appellant on the law side of the court. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

Appellant asks us to reverse the circuit court’s ruling. 2 He argues that the hearing court abused its discretion in not allowing the appellant to file an amended bill of complaint. Appellant asseverates that the facts clearly show a constructive trust and that an in camera argument was made along that particular line. The appellee agrees with the appellant with respect to the factual recitation concerning happenings in the chambers of the hearing judge. ⁴⁸⁰ Amendments to actions at law or equity are governed by Md. Rule 320 which provides, in pertinent part: “a. Scope and Purpose. 1.

Process, Pleadings and Record. Unless the court otherwise directs any of the proceedings, including process, pleadings, and record, may be amended so that the case may be tried on its merits. 2. Action to Another Form. An action may be amended from one form to another. d.

Procedure. 3. . . . Where a demurrer to any pleading is sustained, the court may, in its order, prohibit further amendment.” The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that amendments should be freely permitted in order better to promote the ends of justice. Dart Drug Corp. v. Hechinger Co., 272 Md. 15 , 320 A. 2d 266 (1974); Preissman v. Harmatz, 264 Md. 715 , 288 A. 2d 180 (1972); Earl v. Anchor Pontiac Buick, Inc., 246 Md. 653 , 229 A. 2d 412 (1967); Jacobson v. Julian, 246 Md. 549 , 229 A. 2d 108 (1967). This Court has likewise trod the same path.

Zell v. Zell, 12 Md. App. 563 , 280 A. 2d 22 (1971). An amendment should not be allowed, however, if it will result in prejudice to the opponent or will unduly delay the results. Robertson v. Davis, 271 Md. 708 , 319 A. 2d 816 (1974). In the case sub judice there is no allegation, nor even an indication, that an amendment will result in prejudice to the appellee or unduly delay the final solution.

Lest there be any doubt as to the extent to which the Court of Appeals has gone in permitting amendments to be made freely, that doubt was laid to rest in Crowe v. Houseworth, 272 Md. 481 , 325 A. 2d 592 (1974), reversing 19 ⁴⁸¹ Md. App. 688, 313 A. 2d 523 (1974). In that case, this Court was of the belief that the seeking to amend a suit by adding new parties plaintiff and, thus, satisfying the rule relative to non-joinder of parties in a joint tenancy case, see Crowe v. Houseworth, 19 Md. App. at 694 , was unreasonable in view of the 71/2 years the case had been at issue. We so believed because we felt the delay was inordinate, and we held that the hearing judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing the