This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Case Name/Case #


Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law


Charalain Brand v. Paul A. Turkheimer Joseph Hammond


(301) 699-5800


Police Department Civil Procedure 444-01816-06


Judge/ Jurisdiction


Thomas P. Smith Prince George’s County


Issues


In a case where a suspended attorney is alleged to have fraudulently represented to his client that a dismissed case was still pending, may the circuit court set aside the dismissal based on fraud by a party’s attorney? In this case, the allega- tion is that the case was dismissed due to the misconduct of an attorney and that this fact was hidden from the client by the attorney. A default judgment against the attorney for malpractice was obtained. However, an asset search determined that the attorney had no means of satisfying the judgment. As a result, if the underlying judgment in the original case is not vacated, the party will be left without an effective remedy in either her original action or the case against the attorney.


Gary L. Yamin v. Baltimore City


Dwayne A. Deraine (443) 315-1100


Police Department Civil Procedure 444-01816-06


Stuart R. Berger


Albert J. Matricciani Baltimore City


After a motion to vacate an order of default is filed, heard and denied, does the court have revisory power to revisit a second request to vacate the order of default? In making this argument, the appellant points out that Maryland Rule 2-535A provides for the revision of an entry of “judgment,” and revisory power and control over a “judgment.” The ap- pellant argues that a default order is not a final judgment, and that it is not until an order of default is reduced to judgment that Rule 2-535 permits revision of that judgment. Under this theory, the defendant would have a right to invoke the revisory power of the court on the damages alone, as that is the only issue determined when an order of default is reduced to a judgment of default. This view is in keeping with that expressed in the Maryland Rules Commentary by Niemeyer and Schuett.


About the Author


Cary J. Hansel is a shareholder with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. in Greenbelt, Maryland. He received his JD from George Washington University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Washington and Lee University. Since being admitted to the bar in December 1999, Mr. Hansel has concentrated his practice in trial and appellate advocacy. He has argued and/or authored briefs in ten reported cases in the appellate courts of Maryland, two on behalf of MTLA.





Copies of any of the appellants’ briefs cited in this article are available to members for $20 each. Please be sure to note the Case # as shown in the “Appellate Watch” table.














Summer 2007 Trial Reporter 73


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76