This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Inside District Court Appellate Watch Continued from page 58


798-01862 Craig M. Stambaugh, Jr. v. Buryl Edward Windle, II


Brian Bennett (410) 687-4700 Evidence


Te Honorable Tomas E. Marshall Circuit Court for Harford County


In a personal injury case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff-appellant may not present evidence regarding future lost wages or lost earning capacity to the jury. Plaintiff-appellant argues that this ruling was in error. Te trial court also granted several motions in limine, which the plaintiff-appellant argues were inconsistent with one another and allowed the defendant-appellee to interject inadmissible evidence into trial.


799-00218 Darnella Tomas v. Jeffrey Nadel


Gerard P. Uehlinger (410) 821-0025 Property Law/Foreclosure


Te Honorable Tomas F. Stansfield Circuit Court for Carroll County


In a foreclosure action against appellant homeowner, where the chain of title of the Note and Deed of Trust was a “jumbled mess” and where appellant homeowners received letters indicating that they were to continue to pay mortgage payments even after ratification of the foreclosure sale (and with no credit from the sale), appellant homeowners argue that the trial court erred in denying their Exceptions based on the serious questions of title to the Note.


800-2248 Direse Helen Hastings v. Catherine Lynn Turner


Ernest I. Cornbrooks, III (410) 742-3176 Civil Procedure/Damages


Te Honorable Tomas C. Groton Circuit Court for Worcester County


In a jury trial for an automobile tort case, the jury read aloud a verdict finding that while the defendant-appellee was negligent, the plaintiff-appellant suffered no injuries. A short time later, after the jury was dismissed, the trial court informed counsel that the verdict


form revealed certain


written answers that were inconsistent with the verdict as it was read aloud. Te trial court eventually entered a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff, contrary to the verdict that was read aloud. Plaintiff-appellant argues that the damage awards were not part of the jury’s unanimous verdict and should not be part of the final judgment, and that the verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent.


801-270 Daniel J. Barufaldi v. Ocean City, Maryland Chamber of Commerce


Julie Martin-Korb (301) 775-6688 Attorneys Fees Under Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law


Te Honorable Tomas C. Groton, III Circuit Court for Worcester County


In a case involving breach of contract and non-payment of wages in violation of the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law (“MWPCL”), plaintiff-appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees, as the plaintiff- appellant alleges that the basis of that denial was contrary to controlling law, involved an improper “second-guessing” of the jury’s verdict that there was no bona fide dispute, and failed to take into account the remedial purposes of the MWPCL in determining whether to award attorney’s fees.


60 Trial Reporter / Summer 2012


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