McCormick v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 24-C-19-002369

Wells, C.J., Reed, Ripken, JJ.

OPINION

Wells, C.J.

Charlene McCormick, representing herself, appeals the Circuit Court for Baltimore City's order granting a motion for judgment made by appellee, Housing Authority of Baltimore City ("HABC").^[1] McCormick presents several issues for our review, which we consolidate and rephrase as follows:^[2]

I. Did the court err in denying Ms. McCormick's motion for default judgment

II. Did the court err in granting HABC's motion for judgment

III. Did the court err in granting a motion for summary judgment

IV. Did the court err in denying Ms. McCormick's motion in limine or make other procedural errors resulting in prejudice to Ms. McCormick?

For the reasons we shall discuss, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.

BACKGROUND

This is the second time this case, which has a complicated procedural history, has been before us.^[3] The events relevant to this appeal are as follows. In 2019, McCormick filed a complaint alleging that she suffered various health issues from leasing a residence from HABC for over thirty years. Therein, she asserted several claims against HABC, including negligence, breach of contract, product liability, and fraudulent concealment. HABC filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court granted, finding that McCormick was "on notice of her claims as early as 1985[,]" and accordingly, that her claims were barred by statute of limitations.

McCormick filed her first notice of appeal. On appeal, this Court vacated the order dismissing McCormick's claims, determining that she was not notified of issues relating to soil erosion in her residence until 2016. McCormick v. Baltimore Department of Housing, No. 1174, Sept. Term 2020 (filed October 4, 2021).^[4] Accordingly, we remanded "with instructions to address any allegedly wrongful acts by HABC that accrued subsequent to April 16, 2016[,]" or three years prior to the filing of McCormick's complaint, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Courts &Judicial Proceedings § 5-101.

On remand, McCormick filed a motion for summary judgment, and in the alternative, a motion for default judgment. In support of her request for default, she asserted that HABC failed to timely answer her complaint. HABC opposed the motion, maintaining that McCormick's claims had already been considered and denied by the court. In December of 2022, the court held a hearing where it considered several pending matters, including McCormick's motion. Docket entries from that hearing reflect, in relevant part, that: "[McCormick's] Motion for summary [] judgment is heard and denied."^[5]

On February 9, 2023, the parties appeared for trial. At the beginning of trial, McCormick asserted that her motion for default judgment was still pending. The court responded that there were no "pending motions in the file[,]" and that it believed McCormick's requests for "summary judgment and default judgment w[ere] taken care of[.]" HABC offered that although the court entitled the order as denying only summary judgment, that the order denied McCormick's requests for both summary judgment and default judgment.

The court nonetheless offered to continue the trial. McCormick declined:

THE COURT: I'm not here to hear the default judgment. If you want that to be heard, then I -- as, again, we can continue the case with the default judgment to be heard. But it was my understanding it was taken care of in that pleading number 52. But that's going to be your call. But it's my understanding that it was. But if you want a more concise and clear explanation of that, I know that he indicated on the motion that it was a motion for summary judgment. But me reading motion 52 and I believe there was a chambers hearing on that. It might have been via Zoom that all of those matters encompassing that motion was heard.

MS. MCCORMICK: Okay. At the -- what is the -- the conference?

THE COURT: Yes. We can call it -- your chambers for your motions.

MS. MCCORMICK: Yes. The Judge at the conference said that there were outstanding -- on video, he said there was -- on the video -- we did it by video, and he said there were outstanding pending motions still alive. So that's why I did that. But we can go ahead on. I mean, I'm ready either way.

***

THE COURT: Well, as I said, my determination is if you want that -- if you want more clarity on whether or not the default judgment was actually ruled on, then that would need to go back to the chambers judge. And I don't have a problem doing that but we won't be able to proceed today.

MS. MCCORMICK: Okay. Well, let's (indiscernible - 9:29:16) proceed.

THE COURT: So are you withdrawing -- I mean, are you -- I mean, I think it was heard in 52 but you either have to withdraw your request for a default judgment as it pertains to number 52 or you have -- or concede that the default judgment was actually answered in 52. You have to either make that decision or I can't go any further.

MS. MCCORMICK: Okay. Well I'll go ahead with -- I'll -- what is it? I'll let the motion go.

The case proceeded to trial, where McCormick asserted that soil erosion on the property caused various issues within the residence, including rusty water, rust on her bathtub and water tank, water leaking from her walls and ceiling, issues with her washing machine, and mosquito and fly infestations. She alleged that she suffered from various illnesses as a result, including calcium deposits, muscle tightness, anxiety, popping in the left ear, abdominal tenderness, retinitis, back pain, constipation, tendonitis in the left ear, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, gastrointestinal illnesses, vaginal infections, stomach bloating, bad shoulder pain, and heart palpitations. She identified several exhibits,

but only two - a letter about spraying for mosquitos, and a photo of a fly in a drink - were admitted into evidence.

At the close of McCormick's presentation of evidence, HABC made a motion for judgment, asserting that McCormick failed to "establish the essential elements of her claims." The court granted HABC's motion, concluding that McCormick was "missing major pieces of [her] case[] in order for it to go past a motion for judgment[.]" In relevant part, as to McCormick's breach of contract claim, the court stated, "I don't even have a lease. There's no []lease here to create a contractual obligation." As to McCormick's negligence claim, the court found that McCormick had failed to prove causation:

I think the proximate cause issue is the biggest and I think you said it yourself. I think your words were very clear when you said, "I don't have anything on causation. I just -- because I don't have an expert", and I think you understand that you have to have an expert for causation. No one is saying in any way that you haven't incurred the medical issues that you say you've incurred. No one is saying that. But before even we get to causation, there's got to be a duty of care that was required and that there was a cause and I'm not really too sure, I can't even get -- I don't have evidence before me under the Maryland Rules that substantiate that the soil erosion caused these specific things to happen because I need testimony as regards to that and I need an expert. Then I need an expert to tell me that that lack -- that soil erosion, which is the problem that you indicate, is the cause of all of these things that have happened and what were those things that happened, these are the injuries that was caused by it, and these was -- this is the proximate cause. None of that is here before me and negligence in action, the elements are very, very clear. It doesn't mean you didn't have calcium deposits in 2016. It doesn't mean that you didn't have the issues of your back in 2017, the muscle tightness and the anxiety, the popping in the ear in August 10th of 2020, the abdominal tenderness in 2016, the abscess in 2016, the allergical -- allergic bentonites [sic] in 2016, the back pain in 2017, the constipation in 2017, the tendonitis in your left ear in 2021, the popping in your jaw in 2021, the gastral issues in 2016, and the bacteria from the showers that you allege and contend. The problem is is I -- they may -- I believe that that's every problem that you sought medical treatment for. I just don't have the causation.

McCormick timely noted this appeal. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for judgment is governed by Maryland Rule 2-519, which provides that:

(a) Generally. A party may move for judgment on any or all of the issues in any action at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party, and in a jury trial at the close of all the evidence. The moving party shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted. No objection to the motion for judgment shall be necessary. A party does not waive the right to make the motion by introducing evidence during the presentation of an opposing party's case.

(b) Disposition. When a defendant moves for judgment at the close of the evidence offered by the plaintiff in an action tried by the court, the court may proceed, as the trier of fact, to determine the facts and to render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render judgment until the close of all the evidence. When a motion for judgment is made under any other circumstances, the court shall consider all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made.

Accordingly, although the court is required to consider all evidence and inferences in...