Rosenthal v. Rosenthal

MARK ROSENTHAL v. GINA ROSENTHAL

No. 2312

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

June 11, 2021

Circuit Court for Carroll County

Case No. 06-C-14-067197

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Kehoe, Zic, JJ.

Opinion by Zic, J.

* This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

This case arises from a divorce between appellant Mark Rosenthal ("Husband") and appellee Gina Rosenthal ("Wife").¹ Husband appeals from orders entered by the Circuit Court for Carroll County on December 23, 2019 and January 8, 2020, which denied Husband's Amended Petition for Enforcement/Breach of the Marital Separation Agreement/Judgment of Absolute Divorce, and Fraud.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a Marital Separation Agreement ("MSA") in January 2011 and were later granted a Judgment of Absolute Divorce on January 26, 2015 in the Circuit Court for Carroll County. Following the judgment of divorce, the parties filed several claims against each other in three separate lawsuits. A partial summary of those cases is helpful to provide context to the dispute on appeal: Case No. 10-01-0004666-2017 in the District Court for Howard County, Case No. C-06-CV-18-000094 ("Case No. 94") in the Circuit Court for Carroll County,² and Case No. 06-C-14-067197 ("Case No. 97")—the original divorce case—in the Circuit Court for Carroll County. We will brieflysummarize the procedural history of the three cases, but only Case No. 97 is before us on appeal.³

District Court for Howard County: Case No. 10-01-0004666-2017

On October 13, 2017, Husband filed a pro se complaint in the District Court for Howard County, alleging fraud and conversion. Wife, represented by counsel, filed a counter-complaint on November 20, 2017, alleging breach of contract. Wife alleged that Husband breached the MSA and that she was entitled to proceeds from Husband's Individual Retirement Account ("IRA"). On March 26, 2018, Husband, then represented by counsel, voluntarily dismissed his claims.

Wife's breach of contract claim remained active and was set for trial on June 4, 2018. At trial, the court transferred Wife's breach of contract claim to the Circuit Court for Carroll County. Wife's claim was assigned a new case number upon transfer: Case No. 94.

Circuit Court for Carroll County: Case No. C-06-CV-18-000094

Having been transferred to the Circuit Court for Carroll County, Wife's breach of contract claim against Husband was set for trial on November 5, 2018. Following the trial, the circuit court issued a written opinion and judgment on December 19, 2018, awarding Wife $16,049.40 in damages plus $5,813.00 in attorney's fees. In its opinion, the court declined to address the issue of whether Wife was owed a portion of theproceeds from Husband's IRA. The court stated that it "was advised by the parties that payment of this sum is before the [c]ourt in another matter, but both parties, nonetheless, stipulated that it could be considered by the [c]ourt in this case." While the court "stated on the record, that it would approve presentation of evidence concerning the IRA and issues related to it . . . upon further reflection, [it would] not make an award of damages relating to the IRA." Instead, the court "believe[d] any payment due [to Wife] from the IRA would be better addressed in the other proceeding already pending"—Case No. 97.

On December 28, 2018, Husband filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment - Court Decision, Pursuant to MD Rules, Rule 2-534. On January 14, 2019, Wife filed an opposition to Husband's December 28, 2018 motion and Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to MD Rule 1-341, or, in the Alternative, Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Parties' Judgment of Absolute Divorce and Request for Hearing. On January 17, 2019, Wife also filed a Motion to Revise Judgment Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-535(a) and Request for Hearing. Following several postponements, a hearing was set for November 5, 2019.

At the November 5, 2019 hearing, the court heard arguments for the motions in Case No. 94 and conducted a status conference in Case No. 97.⁴ In Case No. 94, the court entered an order on December 23, 2019, which was subsequently amended on January 8, 2020. In its January 8, 2020 order, the court clarified to which case theportions of the order applied by specifying the case number for each portion of the order.⁵ The court denied Husband's December 28, 2018 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and denied Wife's January 17, 2019 Motion to Alter and Amend.⁶ Wife filed a notice of appeal of the December 23, 2018 and January 8, 2020 orders, but she voluntarily dismissed the appeal on May 28, 2020.

Circuit Court for Carroll County: Case No. 06-C-14-067197

We now turn to the case that is before us on appeal. On March 29, 2018, three days after voluntarily dismissing his claims in the District Court for Howard County (Case No. 1001-0004666-2017), Husband filed a Petition for Contempt, Alternatively for Enforcement/Breach of the Marital Separation Agreement/Judgment of Absolute Divorce, and Fraud ("Original Petition") in the Circuit Court for Carroll County in Case No. 97. The Original Petition alleged three counts against Wife: Contempt (Count I), Enforcement/Breach of the MSA (Count II), and Fraud and/or Deceit (Count III). On April 5, 2018, the court entered a show cause order against Wife and scheduled a hearing.

On May 18, 2018, Wife filed a "Motion to Vacate Show Cause Order and to Dismiss [Husband's] Petition for Contempt, Et Al. [Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-322] andRequest for Hearing."⁷ The court entered an order on June 19, 2018, which granted Wife's motion and vacated the show cause order. In the same order, the court granted Wife's "Motion to Dismiss [Husband's] Petition for Contempt, et. al." On June 29, 2018, Husband filed a Motion to Reconsider and to Vacate Order, Alternatively, For Leave to File an Amended Petition for Contempt.

On July 24, 2018, the court entered an order: (1) striking Husband's Motion to Reconsider and to Vacate Order, Alternatively, for Leave to File an Amended Petition for Contempt; (2) denying Husband's Motion to Reconsider and to Vacate Order; and (3) denying Husband's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition for Contempt.

The next day, July 25, 2018, Husband filed a Request to Issue/Reissue Writ of Summons against Wife pertaining to his Petition for Enforcement/Breach of the Marital Separation Agreement/Judgment of Absolute Divorce and Fraud.⁸ The following morning, on July 26, 2018, Wife filed a Motion to Strike Husband's Request to Issue/Reissue Writ of Summons. Later that same day, the court stamped a margin order on Husband's Request to Issue/Reissue Writ of Summons ("July 26, 2018 margin order"), which stated: "DENIED. New Contempt Petition is required." On July 30,2018, Wife filed a Line to Withdraw Motion to Strike [Husband]'s Request to Issue/Reissue Summons as Moot. On August 2, 2018—nine days after the court denied his motion for leave to file an amended petition—Husband filed an Amended Petition for Enforcement/Breach of the Marital Separation Agreement/Judgment of Absolute Divorce, and Fraud ("Amended Petition"). The Amended Petition deleted the Contempt claim but restated the claims for Enforcement/Breach of the MSA and Fraud and/or Deceit, which were renamed as Counts I and II, respectively. The factual background and the allegations were restated verbatim.

On August 8, 2018, the court stamped a margin order on Wife's Motion to Strike Request to Issue/Reissue Writ of Summons ("August 8, 2018 margin order"), which stated: "Moot by filing of Amended pleadding [sic]." Wife did not respond to Husband's Amended Petition.

A little over five months later, on January 23, 2019, the court ordered a status review hearing set for March 2019 regarding Husband's Amended Petition, which was subsequently postponed to November 5, 2019. As noted in the previous section, the court heard arguments for motions in Case No. 94 and conducted a status conference regarding Case No. 97. As pertinent to Case No. 97, the court entered an order on December 23, 2019, which "DENIED" Husband's Amended Petition. The court amended its order on January 8, 2020, clarifying that for Case No. 97 "the Petition for Enforcement improperlyfiled by [Husband] . . . is . . . DENIED." (emphasis added).⁹ Considering the circuit court's order in the context of the procedural history of Case No. 97, that is, the denial of Husband's Original Petition, the denial of Husband's motion for leave to file an amended petition, and the circuit court's description of the Amended Petition in the January 8, 2020 order as "improperly filed," we interpret the January 8, 2020 order as striking the Amended Petition as opposed to denying it on the merits.

Husband filed his notice of appeal on January 22, 2020, challenging the December 23, 2019 and January 8, 2020 orders. The parties presented separate questions for our review,¹⁰ but the principal issue we must decide is whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Husband's Amended Petition. For the following reasons, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

DISCUSSION

In his brief, Husband contends that the circuit court erred in denying his Amended Petition. Husband argues that it was error to dismiss his Amended Petition following the status review hearing because he was not provided notice that such a dismissal was a possible outcome of the hearing. Essentially, Husband argues that he was denied due process because he was not notified that the court intended to treat the hearing as a dispositive, substantive motions hearing.

Wife asserts that Husband's appellate rights have expired. She argues that Husband's Amended Petition was a nullity and never viable because Husband failed to file a timely appeal. Wife also maintains that Husband...