Won Bok Lee v. Won Sun Lee

466 Md. 601

223 A.3d 478

WON BOK LEE

v.WON SUN LEE

No. 13, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

January 23, 2020

Argued by Marc A. Campsen (Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Henry A. Andrews (Thomas & Libowitz, P.A., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Irma S. Raker (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Watts, J. Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2) provides that "[t]he clerk shall enter a judgment by making an entry of it on the docket of the electronic case management system used by that court[,]" and Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(3) provides that, "[u]nless shielding is required ..., the docket entry and the date of the entry shall be available to the public through the case search feature on the Judiciary website[.]" Maryland Rule 2-601(a)(4) expressly states that "[a] judgment is effective only when [ ] set forth [on a separate document] and when entered as provided in section (b) of this Rule."

The main issue in this case is whether an entry of a judgment must satisfy only Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2) or both Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2) and Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(3) to start the thirty-day appeal period set forth in Maryland Rule 8-202(a). Stated differently, the question here is whether the date of an entry of a judgment is when the clerk enters the judgment on the circuit court's electronic case management system docket or when that docket entry and the date of the entry of the judgment are made available to the public through Case Search on the Judiciary website. We also consider whether an attempt in a circuit court to renew a judgment, which was obtained in federal court, was effective.

In July 2002, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Won Bok Lee ("Petitioner") obtained a default judgment against his brother, Won Sun Lee ("Respondent"). In May 2004, in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Petitioner submitted a Request to File Notice of Lien based on the federal judgment. On June 1, 2004, the clerk entered the notice on the docket and indicated that judgment had been entered as of that date.¹ Over a decade later, in July 2015, Petitioner filed a Request to Renew Judgment, and that same month, the clerk entered "Notice of Renewed Judgment" on the docket. Several months later, in March 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and Request for Hearing. On June 2, 2016, the circuit court conducted a hearing and denied the motion. On the same date, the circuit court issued a one-page order to the same effect, which the clerk stamped "Entered" on June 3, 2016. This time, the circuit court clerk entered a docket entry into the circuit court's electronic case management system ("ECMS") and on the case search feature on the Judiciary website. Neither the entry on the circuit court's ECMS nor the initial entry on Case Search expressly set forth the date of the entry of the judgment. On July 6, 2016, Respondent noted an appeal. Petitioner moved to strike the notice of appeal as untimely. After a remand by the Court of Special Appeals and the circuit court's issuance of a memorandum explaining the sequence of events in this case, the Court of Special Appeals denied a motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal, although initially premature, had become ripe. Additionally, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court's denial of the motion to vacate, and remanded the case to the circuit court with instruction to vacate the renewal of the judgment.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and hold that, to constitute an effective judgment under Maryland Rule 2-601 and start the thirty-day appeal period set forth in Maryland Rule 8-202(a), the entry of the judgment must satisfy both Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2) and (b)(3). Maryland Rule 2-601's plain language makes clear that a judgment must be entered in accordance with Maryland Rule 2-601(b) to be effective and thus trigger the thirty-day appeal period. Maryland Rule 2-601(a)(4) clearly states that "[a] judgment is effective only when [ ] set forth [on a separate document] and when entered as provided in section (b) of this Rule." This means that a judgment must be entered as described in Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2) and (b)(3) —namely, the clerk must enter the judgment on the docket of the ECMS that the circuit court uses "along with such description of the judgment as the clerk deems appropriate[,]" and, "[u]nless shielding is required ..., the docket entry and the date of the entry shall be available to the public through the case search feature on the Judiciary website[.]"

Applying that holding to the circumstances of this case, we hold that the initial docket entries concerning the denial of the motion to vacate failed to satisfy the requirements of Maryland Rule 2-601(b) because the date of entry of the judgment was unclear and not available to the public through Case Search; i.e. , the docket entries failed to satisfy the requirements of Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(3). The docket entries did not provide notice of the date when judgment was entered as required under Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(3) and, accordingly, did not trigger the thirty-day appeal period.

As to the merits, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate the renewal of the judgment. The request to file a notice of lien based on the federal judgment, and the clerk's recording and indexing of the federal judgment, created a lien against Respondent's property in Howard County, not a new judgment. Maryland Rule 2-625 applies to money judgments only, and does not authorize the renewal of a lien. In this case, when Petitioner sought to renew the judgment, the federal judgment had expired, and neither the original federal judgment nor the lien that had been created when the federal judgment was recorded and indexed in Howard County were effective, leaving nothing to renew.

BACKGROUND

Initial Proceedings in Federal and State Court

On July 23, 2002, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Petitioner obtained a default judgment against his brother, Respondent, in the principal amount of $141,059.44, plus attorney's fees of $499.50, court costs, and post-judgment interest.²

On May 21, 2004, in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Petitioner submitted a "Request to File Notice of Lien" based on the federal judgment. On June 1, 2004, the clerk made the following two docket entries: "Notice of Lien of Judg[ ]ment Received From United States District Court" and "Judgment entered on 06/01/04[.]"

Thereafter, the case was dormant for over a decade until July 23, 2015, when Petitioner filed a "Request to Renew Judgment[.]" In the request, Petitioner stated that "[t]he judgment ha[d] not expired (12 years from entry)[,]" and asked that the circuit court "renew the judgment[.]" On July 28, 2015, the clerk made the following docket entry: "Notice of Renewed Judgment[.]"

On March 24, 2016, Respondent filed a "Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and Request for Hearing." Respondent argued that Petitioner's 2004 filing in the circuit court did not create a new judgment; that the date of the entry of the judgment was July 23, 2002; and that the judgment expired twelve years from that date—on July 23, 2014—and could not be renewed after its expiration. Respondent requested that the circuit court vacate the judgment that the clerk had entered on June 1, 2004, and the July 28, 2015 docket entry that stated: "Notice of Renewed Judgment."

On June 2, 2016, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion. After hearing argument from the parties, the circuit court agreed with Respondent that the May 21, 2004 filing by Petitioner created a lien, but ruled that the lien was nevertheless subject to renewal. The circuit court explained: "[I]t was entered in 2004 as a lien, it was recorded and indexed that the 12 years begins at that point. Not from the original date that the original judgment was issued in federal court.... [T]herefore, it was within the 12 years." Accordingly, the circuit court denied the motion to vacate.

On that same day, the circuit court issued a one-page order, stating in its entirety:

This Court, having considered [Respondent]'s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment, the Opposition to that Motion filed by [Petitioner], and the arguments of counsel for both parties before this Court on June 2, 2016, hereby ORDERS that [Respondent]'s Motion is hereby DENIED .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(Emphasis in original). The order contained the circuit court judge's signature, the handwritten date "6/2/16[,]" a stamp from the Clerk's Office stating that the Order was "ENTERED" on June 3, 2016, a true copy test certification, and the notation "6000" on the bottom-right corner.

Docket Entry 6000 appears in the circuit court's ECMS³ as follows:

Num/Seq Description Filed Entered Party Jdg Ruling Closed User ID
00006000 Motion to Vacate Judgment and Request 03/24/16 03/24/16  WVT Denied 06/03/16 JN  MAF
for Hearing
04/20/16 per Judge Bernhardt: Set for hearing
Copies mailed
06/03/16 copies mailed

In the circuit court's ECMS, Docket Entry 6000 states that the date "Filed[,]" as well as the date "Entered[,]" is "03/24/16[,]" and that the date "Closed" is "06/03/16[.]" Docket Entry 6000 also notes the "Jdg" as "WVT" (the circuit court judge's initials)⁴ and notes the "Ruling" as "Denied[.]"

At the relevant time, on the case search feature on the Judiciary website, the same entry appeared as follows:

Doc No./Seq    6/0
No
File Date:     03/24/2016 Entered Date: 03/24/2016 Decision: Denied
Document Name: Motion to Vacate Judgment and Request for Hearing
04/20/16 per Judge Bernhardt: Set for hearing Copies mailed 06/03/16 copies mailed

The entry stated that the "File Date" and "Entered Date" were "03/24/2016" for the document "Motion to Vacate Judgment and Request for Hearing[.]" (Bolding omitted). The entry also...