Legal Opinions - Maryland Court of Appeals: April 28, 2008

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Apr 28, 2008

Civil Procedure

Declaratory judgment actions

BOTTOM LINE: The trial judge erred in issuing an oral, not written, declaratory judgment, and the circuit court was directed to issue a declaratory judgment adopting the assessment of the Court of Special Appeals of the correct boundary between the parcels of land at issue.

CASE: Union United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Burton, No. 85, September Term 2007 (filed Apr. 11, 2008) (Judges Bell, Raker, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Eldridge (retired, specially assigned) & CATHELL (retired, specially assigned)).

FACTS: Union United Methodist Church, Inc. (Union), filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court against Robert M. Burton, et al., seeking to have that court declare the proper boundary line between two parcels of land owned by the respective parties.

The trial court delivered an oral declaration and rendered a judgment from the bench in favor of Burton. The court directed the court reporter to transcribe his oral opinion. The court stated that the transcription, when prepared, was to be considered the written declaration of the rights of the parties.

After the trial judge rendered the oral opinion, he and Union's counsel engaged in a conversation in which Union's counsel stated that the declaratory judgment statute called for a written declaration. The trial judge responded he would ask that the court reporter to type the oral opinion and when he received it, he would sign an order indicating that that is in fact the opinion in the case.

On January 26, 2006, a copy of the transcript was docketed and an order was issued that stated "FOR THE REASONS stated in the oral opinion given on January 13, 2006, it is this 23rd day of January, 2006, by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, 'ORDERED, that judgment for the Defendants be entered in Counts II and III, and it is further, ORDERED, that the rights of the parties are declared in the oral opinion'."

In its petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Union petitioner presented two questions. The Court only discussed the question addressing whether the oral opinion was acceptable under Maryland's Declaratory Judgment Act.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the circuit court with directions to enter a declaratory judgment that the boundary line between Parcels 144 and 146 is situated 64 feet easterly of the undisputed western boundary line of Parcel 146.

LAW: In Bowen v. City of Annapolis, 402 Md. 587, 937 A.2d 242 (2007), decided on December 14, 2007, the judgment or order rendered by the trial court was: "'In accordance with the foregoing memorandum opinion, and upon consideration of the arguments of the parties and the record from the administrative agency below, it is on this 23rd day of December, 2005, by the circuit court ... ORDERED, that the decision of the Civil Service Board of the City of Annapolis be and hereby is REVERSED; and it is further, ORDERED, that the case be and hereby is REMANDED to the Annapolis City [sic] Service Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.'." Bowen, 402 Md. at 608-09.

That language was insufficient to comply with the requirement that declaratory judgments be declared in writing.

"This Court, on numerous occasions, has reiterated that 'whether a declaratory judgment action is decided for or against the plaintiff, there should be a declaration in the judgment or decree defining the rights of the parties under the issues made.' Case v. Comptroller, 219 Md. 282, 288, 149 A.2d 6, 9 (1959). ... In Allstate Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 363 Md. 106, 117 n.1, 767 A.2d 831, 837 n.1 (2001), we explained this requirement further: 'When entering a declaratory judgment, the court must, in a separate document, state in writing its declaration of the rights of the parties. ... Although the judgment may recite that it is based on the reasons set forth in an accompanying memorandum, the terms of the declaratory judgment itself must be set forth separately. ...'." Bowen, 402 Md. at 608-09. See also Jackson v. Millstone, 369 Md. 575, 801 A.2d 1034 (2002).

Here, the trial judge, in an oral ruling, rendered judgment for Burton and stated that he intended that it be his judgment, and later rendered a written judgment, without incorporating or signing or in any way indicating that the transcript had been reviewed or that the court approved of it.

Even though transcribed, there is, on this record, no way to determine from the trial judge's written judgment whether his oral judgment had been transcribed properly or expressly made a part of the written judgment he rendered. See Salamon v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 379 Md. 301, 841 A. 2d 858 (2004).

A review of the record indicated that the trial judge rendered his oral opinion on January 13, 2006, when he ordered the court reporter to transcribe that Order which he anticipated being made a part of his judgment. That was done. The court reporter filed the transcript.

While the clerk's docket entry indicated that the transcript was not filed until January 26, 2006, the transcript has a clearly marked date stamp of the Clerk's office of January 24, 2006. The trial court, however, rendered its judgment on the 23rd day of January and the Clerk's office did not docket that judgment until the January 26.