Case Title: Brownstones at Park Potomac Homeowners Ass’n v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 13/15

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2015-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
The Brownstones at Park Potomac Homeowners Association v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 
N.A., No. 13, September Term, 2015 
 
MOTION TO DISMISS – JURISDICTION – MARYLAND RULE 7-104(e) (2014) – 
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT – Court of Appeals dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction 
because party’s appeal from District Court to circuit court was untimely.
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 13 
 
September Term, 2015 
______________________________________ 
 
THE BROWNSTONES AT PARK POTOMAC 
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 
 
v. 
 
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
Battaglia 
Greene 
Adkins 
McDonald 
Watts 
Harrell, Jr., Glenn T. (Retired, 
Specially Assigned), 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Watts, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: October 8, 2015 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 8979-D  
 
Argued: October 5, 2015  
 
We are asked to decide whether a lender who takes possession of property, but does 
not otherwise become the fee simple record owner of the property through foreclosure or 
a deed in lieu of foreclosure, is liable for homeowners’ association assessments.  Here, 
however, the petitioner’s appeal from the District Court to a circuit court was untimely.  
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and, resolution of the question 
presented must wait for another day.   
BACKGROUND 
 
On November 1, 2013, The Brownstones at Park Potomac Homeowners Association 
(“Petitioner”) filed in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Montgomery County (“the 
District Court”) a complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Respondent”) alleging 
that Respondent had failed to pay homeowners’ association dues since taking possession 
of property in Potomac, Maryland.  
 
On November 27, 2013, Respondent filed a Notice of Intention to Defend generally 
denying the facts averred in the complaint as well as “any and all liability[.]”  On January 
28, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss.  On March 10, 2014, the District Court 
conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss and held the matter sub curia.  Later that day, 
the District Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss.  According to its 
certificate of service, the District Court’s order was sent to each party’s counsel on March 
10, 2014.   
On April 10, 2014, Petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
(“the circuit court”), which affirmed the judgment of the District Court without a hearing.  
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted.  See 
- 2 - 
Brownstones at Park Potomac v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 441 Md. 666, 109 A.3d 665 
(2015). 
DISCUSSION 
 
Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 
contending that Petitioner’s appeal to the circuit court was untimely.  Respondent alleges 
that the District Court’s order dismissing the case was entered on the docket on March 10, 
2014, and that Petitioner’s notice of appeal was not filed until April 10, 2014, one day after 
expiration of the thirty-day appeal period.  Petitioner responds that the District Court 
docket is ambiguous as to the date on which the District Court’s order was entered.  
Petitioner argues that, in light of alleged ambiguity on the docket, and because Respondent 
has not previously raised an issue as to the timeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal, 
this Court should deny the motion to dismiss.   
 
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol., 2015 Supp.) § 12-
401(e)(1) sets forth the time for filing an appeal from an order of the District Court, stating: 
“Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, an appeal shall be taken by filing 
an order for appeal with the clerk of the District Court within 30 days from the date of the 
final judgment from which appealed.”  Correspondingly, Maryland Rule 7-104(a), 
concerning the timing for filing an appeal from the District Court to a circuit court, clearly 
provides that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Rule or by law, the notice of appeal 
shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is 
taken.”  At the time when the judgment and appeal were filed in this case, Maryland Rule 
7-104(e) defined “entry” for purposes of the Rule as “occur[ring] on the day when the 
- 3 - 
District Court first makes a record in writing of the judgment, notice or order on the 
file jacket, or on a docket within the file, according to the practice of that court, and 
records the actual date of the entry.”  Md. R. 7-104(e) (2014) (emphasis added).1 
 
It is of no consequence that Respondent has not previously raised an issue 
concerning the appeal’s timeliness.  See Md. R. 8-131(a) (“The issue[] of jurisdiction of 
the trial court over the subject matter . . . may be raised in and decided by the appellate 
court whether or not raised in and decided by the trial court.”).  In this case, the appeal to 
the circuit court was untimely—mandating dismissal of the instant appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction.  Cf. Ruby v. State, 353 Md. 100, 113, 724 A.2d 673, 679 (1999) (In discussing 
an appeal from a circuit court to the Court of Special Appeals, we stated: “Maryland Rule 
8-202(a) mandates that a ‘notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the 
judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.’  Failure of an aggrieved party to so file 
terminates its right of appeal[,] and the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to hear that 
matter.”  (Citation omitted)). 
                                              
1On March 2, 2015, this Court adopted an amendment to Maryland Rule 7-104(e), 
which became effective on July 1, 2015; as such, Maryland Rule 7-104(e) currently 
provides: “‘Entry’ . . . occurs on the day when the District Court enters a record on the 
docket of the electronic case management system used by that Court.”  The amendment to 
Maryland Rule 7-104(e) corresponded to an amendment of Maryland Rule 3-601(b), which 
currently provides that “the date of the judgment [in District Court] is the date that the clerk 
enters the judgment on the electronic case management system docket[.]”  The Standing 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure stated that these amendments were needed 
because the previous version of Maryland Rule 3-601(b), “governing the method of 
entering judgments, [was] obsolete and [was] not being followed anywhere in the State” 
“because all judgments are entered electronically so they can go on Case Search.”  Standing 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, 186th Report (Sept. 26, 2014), at 11, 
available at mdcourts.gov/rules/reports/186th.pdf.  The amendment to Maryland Rule 7-
104(e) was to conform with the amendment to Maryland Rule 3-601(b).  Id.  
- 4 - 
 
There is no ambiguity in the record as to the date on which judgment was entered 
in the District Court.  The District Court docket contains multiple entries dated March 10, 
2014.  One entry, labeled “General Dismissal,” states: “Complaint dismissed by court[.]”  
(Capitalization omitted).  Another entry, labeled “Trial Delete,” states: “Dismissal 
entered[.]”  (Capitalization omitted).  Significantly, another entry is labeled “Court Order 
Entered” and spans five lines on the docket, stating: “Based on the foregoing and after 
consideration on this 10th day of March 2014 it is therefore ordered that [Respondent]’s 
motion to dismiss is granted and it is further ordered that the above referenced suit is 
dismissed with prejudice.”  (Capitalization omitted).  Thus, it is evident that judgment was 
entered on March 10, 2014. 
Docket entries for March 11, 2014, state: (1) “Comment” stating “file rec’d back in 
Rockville”; (2) “Trial/Hearing Postponement” stating “prev set on 11052013”; and (3) 
“Notice Sent” stating “Notice of Trial Postponement (ATP)-C1” and “Also sent to – 
ATD[.]”  (Capitalization omitted).2  The docket also contains several entries dated March 
28, 2014, including: (1) “Motion Change” stating “to dismiss”; (2) “Notice Sent” stating 
“Notice of outcome of motion filed” and “also sent to – ATD”; and (3) “Notice Sent” 
stating “Notice of Dismissal” and “also sent to – ATD.”  (Capitalization omitted).  A copy 
of the District Court’s Order, signed on March 10, 2014, contains the handwritten initials 
“TM” and a small date stamp on the bottom-left corner reading “Mar 28 2014.”   
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-104(e) (2014), we conclude that the District Court’s 
                                              
2“ATP” and “ATD” are shorthand for “attorney for plaintiff” and “attorney for 
defendant,” respectively.  
- 5 - 
order dismissing the case was entered onto the docket within the file, as the docket entries 
state, on March 10, 2014; i.e., on March 10, 2014, “the District Court first ma[d]e[] a record 
in writing of the . . . order on . . . [the] docket within the file, . . . and record[ed] the actual 
date of the entry” by notating and entering onto the electronic docket the order dismissing 
the case.  Petitioner had thirty days from that date to file a notice of appeal.  The docket 
entries are not “ambiguous,” as Petitioner urges this Court to conclude.  Certain docket 
entries for March 10, 2014, are specifically and expressly labeled “Court Order Entered” 
and detail that the motion to dismiss was granted and that the case was dismissed with 
prejudice.  The docket entries for March 11, 2014, are routine ministerial entries detailing 
that the file returned to Rockville and that the trial previously set was postponed.  And the 
docket entries for March 28, 2014, note simply that a notice of the outcome of the motion 
to dismiss and a notice of dismissal were sent out by the clerk’s office.  The date on which 
the clerk’s office sends a notice is not the date of the entry of the order for purposes of 
Maryland Rule 7-104(a).  As stated above, Maryland Rule 7-104(e) (2014) defined “entry” 
as “occur[ring] on the day when the District Court first makes a record in writing of the . . 
. order . . . on a docket within the file, . . . and records the actual date of the entry[,]” and 
not as the date on which the District Court sends a “notice” that a particular event was 
entered onto docket.  Furthermore, according to its certificate of service the District Court’s 
order was sent to each party’s counsel on March 10, 2014; in other words, there is simply 
no basis for Petitioner’s position that the District Court’s order was not docketed until 
March 28, 2014. 
Petitioner had thirty days from March 10, 2014, to note an appeal of District Court’s 
- 6 - 
order dismissing the case.  Thirty days from March 10, 2014, was April 9, 2014; however, 
Petitioner noted an appeal to the circuit court on April 10, 2014, one day after expiration 
of the thirty-day appeal period set forth in Maryland Rule 7-104(a).  Petitioner has not 
identified any rule, statute, or case extending its time for noting an appeal, and we know of 
none applicable under these circumstances.  Petitioner, like any other party, is responsible 
for complying with the Maryland Rules, including Maryland Rule 7-104(a).  See 
Woodfield v. West River Imp. Ass’n, Inc., 395 Md. 377, 388-89, 910 A.2d 452, 459 (2006) 
(“When a legislative body commands that something be done, using words such as ‘shall’ 
or ‘must,’ rather than ‘may’ or ‘should,’ we must assume, absent some evidence to the 
contrary, that it was serious and that it meant for the thing to be done in the manner it 
directed.  In that sense, the obligation to comply with the statute (or rule) is both mandatory 
and directory.”  (Citation omitted)).  In this case, we conclude that the appeal to the circuit 
court was untimely and that, not only did the circuit court lack jurisdiction for the appeal, 
but also this Court lacks jurisdiction to address the appeal on certiorari. 
 
APPEAL DISMISSED.  PETITIONER TO PAY 
COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE CIRCUIT 
COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY.