Opinion ID: 1549090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whiteford's Right To Raise The Defense Of The Improper Grant Of The First Petition For Extension

Text: Both parties characterize the first erroneously granted extension as voidable, not void. This is consistent with this Court's holding in Downes regarding the fifth extension: If the court improperly grants an extension in violation of [the time limitation in ET § 3-206(a)(2)] and a proper appeal is noted, its action will be reversed by the appellate court and all will be made right. To regard an improper extension as an excess of jurisdiction [i.e., to classify it as void], however, would allow anyone at any time to challenge it. Years later, title to both real and personal property, even in the hands of innocent third parties, could be challenged. There is no need, and no justification, for an approach that might lead to that result. Downes, 388 Md. at 575, 880 A.2d at 351. Thus, Downes was permitted to challenge the validity of the first extension throughout the appellate process, up until the close of the estate administration. Whiteford argues that although Downes did not attack the first extension during the underlying case, the firm should not be precluded from asserting that defense because it was one that was available to Downes. We agree only partially, and explain. Whiteford is not precluded from challenging the first extension simply because Downes chose to challenge the fifth extension rather than the first. In other words, Whiteford is not limited by the manner in which Downes actually handled his own defense. This, however, does not mean that Whiteford is necessarily entitled to raise all possible defenses that were available to Downes. As we stated above, in a malpractice action, a court should attempt to ascertain what would have happened had the attorney not breached his or her duty. See Legal Malpractice, supra, at § 35:12. Therefore, Whiteford is limited to those defenses that Downes would have raised in the underlying action if he could not attack the fifth petition, rather than those he actually raised. As we discuss in the next section, this is a question for the finder of fact. We hasten to point out that allowing Whiteford to rely on Downes's other defenses will not affect the outcome of the underlying estate administration. Suder incorrectly asserts that allowing Whiteford the opportunity to challenge the first petition constitutes a collateral attack on a closed order and that [u]nder the law-of-the-case doctrine, litigants cannot raise new defenses once an appellate court has finally decided a case if these new defenses could have been raised on the facts as they existed prior to the first appeal. Suder misinterprets the purpose of permitting Whiteford to raise that defense. To be sure, the invalidity of the first extension cannot be asserted against Suder to alter the outcome of the estate administration; it was never advanced by Downes with regards to that action, and thus he cannot resurrect it to affect the disposition of the estate. See generally Kent County Bd. of Educ. v. Bilbrough, 309 Md. 487, 490, 525 A.2d 232, 233 (1987) ( quoting Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 892, 894 n. 1, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984)) (Claim preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing litigation of a matter that never has been litigated, because of a determination that it should have been advanced in an earlier suit.). Here, Whiteford is given the chance to present the defense as merely the knife that severs the causal link between its own negligence and Suder's damages in this malpractice action. Relitigating the underlying action for the purposes of a malpractice suit is simply a tool by which the litigants are able to wind back the clock to determine whether the attorney proximately caused the injury. [6]