Opinion ID: 2070918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Veta McAnulty v. First Virginia Bank-Central, Maryland et al.

Text: The next complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in misconduct in a case arising out of the repossession of an automobile. As part of a marital settlement agreement, Edwin McAnulty promised to purchase a vehicle for his wife, Veta McAnulty. Ms. McAnulty thus contracted with Harco Oldsmobile (Harco) for the sale of a vehicle, informing Harco that Mr. McAnulty would pay for the vehicle. Mr. McAnulty executed an installment sales contract with Harco and financed the vehicle through Commercial Bank, now First Virginia Bank (the Bank). Mr. McAnulty granted the Bank a security interest in the vehicle as collateral for the loan. Shortly after the McAnultys' divorce became final, Mr. McAnulty defaulted on the loan, and the vehicle was repossessed by Harco and sold pursuant to the installment sales contract. Ms. McAnulty retained Otto Major to represent her in this matter. Mr. Major later had Respondent review, as a paralegal, [6] Mr. Major's draft of a complaint against the Bank, Harco, Harco's attorney, and a collection officer who completed paperwork regarding the repossession. Respondent redrafted the complaint which was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on June 13, 1990. The plaintiff sought over $4,000,000 in damages, alleging fraud, conversion, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and conspiracy to commit each count. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In his findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Brennan noted that after the district court indicated that `there would be a good reason presented for granting Rule 11 Sanctions in a case on which a frivolous RICO claim ... was brought' if the case had originally been brought in federal court, the RICO claim was voluntarily dismissed by Respondent. Ms. McAnulty's case was then returned to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and later dismissed by the circuit court with leave to amend upon certain conditions. Respondent drafted and filed an amended complaint omitting the fraud count on May 29, 1991. [7] Upon the defense's motion to strike, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals in an unreported, per curiam opinion held that the circuit court properly dismissed six of the eight counts of the amended complaint. The intermediate appellate court stated that the McAnulty case was an attempt to distort the unremarkable with allegations which are both incredible and outrageous in light of what actually occurred. The intermediate appellate court noted: We would be remiss if we did not question the pleadings drafted by [Ms. McAnulty's] counsel. We are aware of, and disturbed by, the numerous misstatements of fact throughout his amended complaint. We quote Judge [John Carroll] Byrnes, who aptly stated, `[Y]ou obviously are quite indifferent to what you say in pleadings, which I think puts you in a special class....' The defense filed a motion for sanctions, pursuant to Md. Rule 1-341, which was granted as to both Respondent and Mr. Major. Judge Brennan noted that in granting the motion, the circuit court found that Respondent `controlled the direction of activities in this case' and was without `a reasonable basis for believing that the claims would generate an issue of fact for the fact finder and therefore lacks substantial justification.'  In addition, the circuit court found that Respondent led the charge and Mr. Otto [Major] followed his lead. With regard to certain counts, the circuit court found that the attorneys brought the RICO and fraud counts vexatiously for the purpose of harassing the defendants which in [the court's] view amounts to bad faith under interpretations of Maryland Rule 1-341. Furthermore, the circuit court found that Respondent added the RICO claim solely to take advantage of the treble damages provision of the RICO statute in order to obtain an exorbitant settlement from the defendants, and the RICO count amounts to a claim brought in bad faith and without substantial legal or factual justification. In his written opinion, Judge Brennan stated: In assessing sanctions, Judge [Thomas E.] Noel noted that he felt that Stuart L. Alison was more culpable and therefore, the amount of sanctions were fashioned accordingly. There have been no less than four separate reviews by various judges deciding adversely to the Respondent concerning his pursuing this case.