Opinion ID: 2258923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: status of the cases in terms of the issues presented

Text: As we observed in Part I, the only appeals in these three cases are those of DSS, complaining of the orders denying its respective motions to strike the untimely objections filed by one or both of the parents. When those appeals were filed, no judgment had been entered in the cases; the appeals were from orders that were clearly interlocutory. We need not address here whether those appeals were proper, for subsequent events have made the three appeals moot. The State acknowledges, as it must, that the appeals in the first two cases are moot, and, because of the post-appeal judgment entered in No. 95108035, that case has also been rendered moot. [4] The objecting parents' parental rights were terminated after a hearing on the merits, and it is therefore utterly immaterial at this point whether the court erred in allowing the untimely filed objections. Even if DSS is correct and the court erred in considering the untimely objections, DSS has won on the merits, and there is no effective relief that we can provide. We shall therefore dismiss these three appeals.
Nicole's appeals in these two cases are from an order denying her motion to vacate an enrolled judgment. The motion to vacate was filed more than 30 days after the judgment was entered and is therefore deemed to have been filed under Md. Rule 2-535(b). Under that rule, a court may revise an enrolled judgment upon a finding of fraud, mistake, clerical mistake, or other irregularity if, in addition, the movant establishes that she acted in good faith and with ordinary diligence and that she has a meritorious defense. Owl Club v. Gotham Hotels, 270 Md. 94, 100, 310 A.2d 534, 537 (1973); Maryland Lumber v. Savoy Constr. Co., 286 Md. 98, 101-02, 405 A.2d 741, 743-44 (1979). The denial of a motion to revise under Rule 2-535(b) is appealable, but the only issue before the appellate court is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in denying the motion. New Freedom Corp. v. Brown & Meyer, 260 Md. 383, 386, 272 A.2d 401, 403 (1971); S. & G. Realty v. Woodmoor Realty, 255 Md. 684, 690-92, 259 A.2d 281, 283-85 (1969). [5] Except to the extent that they are subsumed in that question, the merits of the judgment itself are not open to direct attack. In order to challenge the judgment itself, a timely appeal must be taken from it. In these cases, Nicole filed her Revocation and motion to vacate nine months after the judgment of guardianship was entered and eleven months after the deadline for objecting. She produced no evidence of either due diligence or a meritorious defense to the petition. Indeed, she produced no evidence at all. The attack on the judgment was based entirely on counsel's argument that, as a matter of law, Nicole had until entry of a judgment of adoption to object. At no point in her argument did counsel offer any evidence that Nicole actually believed that she had that extended time or that she had any reason for not acting sooner. As DSS pointed out, the show cause order was also served on the attorney who represented Nicole at the CINA hearing. There was no evidence, or even any suggestion, that Nicole was ill or otherwise incapacitated. Nor was there any indication of what defense she would have interposed to the petition. The children had been found CINA in 1993 and had been in foster care for over two years. There had been no contact by Nicole during that time with DSS and apparently none with the children. On this record, we find no error of law and no abuse of discretion in the denial of Nicole's motions to vacate; we therefore shall affirm the orders denying those motions.
These appeals by DSS arise from an order granting a motion to revise under Md. Rule 2-535(b) and vacating enrolled judgments. Such an order is appealable as a final judgment, and it brings before the appellate court the merits of that judgment. First Federated Com. Tr. v. Comm'r, 272 Md. 329, 333, 322 A.2d 539, 542 (1974); Ventresca v. Weaver Brothers, Inc., 266 Md. 398, 403, 292 A.2d 656, 659 (1972); Mut. Benefit Soc'y v. Haywood, 257 Md. 538, 540, 263 A.2d 868, 870 (1970). See also Sisk v. Friendship Packers, 326 Md. 152, 157-58 n. 3, 604 A.2d 69, 71-72 (1992).