Opinion ID: 1933287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Dashiell's Affidavit was Inadequate as a Matter of Law

Text: Respondent concludes in its brief that the decision of the Court of Special Appeals should be affirmed and the litigation remanded to the Circuit Court so that Respondent can pursue proof of its unjust enrichment claim against Caroline County. We have held that respondent has no unjust enrichment claim against the County. No other issues have been presented to us. The Affidavit at issue does not challenge the existence of a written, express contract between the parties. It concerns itself with whether notice under the express contract was made, and if made, was sufficient. In proffering the notice issues, it, in essence, admits the existence of a written express contract. Accordingly, the matter of the sufficiency of the Affidavit in respect to the claim of unjust enrichment is moot and we need not address it, although we have frequently held that such affidavits must be made on personal knowledge and that language such as to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief is not sufficient. See Alan F. Post, Chtd. v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142, 154 n. 5, 707 A.2d 806, 811 n. 5 (1998). As we said in A.J. Decoster Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 333 Md. 245, 263, 634 A.2d 1330, 1338-39 (1994): [Maryland] Rule 2-501(c) requires that [a]n affidavit supporting or opposing a motion for summary judgment shall be made upon personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. We have long held that to be sufficient to sustain a motion for summary judgment, an affidavit must contain language that it is made on personal knowledge. [Citations omitted.] See Ehrlich v. Board of Educ., 257 Md. 542, 546, 263 A.2d 853, 855 (1970) (holding that an affidavit that was not made upon personal knowledge of the affiant was ineffective); Mercier v. O'Neill Assocs., Inc., 249 Md. 286, 287 n. 1, 239 A.2d 564, 564 n. 1 (1968) (holding that an affidavit stating that it was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief ... [was] defective in form and substance.); Phelps v. Herro, 215 Md. 223, 227, 137 A.2d 159, 161 (1957) (holding that an affidavit not made on personal knowledge was clearly defective.); Tellez v. Canton R.R. Co., 212 Md. 423, 429, 129 A.2d 809, 812 (1957) (holding that an affidavit not made on the personal knowledge of the affiant is not admissible in evidence). [13] In other words, an affiant must attest to personal knowledge of the facts asserted and a basis for that knowledge. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Imbraguglio, 346 Md. 573, 598, 697 A.2d 885, 897 (1997). In the case sub judice, the Affidavit of Donald Dashiell, in opposition to the County's Motion for Summary Judgment, said in relevant part, I declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of this Affidavit are true according to my best knowledge, information and belief. (Emphasis added.) Clearly, this Affidavit is not in the format required by the language of Maryland Rule 2-501(c) and its supporting caselaw. In fact, three of the cases discussed, supra, address this situation directly and hold that affidavits that are based on the best of one's knowledge, information, and belief, or similar attestation, are insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment or an answer in opposition to such motion. Mercier, 249 Md. at 287 n. 1, 239 A.2d at 564 n. 1; White, 210 Md. at 280, 123 A.2d at 305; Fletcher, 198 Md. at 58, 81 A.2d at 234. When an affidavit is required, it must contain language that it is made on personal knowledge, in order for it to be sufficient to sustain a motion for summary judgment, or a reply to a motion for summary judgment, and that wording such as to the best of my knowledge, information and belief is generally insufficient to satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, even if the issue was not moot, the Affidavit of Donald Dashiell was inadequate as a matter of law and petitioner's motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Without the affidavit, there was no genuine dispute between the parties as to any material fact.