Opinion ID: 2002495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Resolution Of All Claims

Text: The insufficiency of the July 13 rulings centered, of course, on the court's direction that specific QDRO's be prepared and submitted. Those QDRO's were thought by the court to be necessary in order to resolve effectively the claim made by Mrs. Rohrbeck with respect to Mr. Rohrbeck's employee benefit plans. The court understood  correctly as to at least the pension plan  that its award of a share of those plans could not be made effective without the QDRO's. Until those orders were signed, therefore, a claim in the action remained unresolved. Aside from the problem of qualitative finality discussed in Part A, that lack of full resolution also implicates Md. Rule 2-602. Subsection (a) of that Rule provides, in pertinent part, that an order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims in an action...: (1) is not a final judgment; (2) does not terminate the action as to any of the claims...; and (3) is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment that adjudicates all of the claims by and against all of the parties. As we have indicated, the issue of the QDRO's  the last unresolved claim in the action  was finally adjudicated on September 2, 1988. Until then, under Rule 2-602, all prior rulings remained interlocutory and subject to revision; none of them, including the very division of the employee benefit plans announced by the court on July 13, amounted to a final judgment.