Court Opinion

ID: 9748779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:12:41.784918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:39.314958
License: Public Domain

BISHOP, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority that affirms the judgment against Home.
I do not disagree with the legal reasoning of the majority, only with their legal conclusions. I believe that the circuit court erred when it granted the judgment against the *223appellant despite the fact that the Bankruptcy Court’s stay was in effect with reference to Celotex before our mandate was issued. That judgment, of course, was the sole basis upon which the circuit court granted judgment against Home.
On January 2, 1991, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order on Goldman for him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Apparently, he ignored the order and did not respond. On February 1,1991, Goldman was held in contempt by the Bankruptcy Court and was enjoined from “taking any action whatsoever associated with collection of the proceeds of any bond posted by the debtors or the enforcement of any claims involving bonds posted by the debtors, including claims against Home Insurance Company for posting the bonds.” Again, in spite of the contempt holding and the injunction in the Bankruptcy Court’s order, Goldman chose to continue his actions on behalf of the appellees in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The circuit court order was entered on January 31, 1991, ten days after the show cause order was served on Goldman. The judgment became final on March 4, 1991, almost one month after Goldman was held in contempt of court and was enjoined from the action set out above, and almost five months after this Court had been advised of the stay. Clearly, Home Indemnity Company did not act expeditiously and apparently placed great faith in the stay of the Bankruptcy Court.
I simply cannot accept the conclusion that a void judgment of this Court may be the basis for a valid judgment of the circuit court. As the majority correctly states, as used in the rule, a mistake is confined to “jurisdictional” mistakes, i.e., whether the court has power to enter the judgment. I would hold that the circuit court did not have the power to enter the judgment. I base this conclusion on the fact that the order of the Bankruptcy Court had issued prior to the entry of our judgment.
Based on the foregoing, I would hold that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City did not have jurisdiction to enter *224the judgment and I would have reversed the order of that court denying appellant’s motion to vacate that judgment.
I concur with the vacation of the order of May 23, 1991, directing the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to refuse to accept bonds of the appellant.