HOTTEN, J.
Appellants, Theodore I. Sandler and Abbie L. Fields, appeal from the judgments of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County entered in favor of appellee, Executive Management Plus, in these consolidated landlord-tenant actions.
Whether the circuit court erred by striking appellants' jury trial demand.
For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
On August 26, 2008, the parties entered into a one year residential lease for a single family home located at 12008 Titian Way in Potomac, Maryland. The lease contained a renewal clause. According to appellants, a "dispute arose" between the parties regarding whether appellants properly exercised the renewal clause to extend the lease for another year. Appellee, however, asserted that appellants modified the original lease, creating a counter-offer for the renewal term, which appellee did not accept.
On September 29, 2009, appellee served appellants with a "Notice to Vacate." On November 4, 2009, in the District Court of
The rent escrow case came before the District Court on December 9, 2009. Because the THO case had not been called, the District Court continued both cases to December 16, 2009. In the meantime, as we shall note below, one of the appellants asked about moving for a jury trial. On that same date, apparently after the hearing, appellant Sandler filed a written jury trial request. On December 16, 2009, the District Court sent both cases to the circuit court for jury trials.
On February 22, 2010, appellants moved to consolidate both cases, and the circuit court granted the motion on March 10, 2010, with the clerk entering the order the next day. On March 24, 2010, the consolidated cases went before another circuit court judge for a hearing on several motions and for trial. The court reversed the consolidation order and granted appellee's motion to strike the jury trial demand.
The cases each went to trial before yet another circuit court judge on May 12 and 13, 2010. In each case, the court granted appellee's motions for directed verdicts, which were essentially motions for judgment.
We shall recite additional facts as they relate to the issues before us.
The right to a jury trial in Maryland is afforded by Articles 5 and 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
On appeal, appellants claim that the circuit court erred by denying their right to a jury trial. They assert that the court's failure to recognize their proper jury plea from December 9, 2009 was made more difficult by notational errors in the record. They further contend that "[c]umbersome, overlapping files and an effective campaign of disinformation created significant confusion during the proceedings[, and that the] flawed assumptions of fact, adopted by the Court fatally affected the proceedings in this case." They take issue with the view that these cases involved purely equitable claims that would not warrant a trial by jury, and also complain that they were denied due process of law because the record below "was conflicted and in error." They further maintain that "[n]otational, procedural and factual errors" combined to limit their right to be heard and to defend their right to their home. Specifically, they rely on the circuit court's acceptance of an incorrect jury plea date as an error which, above all others, had a fatal effect on this case and was "an incorrect and prejudicial assumption." Appellants believe that they continue to have an interest in the "implied value of their lease" and a legal claim flowing from appellee's actions.
Appellee responds that the actions sub judice are solely equitable in nature and, as a result, appellants are not entitled to a jury trial. Appellee further contends that the circuit court properly denied a jury trial for two reasons: (1) appellants' failure to make a timely written demand for a jury trial and (2) the instant cases only seek equitable relief. Appellee also maintains that, assuming that appellants have a right to a jury trial in this case, the denial of a jury trial is harmless error because appellee moved for directed verdicts in both cases, which the circuit court granted. As such, the court's rulings in appellee's favor on questions of law would have taken these cases from the jury in any event.
We agree with appellee that any error in striking appellants' jury trial demands was harmless. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court. To place this holding in context, we address the contention that the cases before us are solely equitable and do not warrant a trial by jury, then addressing the timeliness of appellants' jury trial demands. As discussed infra, we conclude that the actions before us are not limited to claims for equitable relief and that appellants would have been entitled to a jury trial in each case provided they alleged a sufficient amount in controversy and fulfilled other prerequisites for demanding a jury trial. We will not address appellee's contention that appellants failed to comply with the order that they make payments to appellee pursuant to R.P. § 8-118 because it appears that appellants tendered rent payments to the circuit court.
Appellee contends that both actions are equitable in nature and, thus, do not warrant a trial by jury. With respect to the THO action, appellee insists that it merely seeks possession of the property it owns. We disagree with appellee that a litigant in a tenant holding over action would never be entitled to a trial by jury. In an appropriate case, where a tenant asserts a right to continue possession in defense of a landlord's action seeking possession, and where the tenant also makes a claim for damages that he or she might
The Court of Appeals' decision in Martin v. Howard County, 349 Md. 469, 709 A.2d 125 (1998), is instructive. In that case, Howard County filed an action to "abate" a nuisance pursuant to R.P. § 14-120, which, at the time, created a cause of action to "abate" a nuisance when one's use of real property involved controlled dangerous substances or paraphernalia. Id. at 471-72, 709 A.2d 125. The tenant requested a jury trial, and the case was transferred to the circuit court. Id. at 475-76, 709 A.2d 125. The circuit court struck an earlier order allowing a jury trial and remanded to the District Court because the court agreed with the county that the action sounded in equity as the county sought only injunctive relief. Id. at 476, 709 A.2d 125.
The Court of Appeals disagreed that the county's possession action was solely equitable in nature, and instead concluded that
Id. at 481-83, 709 A.2d 125 (citations omitted). Although the trial court action had been styled a "Complaint for Injunctive Relief," the actual relief sought by the county was, in fact, legal in nature. Id. at 476, 709 A.2d 125. The Court of Appeals distinguished actions seeking to halt certain activities on the property, instead pointing out that the nature of the remedy dictates whether the action is one at law or in equity:
Id. at 489, 709 A.2d 125.
The gravamen of appellee's "Complaint and Summons against Tenant Holding Over" is that appellee "desir[ed] to gain possession of the premises[.]" This is a claim at law. Our inquiry does not end with the characterization of appellee's suit for possession as a legal claim. For a party to be entitled to a jury trial, the action must involve an amount in controversy that exceeds $10,000, the threshold jurisdictional amount in effect at the time the claim was filed. See C.J. § 4-402(e)(1).
In Carroll v. Housing Opportunities Commission, 306 Md. 515, 517, 510 A.2d 540 (1986), the Court of Appeals addressed
The Court of Appeals held that nature of the action triggered Ms. Carroll's right to a jury trial, provided that the jurisdictional amount was met. Id. at 521, 510 A.2d 540. The Court pointed out that it had ruled in
Id. The Court added that Ms. Carroll's "claim that the amount in controversy exceeds [the jurisdictional amount] establishes the claimant's right to a jury trial unless it clearly appears that the claim is actually for less than that amount." Id. at 522, 510 A.2d 540. The Court concluded that "[t]aken together, Bringe and Purvis [v. Forrest Street Apts., 286 Md. 398, 408 A.2d 388 (1979)] establish that the claims of the parties, for money damages or for the right to possession, determine the amount in controversy." Id. at 523, 510 A.2d 540. Referring to federal cases that address the "amount in controversy" in questions of federal jurisdiction, the Carroll Court quoted the following with approval:
Carroll, 306 Md. at 523-24, 510 A.2d 540 (quoting Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961) (further citation omitted)). The Court of Appeals then ruled as follows:
Id. at 524, 510 A.2d 540. The Court then elaborated:
Id. at 525-26, 510 A.2d 540 (footnote omitted).
In Purvis v. Forrest Street Apartments, 286 Md. 398, 408 A.2d 388 (1979), the Court of Appeals discussed the issue of whether a party had demonstrated the requisite amount in controversy—then $500. The Court stated that the "value of the right to possession of the premises, if it can be ascertained, should be considered along with the plaintiff's initial monetary demand[.]" Purvis, 286 Md. at 403, 408 A.2d 388.
We note that R.P. § 8-601 states that "[a]ny party to an action brought in the District Court under this title in which the amount in controversy meets the requirements for a trial by jury may, in accordance with this subtitle, demand a trial by jury." Moreover, R.P. § 8-118(a) provides that "[i]n an action under § 8-401 [Failure to pay rent], § 8-402 [Holding Over], or § 8-402.1 [Breach of Lease] of this title in which a party demands a jury trial, the District Court immediately shall enter an order directing the tenant or anyone holding under the tenant to pay all rents as they come due during the pendency of the action" into a rent escrow account. Therefore, the Real Property Article provides a tenant with the ability to request a jury trial in a THO matter. Simply, as the Court of Appeals stated in Martin, 349 Md. at 489, 709 A.2d 125, "[i]f the plaintiff requests money damages, or if a plaintiff not in possession requests an order ousting a tenant from possession of the property, the actions are legal, and there is a constitutional right to a jury trial." See also Mulchansingh v. Columbia Mgmt., Inc., 33 Md.App. 304, 309, 364 A.2d 78 (1976) (quoting Bringe, 274 Md. at 347, 335 A.2d 670) ("For a party in a landlord-tenant action to be entitled to a jury trial, there must either be a claim for money damages over [the jurisdictional amount] or a claim that the value of the right to
In the THO action before us, appellants' written demand for a jury trial, dated December 9, 2009, does not reference an amount. See Carroll, 306 Md. at 518, 510 A.2d 540 (tenant's demand for jury trial claimed amount in controversy in excess of $500). It is not clear whether appellants otherwise substantiated their assertion that an amount in controversy exceeded $10,000, and appellants do not assert on appeal that they have demonstrated an amount in controversy in the THO case. Nevertheless, the amount in controversy may "`otherwise be ascertained,'" inasmuch as appellants sought the continuation of their possession under a renewed lease for one year. See Purvis, 286 Md. at 403, 408 A.2d 388 (quoting Agnew v. Dorman, 1 Fed.Cas. 211, 212 (Fed. Case No. 100) (C.C.Md.1838))
Federal decisions addressing a party's burden of demonstrating an "amount in controversy" are instructive. In Pollokoff v. Maryland National Bank, 288 Md. 485, 491, 418 A.2d 1201 (1980), the Court of Appeals stated that "[w]hen we expand beyond our decisions in a search for guidance in the application of `amount in controversy' to the facts presented . . . we look to the federal cases." Cf. Higgins v. Barnes, 310 Md. 532, 543, 530 A.2d 724 (1987) (recognizing that "Maryland courts have traditionally relied on federal courts' interpretations of analogous rules as persuasive authority"); accord McDermott v. BB & T Bankcard Corp., 185 Md.App. 156, 167, 968 A.2d 1096 (2009). For example, in Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 397 (9th Cir.2010), the court stated that "when the complaint does not contain any specific amount of damages sought, the party seeking removal under diversity [or a jury trial in the circuit court as in the case sub judice] bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory amount." With respect to the THO action, we conclude that at the commencement of the THO action, appellants' claim of entitlement to continued possession under a lease, the terms of which included more than three monthly rent payments in excess of $3,700, demonstrated an "amount in controversy" to justify a trial by jury.
In regard to appellants' complaint for damages for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and warranty of habitability in the rent escrow action, we conclude that appellants would have been entitled to a jury trial. Assuming that the jury demand was timely made, we disagree with appellees and the circuit court judge who struck the jury trial demand on the basis that appellants were not entitled to allege entitlement to damages for "breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or warranty of habitability[.]"
The purpose of the rent escrow provision of the Real Property Article is set forth in R.P. § 8-211(a), which reads:
As noted, appellants' complaint not only sought an injunction for the correction of "conditions and defects on the leased premises," but also claimed "damages . . . for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or warranty of habitability[.]" In their reply brief, appellants complain that the circuit court erred by "disput[ing] the validity of Tenants' claims because of the form proffered by the [District] [C]ourt." Indeed, during the hearing on the motion to strike the jury demand, the motions court essentially disregarded appellants' damages claim. The motions court explained that appellants' rent escrow claim was solely based in equity by stating, in essence, that such damages claims were not cognizable under R.P. § 8-211. The court stated its view that the District Court form pleading was wrong, elaborating that the rent escrow claim was "intended to provide equitable relief . . . and there is nothing in the statute that provides for a private cause of damages in terms of its relief." The court went on to pronounce that "the statute will always trump a form." The motions court erred in its conclusion.
This Court has pointed out that
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Regency Furniture, Inc., 183 Md.App. 710, 734, 963 A.2d 253 (2009) (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals has noted that "`the thrust of the State's rent escrow statute is to provide tenants with additional judicial remedies in support of a limited, implied warrant of habitability[.]'" Pak v. Hoang, 378 Md. 315, 327 n. 4, 835 A.2d 1185 (2003) (quoting 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 523 (Md.1977)).
The District Court pleading forms are consistent with the Real Property Article, and the circuit court erred in stating otherwise. The Court of Appeals has observed:
Williams v. Housing Auth., 361 Md. 143, 159, 760 A.2d 697 (2000).
In Mattingly v. Mattingly, 92 Md.App. 248, 256, 607 A.2d 575 (1992) (citations omitted), we stated that "if a case presents any legal issues, even if those issues are outweighed by equitable issues, the case is to be tried to a jury unless `the use of the jury trial itself will in some way obstruct a satisfactory disposition of the equitable claim.'" We believe that, provided that other jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied and that appellants timely requested a jury trial, appellants would have been entitled to a jury trial on the basis of their claim for damages, even if their complaint also asserted a claim for equitable relief. See generally Higgins v. Barnes, 310 Md. 532, 547, 530 A.2d 724 (1987). Appellants alleged damages in excess of $10,000, the jurisdictional amount in controversy at the time, in damages relating to the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the warranty of habitability in their rent escrow action.
We note that R.P. § 8-211 sets forth the procedure a District Court shall follow in its consideration of a pure rent escrow claim. Additionally, C.J. § 4-401(7)(i) provides that "the District Court has exclusive original civil jurisdiction in . . . a petition of injunction filed by . . . [a] tenant in an action under § 8-211 of the Real Property Article or a local rent escrow law." Therefore, it is clear that if appellants' claim was based solely on a rent escrow claim, they would not have had a right to a jury trial. However, because appellants also alleged damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount based on the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the warranty of habitability, they triggered their right to a jury trial.
As discussed below, any error in dismissing appellant's jury trial request was harmless.
The parties first appeared in the District Court on December 9, 2009, in regard to the rent escrow case. The THO action had been continued until the following week, December 16, 2009. After some discussion, the District Court noted that "[t]hese cases are intertwined. . . . If one case is next week, which it is, then the other case will be with it next week on the 16th." At this first hearing, an individual also raised the issue of requesting a jury trial:
It is evident that, at the hearing on December 9, 2009, one appellant asked whether it would be appropriate to request a jury trial. The record extract also contains a written request for a jury trial dated December 9, 2009. This request had not been offered into the record at the time of the hearing on that date because "Unidentified Male Speaker No. 1," who we believe is obviously counsel for appellee, pointed out appellants' failure to comply with the requirement that a jury trial request be made in writing. Therefore, we presume that the written jury request was filed after the hearing and served on appellee on December 10, 2009. We note, however, that the District Court judge represented that, while a demand would usually accompany a complaint, the "rules give you some latitude." Appellants clearly acted on the District Court's representation by filing the written jury trial demand that same day.
When the parties next appeared before the District Court on December 16, 2009, the District Court transferred the case to the circuit court based on appellants' demands
Appellants' jury trial requests were treated by the District Court as timely, and that court accordingly transferred the cases to the circuit court. The District Court appeared to base its actions solely on the fact that appellants had demanded a jury trial. Certainly, the "demand itself divests the District Court of jurisdiction as a matter of law and immediately vests jurisdiction in the circuit court." Pickett, 365 Md. at 91, 775 A.2d 1218 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Yet, the District Court in the first instance could have examined more carefully whether appellants' jury trial demands in each case were timely.
"Maryland Rule 3-325 sets forth the procedure for requesting a jury trial, requiring the parties to file a separate written demand for a jury trial and providing the time requirements for the demand." McDermott, 185 Md.App. at 165, 968 A.2d 1096. "A timely demand for a jury trial pursuant to Rule 3-325 vests jurisdiction in the circuit court when the amount in controversy exceeds $ 10,000." Id. At the time these actions were commenced, Maryland Rule 3-325 provided:
Similarly, R.P. § 8-602 provides that the party demanding a jury trial file the demand in a separate pleading.
We conclude that appellants' demand for a jury trial in the rent escrow action was timely.
At this juncture, we conclude that the actions involved both equitable and legal claims. An action for possession from a tenant holding over has been recognized as an action at law. The damages claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and warrant of habitability, though related to the rent escrow claim, are cognizable at law and satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. Although this is a close case, we may conclude that the jury trial demands in each were timely. We also conclude that, while presenting a close question, appellants satisfied the amount in controversy threshold for the THO case under the Court of Appeals' analysis in Purvis, supra, 286 Md. at 403, 408 A.2d 388. Accordingly, the circuit court erred by striking the jury trial demands.
Notwithstanding the above conclusion, we hold that any error by the circuit court in striking the jury trial demands was harmless in light of the court's rulings on appellee's motions for directed verdicts or judgments. In the context of many civil cases, "[t]he harmless error test is one for which Maryland courts, like many other jurisdictions, have declined to establish `precise standards.'" Barksdale v. Wilkowsky, 419 Md. 649, 662, 20 A.3d 765 (2011) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, a singular requirement is that the aggrieved party establish prejudice as a result of the error. Id. The record before us does not demonstrate prejudice in the denial of a jury trial in either case.
The circuit court entered judgments on appellee's directed verdict motions in both cases, ruling against appellants as a matter of law in each case. See Md. Rule 2-519. In the THO action, appellee's counsel argued that because appellants had altered the original lease that had been proffered for renewal, they effectively rejected that lease, thus electing to become tenants on a month-to-month basis. The court's ruling on this motion included the following:
In the rent escrow case, the court recited some of the evidence, but then determined that appellants' case was insufficient. The transcript includes the following:
Ruling on appellee's motions for judgment, the circuit court rendered legal determinations on the adequacy of appellants' claims in both cases. The judgments in each case did not depend on determinations of fact that would have been rendered by a jury or a trial court as a fact-finder.
In the THO case, with appellee claiming that appellants were tenants holding over without a renewed lease, the circuit court held there was no leasehold agreement because the "marked-up" lease that appellants returned to appellee constituted a counter-offer. "The interpretation of a contract [including a lease], including the determination of whether a contract is ambiguous, is a question of law, which we review de novo." Ocean Petroleum, Co. v.
In the rent escrow case, the circuit court effectively dismissed the case, ruling that appellants did not present sufficient evidence to sustain their cause of action under the Rent Escrow Act or for damages for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or the warranty of habitability. Appellants do not take issue with the court's ruling, and we uphold that decision.
In United States v. Williams, 441 F.2d 637, 644 (5th Cir.1971), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit observed that it would not demand "jury consideration of an issue which is determinable by directed verdict." Moreover, "[t]he question whether evidence is sufficient for submission to a jury is procedural." Id. As was noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, when a trial court would have been required to direct a verdict on certain issues, "[t]here is no constitutional right to have twelve men [or women] sit idle and functionless in a jury-box." United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, 129 F.2d 678, 684 (2d Cir.1942). "Where the facts will allow but one conclusion or inference, a judge properly may remove the issue from the jury." Parfait v. Central Towing, Inc., 667 F.2d 1189, 1190 (5th Cir.1982); accord Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Timberland Pallet & Lumber Co., 195 F.3d 368, 375 (8th Cir.1999) (stating that district court did not disregard jury verdict, but instead decided questions of law); Jennings v. McCormick, 154 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir.1998) (error harmless if evidence could not have withstood motion for directed verdict); Burns v. Lawther, 53 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir.1995) (recognizing that harmless error analysis may be applied only where issues could have been disposed of on summary judgment or judgment as matter of law); In re Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), 724 F.2d 205, 206 n. 5 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (affirming pre-trial order striking jury trial because "no pivotal, genuinely debatable fact question exists in the case"); Cox v. C.H. Masland & Sons, Inc., 607 F.2d 138, 145 (5th Cir.1979) (denial of jury trial harmless error because suit would not have survived motion for directed verdict).
In sum, the circuit court ruled, first, that appellants were tenants holding over because a new lease had not been executed. "The legal relationship between landlord and tenant is governed by the contract between the parties . . . as well as any statutory authority." McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560, 574, 19 A.3d 927 (2011) (citing Delauter v. Shafer, 374 Md. 317, 822 A.2d 423 (2003), Village Green Mut. Homes v. Randolph, 361 Md. 179, 760 A.2d 716 (2000)). The court ruled that the parties had not reached an agreement that would support a finding of a continuation of the leasehold for an additional year.
Upon de novo review of the circuit court's entries of judgment, we discern no error and shall affirm. This disposition renders any error by the circuit court in striking the jury trial demands harmless.
The jurisdictional amount has since been increased to $15,000. See 2010 Laws of Maryland Chap. 480.
