Makrodimitris, Pinelopi

English

bepress Legal Repository

Recent Developments: Falcinelli v. Cardascia: Procedural Error Caused Court to Uphold Jury Judgment Which Exceeded Amount of Damages Requested in the Complaint

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 26Number 2 Spring 1996 Article 131996Recent Developments: Falcinelli v. Cardascia:Procedural Error Caused Court to Uphold JuryJudgment Which Exceeded Amount of DamagesRequested in the ComplaintPinelopi MakrodimitrisFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, pleasecontact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationMakrodimitris, Pinelopi (1996) "Recent Developments: Falcinelli v. Cardascia: Procedural Error Caused Court to Uphold JuryJudgment Which Exceeded Amount of Damages Requested in the Complaint," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 26 : No. 2 ,Article 13.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol26/iss2/13Falcinelli v. Cardascia: PROCEDURAL ERROR CAUSED COURT TO UPHOLD JURY JUDGMENT WHICH EXCEEDED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT. 66- U. Balt.l.F./26.2 In Falcinelli v. Cardascia, 339 Md. 414, 663 A.2d 1256 (1995), the Court of Appeals of Maryland upheld a jury verdict which exceeded the amount of damages claimed in the ad damnum clause of the complaint. In doing so, the court considered factors such as when final judgment was entered, the scope of review, and the power of the circuit courts to enter judgment in an amount exceeding the ad damnum clause. In Falcinelli, the plain-tiff initiated a negligence action against defendant alleging per-sonal injuries suffered during an automobile accident. The plaintiff, April Cardascia, filed a single count complaint claim-ing damages of$100,000. The jury, through special interroga-tories, returned a verdict award-ing her $205,187.08. After commencing the action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, the jury returned the excessive verdict on February 24, 1994. On the same day the jury rendered its decision, the court clerk noted the verdict on the docket entry. At trial, no objection to the ver-dict was made prior to the re-lease of the jury. The defen-dant, Thomas Richard Falcinelli, within ten days of February 24, then filed three alternative motions. He moved for a judgment notwithstand-ing the verdict, for a new trial, or for a remittitur of at least $105,187.08. Cardascia filed a motion for leave to increase the ad damnum clause in her com-plaintto$205, 187.08. OnApril 29, 1994, the court denied de-fendant's motions and granted the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint. Thereafter, the defendant moved for reconsid-eration of his denied motions, which the court denied. Conse-quently, the defendant appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Appeals of Maryland subse-quently bypassed the interme-diate appellate court and sua sponte issued a writ of certiora-n. The court of appeals began its analysis by evaluat-ing the defendant's three main arguments. The defendant first argued that, historically, Mary-land common law has required plaintiffs to release the amount of jury verdicts in excess of the ad damnum clause. Falcinelli, 339 Md. at 419, 663 A.2d at 1258. Second, the defendant asserted that Maryland Rule 2-341 is silent as to a time limit for amending complaints in the circuit courts. Id. at 420, 663 A.2d at 1258. That silence, arguably, should not be inter-preted as allowing post-verdict amendments even when the court grants permission to do so. Id. In support of this asser-tion, the defendant referred to Md. Rule 8-604( c )(2) which he argued required a plaintiff to release any excess award. Id. at 420, 663 A.2d at 1259. Third, the defendant contended that appellate review in this matter was not limited to whether the trial judge abused his discre-tion in denying the motion for reconsideration. Instead, review should have been broad enough to include the error of the lower court when it authorized the post-verdict amendment to the ad damnum clause. Id at 421, 663 A.2d at 1259. In response, the plain-tiff countered with two oppos-ing perspectives. First, the plaintiff argued that Md. Rule 2-341 purposefully omitted a time limit governing when amendments could be made at the circuit court level. There-fore, her post-verdict amend-ment, which was granted with leave of court, was binding on the defendant. Id at 420, 663 A.2dat 1258. Second, the plain-tiff argued that the order for appeal in this matter should be limited to the narrow issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the de-fendant's motion for reconsid-eration. Id at 421,663 A.2d at 1259. After examining the ar-guments of both parties, the court turned its attention to re-solving the issue of when final judgment was entered. Id at 422,663 A.2dat 1259. Inmak-ing its determination, the court looked to Md. Rule 2-601(b), which states that "[t]he clerk shall enter a judgment by mak-ing a record of it . . . on a docket . . . and shall record the actual date of the entry." Id at 422, 663 A.2dat 1260. Accordingto the court, the language of the rule dictates that the date on the face of the docket determines when final judgment was en-tered. Id In the instant case, RECENT DE VEL OPMENTS final judgment was entered by the court clerk on February 24, 1994, 10 the amount of $205,187.08. Id at 422, 663 A.2d at 1259. The court further noted that the judgment of April 29, 1994, denying defendant's three motions, became "a final, appealable judgment in the full amount of the verdict." Id at 430,663 A.2d at 1263. N ext, the court focused its attention on whether or not the ad damnum clause should be treated as a limitation on recovery. Id at 423, 663 A.2d at 1260. The court of appeals recognized that Maryland case law has historically treated the ad damnum clause as a direct limitation on recovery. Id See, e.g., Scherv. Altomare, 278 Md. 440,365 A.2d 41 (1976) (plain-tiff's recovery cannot exceed amount claimed in addamnum); Finch v. Mishler, 100 Md. 458, 59 A. 1009 (1905) (plaintiff released $32 in order to bring the judgment in accordance with ad damnum); !i.arris v. Jafjray, 3 H. & J. 543 (1815)( as a matter oflaw defendant is entitled to a remittitur down to the ad damnum amount); In its analy-sis ofthe case law, however, the court was quick to note that although "a remittitur has been considered appropriate as to the excess of a verdict over the ad damnum [, it] does not demon-strate any substantive invalidi-ty in a judgment that includes that excess." Falcinelli; 339 Md. at 426,663 A.2d at 1261. Therefore, the court held that a jury's power to render its ver-dict and the circuit court's pow-er to enter the verdict as a judg-ment is not· inherently limited by the ad damnum amount. Id at 427, 663·A.2d at 1262. In affirming the lower court's decision to permit the plaintiff to increase the ad damnum amount, the Court of Appeals of Maryland did not deny that the trial court may have committed an error oflaw. Id at 429, 663 A.2d at 1263. Rather, the court simply recog-nized that the defendant did not file a timely appeal on the judg-ment of April 29, 1994. Id When the trial court rejected the defendant's contention that a verdict in an amount exceed-ing the ad damnum could not be upheld, the defendant should have appealed directly to the court of special appeals. In-stead, he simply submitted the motion for reconsideration to the· same court. Jd at 430, 663 A.2d at 1264. The court of appeals is not . required to recognize an error underlying a verdict which exceeds the ad damnum, thus, the only issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the de-fendant's motion for reconsid-eration. Id at 429,663 A.2d at 1 Z63. The court was unable to find that there had been an abuse of discretion because the defen-danthad not offered any evi-dence relating to the extent of dama~es or prejudice caused by the' excessive verdict. Id. at 430,663A2dat 1264. Further-more, the court noted that by reviewing the defendant's legal contention that a verdict cannot _______________________ 26.2 / U. Bait. L.F. - 67 exceed the ad damnum, it would, in effect, provide the defendant with an opportunity for a second appeal. Id at 431, 663 A.2d at 1264. Therefore, in the' interest of judicial econo-my, the court refused to follow that course of action. Id The facts in Falcinelli v. Cardascia did not require a review of the substantive law, therefore, the Court of Appeals of Maryland did not decide whether the law permitted a verdict in excess of the ad damnum clause. Rather, the decision turned on a procedural question. In rendering its deci-sion, the court effectively sets the stage for future discussions involving excessive jury ver-dicts ofthis nature. Moreover, this decision also alerts counsel to the underlying requirement that post-trial procedure needs to be strategically planned. -Pinelopi Makrodimitris The University of Baltimore School of Law Announces the Establishment of the: CENTER for INTERNATIONAL &. COMPARATIVE LAW The Center has been established as the only academic research center at the University of Baltimore School of Law. The Center's objective is to promote the study and understanding of international and comparative law, and of the political and economic institutions that support the international legal order. Programs and Activities include: Public Forums in International and Comparative Law Baltimore Colloquium on International and Comparative Law Lectures on International and Comparative Law Faculty Seminar Series Student Conversation Series Baltimore Studies in Nationalism and Internationalism Visiting Fellows Program For More Information Contact: 68 - U. Bait. L.F ./26.2 Professor Mortimer Sellers, Director Phone: (410) 837-4635 Fax: (410) 837-4560 

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1819&context=lf

Recent Developments: Falcinelli v. Cardascia: Procedural Error Caused Court to Uphold Jury Judgment Which Exceeded Amount of Damages Requested in the Complaint

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

University of Baltimore School of Law