Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing

44 Citing cases

  1. Dancing Marlboro, LLC v. Council, Baradel, Kosmerl & Nolan, P.A.

    No. 1686 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 7, 2021)

    "The requirement that a party appeal from only a final judgment is a jurisdictional requirement." Balt. Home All., LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md. App. 375, 381 (2014) (citing Waters v. Whiting, 113 Md. App. 464, 470 (1997)). "Whether a judgment is final, and thus whether this Court has jurisdiction to review that judgment, is a question of law to be reviewed de novo."

  2. Huertas v. Ward

    248 Md. App. 187 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020)   Cited 67 times
    In Huertas v. Ward, 248 Md. App. 187, 207, 241 A.3d 1 (2020), we noted that "a request to stay a foreclosure sale, i.e., to prohibit parties from selling a property, was a request for an injunction.

    An interlocutory order, i.e. any order that is not a final judgment, ordinarily is not appealable. See, e.g. , Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing , 218 Md. App. 375, 383, 97 A.3d 220 (2014). The purpose of requiring parties to await final judgment before taking an appeal is to avoid "piecemeal appeals," which may result in disruption and inefficiency.

  3. WKW Partners, LLC v. Driscoll

    No. 232-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2021)

    Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md.App. 375, 381 (2014) ("The requirement that a party appeal from only a final judgment is a jurisdiction requirement." (citation omitted)).

  4. WKW Partners, LLC v. Driscoll

    No. 232-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2021)

    Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md.App. 375, 381 (2014) ("The requirement that a party appeal from only a final judgment is a jurisdiction requirement." (citation omitted)).

  5. Comfort v. Clarke

    No. 2148 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 21, 2019)

    See Balt. Home Alliance, LLC v.Geesing, 218 Md. App. 375, 383 & n.5, 97 A.3d 220 (2014); Md. Rule 14-305(e); see also Hughes v. Beltway Homes, Inc., 276 Md. 382, 384, 347 A.2d 837 (1975) (stating that an order ratifying a foreclosure sale is a judgment because it is an order of the court final in its nature). Moreover, if the court refers the matter to an auditor to state an account, as it may under Rule 14-305(f), it may not enter a final judgment until it has adjudicated any exceptions to the auditor's report.

  6. McLaughlin v. Ward

    240 Md. App. 76 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that "if the court refers the matter to an auditor to state an account . . . it may not enter a final judgment until it has adjudicated any exceptions to the auditor's report"

    In a foreclosure case, a court does not enter a final judgment at least until it has ratified the foreclosure sale. See Balt.Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing , 218 Md. App. 375, 383 & n.5, 97 A.3d 220 (2014) ; Md. Rule 14-305(e); see alsoHughes v. Beltway Homes, Inc. , 276 Md. 382, 384, 347 A.2d 837 (1975) (stating that an order ratifying a foreclosure sale is a judgment because it is an order of the court final in its nature). Moreover, if the court refers the matter to an auditor to state an account, as it may under Rule 14-305(f), it may not enter a final judgment until it has adjudicated any exceptions to the auditor's report.

  7. Dainty v. Dore

    No. 2230 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 20, 2017)

    In a foreclosure action, a court does not enter a final judgment at least until it has ratified the foreclosure sale. See Balt. Home All., LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md. App. 375, 383 & n.5 (2014); Md. Rule 14-305(e). Moreover, if the court refers the matter to an auditor to state an account, as it may under Rule 14-305(f), it will not enter a final judgment until it has adjudicated any exceptions to the auditor's report.

  8. Fasusi v. Brown

    No. 1236 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 23, 2015)

    Although neither party has raised this jurisdictional issue, we must address it, and may do so sua sponte. Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md. App. 375, 380 (2014) (citing Stuples v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, 119 Md. App. 221, 241 (1998)). The requirement that a party appeal only from a final judgment is jurisdictional.

  9. N. Star Props. v. Ward

    No. 840-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 22, 2021)

    "The requirement that a party appeal from only a final judgment is a jurisdictional requirement." Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md.App. 375, 381 (2014) (citation omitted). "Whether a judgment is final . . . is a question of law to be reviewed de novo."

  10. Rand v. Steinberg

    No. 28 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 31, 2018)

    The parties list numerous questions in their briefs, but before we address them, we must decide, as we did in the first appeal, whether the orders to which the parties object are appealable. If not, we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits. Baltimore Home Alliance, LLC v. Geesing, 218 Md. App. 375, 381 (2014). And before we begin the appealability analysis, we offer some background on charging orders and the parties' arguments.