Opinion
595-2020
06-04-2021
SHIRLEY ANNETTE HIRSHAUER v. WANDA CLEMONS, et al.
Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County Case No. 17-C-06-011769
Nazarian, Arthur, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
OPINION [*]
PER CURIAM
Shirley Hirshauer, appellant, appeals from an order issued by the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County denying her "Motion to Strike All Docketed Entries After 2009 When the Cases Were Closed and All Documents in 2006 as They Were Ex Parte and Without the Court Having Jurisdiction" ("motion to strike"). The motion to strike was filed in a fraudulent conveyance action that was brought by appellees in 2006. In the motion, Ms. Hirshauer requested the court to "strike all docketed entries [in the fraudulent conveyance case] after 2009" because "the judgment on the docket on July 27, 2008 was a violation by [the court] of federal bankruptcy law and was ordered void . . . in [her] involuntary bankruptcy case." She also asked the court to "reject and delete from the docket the actions in August 2006" because, she claimed, appellees had failed to provide proof of service.
Appellees in this case are Terry Brumwell, Wanda Clemons, Michael Gray, Wayne Gray, Alice Hall, Christine Laumann, Elizabeth O'Shea, and Patricia Plews.
On appeal, Ms. Hirshauser raises the same claims that she raised in her motion to strike. However, we have previously addressed those contentions on appeal and held that they lack merit. See Gerben, et al. v. Clemons, et al., Nos. 2684-88, Sept. Term 2011 (filed April 9, 2013) and Hirshauer v. AQ Holdings, LLC, No. 2490, Sept. Term 2016, and No. 1221, Sept. Term 2017 (filed December 7, 2018). Consequently, they are barred by the law of the case doctrine. See Baltimore County v. Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4, 220 Md.App. 596, 659 (2014) (noting that "neither the questions decided [by the appellate courts] nor the ones that could have been raised and decided are available to be raised in a subsequent appeal" (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
In her brief, Ms. Hirshauer also challenges the validity of other orders that have previously been entered in this case, as well as orders that were issued by the Circuit Court for Kent County in another case. But those issues were not raised in her motion to strike. Therefore, they are not properly before this Court. See Maryland Rule 8-131(a).
Finally, appellees contend that the issues raised by Ms. Hirshauer have "no foundation in law or in fact" and therefore, that sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and costs are appropriate to deter her from "repeatedly fil[ing] papers contesting what has already been decided." However, a party who seeks an award of attorney's fees incurred in connection with an appeal must file a motion for such fees in the circuit court. See Maryland Rule 2-706. Consequently, we shall deny appellee's motion without reaching the merits.
MOTION FOR AWARD OF SANCTIONS DENIED. JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
[*]This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.