IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
INSERT PLAINTIFF’S NAME §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. XXX
§
XXX HAQ §
Defendant. §
NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
You are hereby notified that on the ____ day of [Month], XXX, Defendant will bring on for
hearing his Motion to Vacate Judgment before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. It
will be based on the attached Motion as well as any oral arguments that may be presented during
the hearing.
Dated this ____ day of September, XXX
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
XXX,
Defendant in pro per
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR XXX CITY, XXX
INSERT PLAINTIFF’S NAME §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. XXX
§
XXX §
Defendant. §
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
NOW COMES XXX, Defendant, and filed this Motion to Vacate Judgment, and for
cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
1. This Motion is brought pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-535(b) which states in pertinent part
as follows: “Fraud, Mistake, Irregularity. On motion of any party filed at any time, the
court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment in case of fraud,
mistake, or irregularity.”
2. On [Insert Date], this Court entered judgment against Defendant, after which Plaintiff’s
counsel began the process of foreclosing on Defendant’s property.
3. However, Defendant had never been served with the petition for foreclosure of his
property. It was the role of Plaintiff and/or its counsel to ensure that Defendant was
served with the petition, which they did not do.
4. Defendant’s name is Fawad ul Haq. Service of the petition for foreclosure was effected
on a Mr. XXX. Defendant,XXXX, is a 74-year-old male adult who has
resided in Ontario, Canada for the last 20 years. On the other hand, XXX is a
40-year-old male adult residing in the State of Ohio.
5. Plaintiff’s service of the foreclosure petition on the wrong person amounts to an
irregularity in service.
6. After the 30 day revisory period has passed, a circuit court can vacate or revise an
enrolled judgment only upon a showing of fraud, mistake, irregularity, or the failure of
the court to perform a duty required by statute or rule. Md. Rule 2-353(b). The purpose of
the rule is to ensure the finality of judgments. See XXX).
7. The Maryland cases are legion that recognize the principle that there must be a definite
and foreseeable end to litigation, and that ordinarily judgments should not be vacated
after the passage of the 30-day review period. Fleisher v. Fleisher Co., 60 Md.App. 565,
568, 483 A.2d 1312 (1984).
8. Nonetheless, we also recognize that in exceptional cases, judgments may be vacated or
revised when specific criteria are met. Id. The rules of finality apply to all final
judgments, including those entered by default. See Das, supra, 133 Md.App. at 17-18,
754 A.2d 441, (citing Maggin v. Stevens, 266 Md. 14, 16, 291 A.2d 440 (1972)).
9. The terms "fraud," "mistake," and "irregularity," as applied in Md. Rule 2-535 and its
predecessor, Md. Rule 625(a), have been thoroughly defined by the opinions of this Court
and the Court of Appeals. "Fraud," "mistake," and "irregularity" are to be "narrowly
defined and strictly applied." See Autobahn Motors, Inc. v. Baltimore, 321 Md. 558, 562,
583 A.2d 731 (1991) (citing Andresen v. Andresen, 317 Md. 380, 389, 564 A.2d 399
(1989)) (quoting Platt v. Platt, 302 Md. 9, 485 A.2d 250 (1984)).
10. “Irregularity,” as provided for under this Rule, has a narrow judicial definition. Thacker
v. Hale, 146 Md. App. 203 (2002). The Court in Thacker defined “irregularity” as
follows: “An irregularity which will permit a court to exercise revisory powers over an
enrolled judgment has been consistently defined as the doing or not doing of that, in the
conduct of a suit at law, which, conformable to the practice of the court, ought or ought
not to be done[.] As a consequence, irregularity, in the contemplation of the Rule, usually
means irregularity of process or procedure, and not an error, which in legal parlance,
generally connotes a departure from truth or accuracy of which a defendant had notice
and could have challenged.”
11. It is only proper to vacate the judgment issued against Defendant on [Insert Date] as he
could not file a response to a pleading that he had not been served.
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to GRANT this Motion to Vacate the judgment issued on [Insert Date].
Dated this ____ day of September, XXX.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
XXX,
Defendant in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )