 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto v. Stoneberger8/28/2002
toward groceries, fuel, and electricity. When it was Candi's turn for her funds to be used, they had to be supplemented with monies from either Edward's or Mary's accounts.
Mary and Candi did the house cleaning, and sometimes Edward would help. Mary cooked the meals, and each took turns doing the grocery shopping with Ms. Hays's assistance.
Ms. Hays gave an estimate of the bills she paid for Edward, Mary, and Candi each month:
1) Fuel: $122.00
2) Telephone: $40.00
3) Cable: $30.00
4) Electric: $80.00-85.00
5) Water: $30.00
6) Groceries/Household Expenses: $600.00
In addition, on behalf of the three and out of common funds, she paid real estate taxes of $600 per year and fire insurance of $85 annually.
Total fixed monthly expenses were approximately $964. In addition to the fixed expenses, Edward, Mary, and Candi each had individual expenses for things like clothing, entertainment, medication, and hair cuts.
According to Ms. Hays, the deceased was "like a father-figure" to Candi; he took her for walks, bought her treats, etc.
IV. MOTIONS BY APPELLANT
Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion in limine and/or motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the wrongful death action brought by Mary Stoneberger, individually, and as parent of Candi Blessing. The motion asserted that Mary and Candi were not substantially dependent on Edward, because both were receiving social security disability benefits and were self-supporting. Therefore, appellant argued, they had "no standing" to bring a wrongful death action. The trial court denied the motions.
After plaintiffs' case-in-chief and again at the close of all evidence, appellant made motions for judgment on the wrongful death counts. Appellant contended that no evidence had been admitted showing that either Mary or Candi were substantially dependent on the deceased. Appellant also argued that social security law prohibits anyone from using disability benefits to support another, and therefore it would be impermissible to allow the jury to decide the dependency issue. The trial court denied the motion.
V. ANALYSIS
ISSUE 1: Whether Mary Stoneberger or Candi Blessing Were Substantially Dependent on Edward Stoneberger
Appellant phrases this issue in terms of whether the "trial court err in failing to grant ppellant's Motion in Limine and/or Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment on the Wrongful Death Counts."
The motion to dismiss challenged the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. On appeal, appellant does not argue that the plaintiffs' complaint was either technically or substantively defective.
The denial of a motion for summary judgment, at least in this case, cannot be the basis for a successful appeal because the trial judge had the discretion to deny the motion even if the affidavits and other sworn material would have adequately supported the grant of summary judgment. See Post v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142, 158 (1998) (citing Metropolitan Mortgage Fund, Inc. v. Basiliko, 288 Md. 25, 28 (1980)). (Ordinarily, a court "does possess discretion to refuse to pass upon, as well as discretion affirmatively to deny, a summary judgment request in favor of a full hearing on the merits this discretion exists even though the technical requirements for the entry of such a judgment have been met.")
A denial of a motion in limine to exclude evidence (such as the motion filed in this case) does not preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal. Rather, the par
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|