r1r STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE - Maryland ...

REPORTER’S NOTE
Footnote 18 in Tierco v. Williams, 381 Md. 378, 400 (2004)
suggests that a “saving” provision for prematurely filed postjudgment
motions may not be necessary, because the courts have
treated the timeliness of post-judgment motions differently than
the timeliness of appeals. However, in the (unreported) case of
Black v. Black in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland,
No.30, September Term 2004, filed August 10, 2005, that Court
held that Rule 2-533 and Rule 2-534 motions filed after a
judgment was signed by the judge but two days before the judgment
was docketed did not stay the time for filing a notice of appeal,
and thus the notice of appeal filed 39 days after the judgment
was docketed was not timely filed. Amendments to Rules 2-532, 2-
533, 2-534, and 2-535 are proposed to provide greater uniformity
in the treatment of prematurely filed post-judgment motions by
adding to the four Rules “saving” provisions similar to the
“saving” provision set forth in Rule 8-602 (d).
-22-