Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

damages. Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden, 330 Md. 632, 661, 625 A.2d 959 (1993); see also Phillip
Morris Inc. v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689, 773, 752 A.2d 200, 246 (2000); Shabazz v. Bob Evans
Farms, Inc., 163 Md. App. 602, 639, 881 A.2d 1212, 1233-34 (2005). Clearly, the tender
in the present case was not an “award” as a result of a court approved settlement, 1 nor was
any judgment regarding the compensatory damages ever entered in favor of Mr. Frazier at
any time, by any court. 2 Each party agrees that Crystal Ford paid Ford Warranty an amount
of money sufficient to extend Mr. Frazier’s warranty to the date alleged to be the end date,
resulting in Ford sending Mr. Frazier a check for the costs of his car repair except for the
agreed-upon deductible. At the motions’ hearing in this case, Mr. Frazier’s attorney
conceded that the tender represented all of the compensatory damages sought:
THE COURT: What damages is your client alleging at the
present time? Because my understanding is that he has been,
everything that he asked for in the complaint, other than
attorneys’ fees, have been addressed, because he received his
extended warranty, the repair bill that he had incurred when he
didn’t have the extended warranty coverage was paid, minus the
$100 deductible.
1
Crystal Ford relies on Consolidated Construction Services, Inc. v. Simpson, 372
Md. 434, 813 A.2d 260 (2002) to support its argument that Mr. Frazier was not awarded
compensatory damages at trial as a result of its tender. In Consolidated Construction
Services, we were confronted with an attorney who purported to have an attorneys’ lien on
settlement funds held in an escrow account. We held that the plain meaning of the statutory
language, at the relevant time, of “a judgment or award that a client receives as a result of
legal services that the attorney at law performs,” did not include settlement funds as property
to which an attorneys’ lien could attach.
2
The effect of reducing a tender to judgment is explored in ABN Amro
Verzekeringen BV v. Geologistics Americas, Inc., 485 F.3d 85 (2nd Cir. 2007), and may be
an avenue to avoid the consequence of mootness.
6