Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 19, 2014No. 64/13Published

1ConcurrenceWatts, J.

Respectfully, I concur in the judgment in both cases, Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, and Townsend v. Midland Funding, but I write separately to explain my reasons.

Like the Majority, I conclude that Rule 3-306 sets forth the requirements for obtaining a judgment on affidavit, not the requirements for prevailing at a trial. Upon the filing of a timely notice of intention to defend pursuant to Rule 3-306(e)(1), the case proceeds as any other small claims action, and, pursuant to Rule 3-701(f), the District Court would conduct the trial in an informal manner, and Title 5, the Rules of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc. v. ScherpenisseCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  3. Maryland Department of Human Resources v. Bo Peep Day NurseryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  4. Rhoads v. SommerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Archer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API