Thomas J. Curley Joseph H. Rouse Kenneth E. Calvin Sr. irregular court procedures Annapolis Maryland

Thomas J. Curley, Judge /Joseph H. Rouse, Defendant’s Attorney / Defendant Kenneth E Cavin Sr./ District Court for Ann Arundel County Maryland. No. 291382   

 On 7/13 we took our car to Mr. Cavin’s repair shop. It broke down near Mr. Cavin’s shop while traveling from NY to Maryland. The car was left there for repairs at Dorsey Road in Hanover Maryland. After a few long distance calls to the shop the parties agreed on 7/16 that he would fix the car for $231.00. Mr. Cavin said it would be ready by 7/20. On 7/20 he said the car needed more repairs than he first thought and he suggested that we take it somewhere else. He said he was "trying to reach us”. He also said he wanted storage charges for the period that he had it. We refused to pay storage charges because it was brought there for repairs. On 7/22 Plaintiff’s son stopped at the station on the way back to NY. Mr. Cavin said he wanted storage charges up until that day before releasing the car. We considered this ridiculous and refused to pay storage. He knew we had to go back to NY without the car when these things happened. This required us to use a rented car.           

After complaining to Consumer Affairs Defendant eventually agreed to give back the car without storage charges if Plaintiff picked it up in 7 days. Plaintiff who was 77 years old and had health problems did not agree to make the trip and pick it up in 7 days. He could not easily make the trip and he thought that the situation was caused by Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff later called Defendant and said he was coming shortly. Defendant said he still had the car at this time. A few days later he called and told Defendant that he was now coming. Defendant then said he had disposed of the car. He wouldn’t say where the car was.   

Plaintiff then sued Defendant relying on the law of conversion and that Defendant knew that he was not abandoning the car. The conversion law said if someone wrongfully deprives someone of possession of their property he is liable for it’s value and possibly punitive damages. This happens at the time he first wrongfully takes possession. Later occurrences do not change this responsibility. After a trial Judge Thomas Curley found against Plaintiff and awarded Defendant storage charges up to the day of trial. This was more than 6 months after Defendant acknowledged that he no longer had the car and when it was on a dump.This was the first time Plaintiff ever had any judgment against him. When Judge Curley took the bench he sent several other cases to other judges and kept this one for himself. He did not call it until last when most everyone had left the courtroom. During the "trial” Plaintiff got the impression that the Judge and Defendant’s attorney had previously discussed the case from the way the attorney was looking at the Judge. As best Plaintiff recalls the Judge stated that the car was at the station a long time. This was before there was any testimony on the subject. He also asked if Plaintiff contacted the Defendant to tell him he wanted the car during this time-which he did. Both of these items were in the complaint so he must have gotten this information from somewhere else. It seems the Defendant had gotten the car back from the dump after suit was filed. Plaintiff did not know this until Defendant testified at the "trial”. His attorney Mr. Rouse did not see fit to tell Plaintiff this. Plaintiff would have just taken the car back and it wouldn’t have gone to trial. 

After the ”trial” the Judge left the bench and Defendant was sitting alone outside the courtroom. Plaintiff assumed his attorney Mr. Rouse was talking to the Judge in his chambers. Plaintiff’s son who was a witness in the case and is also an attorney asked Mr. Rouse when he came out if he could move the car to avoid further storage charges. Upon being asked this question Mr. Rouse stated, "I think your both a couple of jerks. I think your a disgrace to the legal profession. If you want to talk to me write me a letter.” Mr. Rouse’s client was there during this discussion. We did not know the reason for this outburst since they had won the case in a manner of speaking. The only possibility that came to mind was that Mr. Rouse fell into the two categories that he described.   

The next day Plaintiff learned from examining the case file that the countersuit upon which a judgment was entered was never filed. It was rejected by the clerk for non payment of fees among other things and was never refiled by Mr. Rouse.                                                                                 

 At the suggestion of court personnel Plaintiff called Judge Curley’s attention to this in a motion to set aside the judgment because the claim was never filed. Judge Curley denied the motion allowing a judgment on a suit that was never filed.