Schulman v. McDaniel, Bennett & Griffin , 275 F. App'x 243 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1293
WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
MCDANIEL, BENNETT & GRIFFIN; ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER,
LLC,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
KENNETH BLUM, SR.; DUDLEY F. B. HODGSON; WILLIAM SLAVIN;
CHRISTOPHER W. NICHOLSON; KENNETH BLUM, JR.,
Defendants,
MERRILL LYNCH & CO; MERCANTILE BANKSHARES CORPORATION; BANK
OF AMERICA; LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY M. GUNNING; HOWARD J.
SCHULMAN; SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, LLC; THOMAS & LIBOWITZ, PA;
MICHAEL S. LIBOWITZ; THOMAS M. GUNNING; LAW OFFICES OF
RICHARD M. KARCESKI; RICHARD M. KARCESKI; MERCANTILE
BANKSHARES CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Garnishees,
v.
ALYSON BOND,
Movant,
and
SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, LLC; HOWARD J. SCHULMAN,
Movants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(1:01-cv-02600-MJG)
Argued: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and C. Arlen BEAM,
Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Daniel Parmelee Doty, SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, L.L.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Michael Richard Severino,
ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: William F. Ryan, Jr., Amy E. Askew,
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee McDaniel, Bennett & Griffin; Andrew Radding, ADELBERG,
RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee
Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, L.L.C.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William Bond commenced this action for copyright infringement
against numerous individuals and their attorneys, including the
law firms of McDaniel, Bennett & Griffin (“McDaniel Bennett”) and
Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC (“Adelberg Rudow”) for using,
without authorization, Bond’s copyrighted book manuscript in a
state court custody proceeding. The district court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and we affirmed. See
Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2003). Thereafter, the
district court awarded expenses (including legal fees) in favor of
McDaniel Bennett in the approximate amount of $84,000 and in favor
of Adelberg Rudow in the amount of approximately $69,000.
McDaniel Bennett and Adelberg Rudow initiated garnishment
proceedings to collect the judgment entered in their favor, and
they served the garnishment on Bank of America, N.A., which is a
judgment debtor of Bond on a judgment obtained by him in a tort
action filed by Bond in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The
judgment amount is $31,249.26.
Howard Schulman, Bond’s attorney in the state court
proceeding against Bank of America, objected to the garnishment,
contending that he, as the attorney for Bond in the state court
proceeding, had an attorney’s lien against the state court
judgment that had precedence over the garnishment lien obtained by
McDaniel Bennett and Adelberg Rudow. See Md. Code Ann. Bus. Occ.
3
& Prof. § 10-501(c). Schulman claimed an attorney’s lien in the
amount of $15,898.26 for fees and costs incurred in obtaining the
state court judgment on behalf of Bond against Bank of America, as
well as $14,966.24 in fees that Bond’s attorney was owed from
earlier related litigation and which Schulman and Bond orally
agreed would be an additional fee in the suit against the bank.
By an order dated February 12, 2007, the district court
recognized Schulman’s attorney’s lien to the extent of $15,898.26,
but not to include the $14,966.24 sum, which the court concluded
was a preexisting indebtedness that did not enjoy the precedence
of a charging lien under the Maryland statute. Accordingly, the
court entered an order dated March 2, 2007, directing Bank of
America to pay, in respect of the $31,249.26 judgment in favor of
Bond, $15,898.26 to Schulman in satisfaction of the attorney’s
lien and the remainder to McDaniel Bennett and Adelberg Rudow in
satisfaction of their garnishment liens. Schulman filed this
appeal from that order, claiming a right to the $14,966.24 amount
as well.
After carefully reviewing the record and considering the
arguments of counsel, we affirm for the reasons given by the
4
district court in support of its order. See Bond v. Blum, No.
1:01-cv-02600-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2007).*
AFFIRMED
*
We deny Schulman’s motion to certify the issue in this case
to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
5