Sign In
Upcoming Event
Free Newsletter
KATHERINE B. ROBINSON v. HARBOR BANK OF MARYLAND
//March 24, 2015
Appellant, Katherine Robinson, proceeding pro se, challenges an order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissing with prejudice appellant’s breach of contract claim against appellee, Harbor Bank of Maryland (“Harbor Bank”). In this appeal, Robinson raises three issues, which in her words are:
1. Harbor Bank breached the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust by refusing my payments, and my June 1997 payment.
2. The District Court failed to make changes to the Attorney’s fee, on the Trial Docket as the trial judge had made during the trial on the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts document. The attorney for the Plaintiff, David Daneman, advised the trial judge that his figures were different from those of Harbor Bank’s Loan Officer, Mr. Sidney Harris. The trial judge made the changes also the trial judge disallowed part of the Attorney’s fee. The Judgment entered was incorrect because of the Attorney’s fee wasn’t correct making the Judgment amount entered incorrect also.
3. The District Court failed to make changes to the Attorney’s fee on the Request for Garnishment on Wages documents, as the trial judge had made during the trial on the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts document. The attorney for the Plaintiff, David Daneman, advised the trial judge that his figures were different from those of Harbor Bank’s Loan Officer, Mr. Sidney Harris. The trial judge made the changes also the trial judge disallowed part of the Attorney’s fee. The Judgment entered by the District Court was incorrect because of the Attorney’s fee wasn’t correct making the Judgment entered incorrect also.
