Attorney George E Meng's Legal Cases

Litigation

Solis v. Schuenenman

Dec 05, 1996

OUTCOME: Plaintiff Won

In his exceptions to administration account filed by Mr. Solis, the personal representative of decedent's estate, who was also decedent's surviving spouse, Mr. Schueneman, decedent's son, contended th ... at personal representative should be charged with fair rental value of estate property in which personal representative had resided since decedent's death. The Orphans' Court, Prince George's County, C. Philip Nichols, J., found personal representative liable for portion of fair rental value. Personal representative appealed. The Circuit Court found personal representative liable, but for smaller amount. Personal representative appealed. The Court of Special Appeals, Alan M. Wilner, J., Specially Assigned, as a matter of apparent first impression, held that: (1) in absence of particular circumstances affecting situation, personal representative is accountable for use and occupation of his decedent's real estate; (2) personal representative was liable for fair rental value of estate property that he occupied during estate administration; and (3) personal representative was not entitled to reduction from fair rental value to allow for grace period in which to move that he likely would have received if he had moved upon decedent's death. Affirmed

Child custody

Lipiano v. Lipiano

Dec 05, 1991

OUTCOME: Affirmed on Appeal

Meng represented the biological mother and father in a proceeding wherein the husband of the biological mother sought to obtain custody of a child born while the two were living together and married. T ... he Circuit Court for Charles County, George W. Bowling, J., entered judgment in favor of biological mother and father, and mother's husband appealed. The Court of Special Appeals, Wilner, C.J., held that finding that there were no exceptional circumstances sufficient to overcome custody presumption favoring retaining custody of child in biological mother and father was supported by the evidence. Affirmed

Personal injury

Globe American v. Chung

May 10, 1991

OUTCOME: Plaintiff Won Through Appeal

At 11:30 p.m. on July 11, 1983, Bo Hyun Chung, the decedent, was operating his service station with his wife, Kum Ja Chung. Barbara Ann Orejuela drove into the station in a 1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. ... Ms. Orejuela filled her gasoline tank with $20.03 worth of gasoline. She then walked over to the cash register booth, told Kum Ja Chung that she had no money and offered the rings she was wearing as payment for the gasoline. Mrs. Chung referred her to the decedent. The two discussed the matter as they walked to the car, but no agreement was reached as to the form of payment. Suddenly, Ms. Orejuela drove away from the service station while the decedent was half leaning into the driver's side of the car. Mrs. Chung had remained in the cash register booth. Heedless of the decedent's cries to stop, Ms. Orejuela proceeded southbound on Maryland Route 355 while the decedent clung to the side of the car. At some point, the decedent was either thrown or fell clear of the automobile. He died sometime later after his admission to the hospital. Mr. Meng on behalf of the Personal Representative and also on behalf of the family brought a survival action and wrongful death claims. The insurance carrier paid $20,000 on the wrongful death claim. Mr. Meng argued he was entitled to another $20,000 on the survival claim. The Circuit Court judge agreed. The carrier appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which determined that wrongful death claims were not covered by uninsured mototrist coverages and the payment by the carrier on the wrongful death claim was gratuitous. The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeals which held the case 2 years after oral argument waiting for a companion case in which the Court could reverse the decision that UM coverage did not apply to wrongful death cases. They did reverse. However on the Chung claim, the Court of Appeals held that insurer could not appeal from a valid consent judgment entered into by both insured and insurer. Vacated and remanded with directions. So in the end, the Chung family got the second $20,000 - small consolation for the loss of a husband and father.

Alimony

Washabaugh v. Washabaugh

Jul 13, 1979

OUTCOME: Plaintiff Prevailed - The Long Way

Mrs. Washabaugh sued her husband for alimony. The Circuit Court granted alimony. The husband appealed using a constituional provision for an en banc appeal. The procedure then was for a panel of 3 Circ ... uit Court judges to hear the case. Meng argued that all judges of the Circuit should hear the case. The Motion was granted as to 14 of the then 15 judges. The chief judge reasoned that the 15th judge, being the one who heard the case, should not sit. However, ultimately the chief judge relented and the 15th judge sat. It turned out that he was the crucial tie breaking vote. The issue had ceased really to be one of alimony and turned into whether the en banc procedure was consitutional. The issue changed because one of the Circuit Court judges requested the parties to address the consitiutionality of the procedure. It made no sense for the Appellant's lawyer to argue that the procedure was unconstitutional as successfully doing so would have terminated his appeal. So it was left up to Meng. Meng argued that the procedure was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court decided on a vote of 8 to 7 that the procedure was unconstitutional. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was granted along with another case. The two appeals from judgments of the Circuit Court, sitting en banc, Prince George's County, dismissing appeals were argued at same sitting of the Court of Appeals following grant of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals prior to its hearing of the appeals. The Court of Appeals, Digges, J., held that fact that proliferation of courts and judges in Baltimore City would cause greater difficulty and inconvenience in coordinating en banc appeals in Baltimore City than in any other circuit provided â€œrational basisâ€ to constitutionally justify any exception of circuit court for Baltimore City from provision of Constitution establishing en banc appeal procedures in circuit courts. Characterizing the 15 judge court as a rump court, the Court of Appeals, vVacated and remanded to court en banc for consideration of points properly reserved. Back in the Circuit Court the 3 judge en banc panel affirmed the grant of the alimony. An interesting side note is that a lifelong friendship was developed between Mr. Meng and Mr. Washabaugh's attorney, Melvin Hirshman. Mr. Hirshman is now Bar Counsel for the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Mr. Meng is one of the 12 Commissioners for the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Litigation

Tri-County Federal S & L of Waldorf v. Lyle

Apr 05, 1977

OUTCOME: Plaintiff Won

Meng represented the Lyles in the Circuit Court, the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals. The Lyles brought suit against a Tri-County, seeking to recover usurious interest. The Circuit C ... ourt, Charles County, George W. Bowling, J., entered a judgment in favor of the Tri-County, and the Court of Special Appeals, 33 Md.App. 46, 363 A.2d 642, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. On grant of certiorari, the Court of Appeals, Singley, J., held that where the agreement for the loan of $60,000 called for immediate dispersal of $15,000 and the subsequent disbursal of the remaining $45,000 as building progressed, the lender placed $45,000 in a bank account which was not an escrow account, and the borrowers rescinded their decision to construct the building prior to dispersal of the $45,000, the lender's attempt to collect interest on the entire $60,000 constituted usury; the court further held that the lender's imposition of charges for a credit report and appraisal fee was not â€˜interestâ€™ and was not usurious. Judgment of Court of Special Appeals affirmed the case remanded.

Criminal defense

Redman v. State

May 09, 1975

OUTCOME: Convictions Reversed & Remanded For New Trial

Mr. Redman and Mr. Johnson were convicted before the Circuit Court, Charles County, James C. Mitchell, J., of grand larceny and possession of controlled paraphernalia, and they appealed separately. The ... Court of Special Appeals, Moylan, J., considered the appeals together and held that absence of defendants from portion of suppression hearing was reversible error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Litigation

Miles v. Hamilton

Oct 05, 1973

OUTCOME: Appellant Won Reversal

Appeal by Mr. Miles who was a defendant from orders of the Charles County Circuit Court, denying his motions to strike default judgment and to reconsider his motion raising a preliminary objection to j ... urisdiction. The Court of Appeals, held that where there was no evidence that service on defendant was prevented or resisted by threats, violence, intimidation or superior force, where defendant's residence, despite its signs, barbed wire and dogs, was not a â€˜fortress, or fortified place or building, or military post,â€™ and where it could not be said that the process server was unable to serve the summons without force or personal risk, placing the summons inside sliding screen of door of defendant's house did not effect service under statutory provision relating to service resisted by threats, violence or intimidation. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

George E Meng's Legal Cases (7)

Solis v. Schuenenman

Lipiano v. Lipiano

Globe American v. Chung

Washabaugh v. Washabaugh

Tri-County Federal S & L of Waldorf v. Lyle

Redman v. State

Miles v. Hamilton