Lamb, Denise v. Bingham

*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis, nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.
Circuit Court for Charles County
Case No.: C-08-CV-24-000438
UNREPORTED*
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 393
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
DENISE LAMB, et al.
v.
CHARLES BINGHAM, et al.
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 16, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
In June 2024, appellant Denise Lamb and her husband 1 sued appellees Charles
Bingham and Affordable Excavating LLC (collectively, “Affordable Excavating”) in the
Circuit Court for Charles County, alleging claims related to drainage work that Affordable
Excavating performed at the Lambs’ home. Mr. Lamb had previously pursued the same
claims against Affordable Excavating arising from the same facts in the District Court of
Maryland, sitting in Charles County. Accordingly, Affordable Excavating moved for
summary judgment based on res judicata and for attorneys’ fees. After a hearing, the circuit
court granted both motions. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Ms. Lamb effectively presents three issues for our review. First, she
contends the circuit court erred in dismissing her claims against another defendant. The
Lambs’ complaint initially named James Karmel as a defendant, but he was dismissed
voluntarily after a hearing in December 2024. Although Mr. Lamb tried unsuccessfully to
undo Mr. Karmel’s dismissal, Ms. Lamb never objected to it. Mr. Lamb’s attempt to
unwind the voluntary dismissal was insufficient to preserve the issue for Ms. Lamb to raise
on appeal. See In re Nicole B., 410 Md. 33, 63 (2009) (“One spouse’s signature on a
pleading, legal document, contract, etc., which is intended by the signer to be on behalf of
both spouses, is not by itself sufficient to make the signing spouse an agent of the non-
signing spouse or to include the non-signing spouse.”). By failing to raise the issue herself,
or to make any objection to Mr. Karmel’s dismissal at any point, Ms. Lamb waived the
1 Mr. Lamb was initially also an appellant. His appeal was dismissed, however,
because he sought and obtained in banc review while this case was pending. See Md. Rule
2-551(h).

‒Unreported Opinion‒
2
issue on appeal. See Nalls v. State, 437 Md. 674, 691 (2014). See also Long v. State, 371
Md. 72, 86 (2002) (“Ordinarily, no appeal will lie from a consent judgment.”).
Second, 	Ms. 	Lamb 	contends 	the 	circuit 	court 	erred 	in 	granting 	Affordable
Excavating’s motion for summary judgment based on res judicata. As best we can tell, she
first argues that her claims were not fully litigated previously because there were
“unresolved” issues that she attempted to raise in an amended complaint while Mr. Lamb’s
earlier case was “on remand at the District Court[.]” See generally Facey v. Facey, 249
Md. App. 584, 608 (2021) (discussing the elements of res judicata). Once again, however,
she failed to raise this argument in the circuit court. Indeed, the argument Ms. Lamb now
raises directly contradicts her position at the hearing on Affordable Excavating’s motion
where she claimed she “knew nothing about the District Court case.” We therefore decline
to address this argument.
Ms. Lamb also argues that the court should not have relied upon the affidavit
supporting Affordable Excavating’s motion for summary judgment because it was not
based on personal knowledge. We note that she did not raise this issue until after the court
granted summary judgment, in her motion for reconsideration. 2 In any event, the facts
within the affidavit consisted of the procedural history of Mr. Lamb’s prior case, of which
the court could take judicial notice. See In re Nathaniel A., 160 Md. App. 581, 597–600
(2005). Even if it was technically deficient, Affordable Excavating’s motion and affidavit
successfully put the court on notice that res judicata was potentially applicable to the case.
2 Though Mr. Lamb did raise the issue at the hearing on Affordable Excavating’s
motion.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
3
So notified, the court was permitted to consider res judicata on its own initiative regardless
of the efficacy of Affordable Excavating’s motion. See Anne Arundel Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v.
Norville, 390 Md. 93, 105–06 (2005). Accordingly, the court did not err in considering the
affidavit supporting Affordable Excavating’s motion for summary judgment. And because
Ms. Lamb presents no other preserved arguments regarding this issue, we shall affirm the
circuit court’s granting of summary judgment. 3
Finally, Ms. Lamb contends that the court erred or abused its discretion in awarding
attorneys’ fees to Affordable Excavating under Maryland Rule 1-341. She first argues that
“[t]he court articulated no factual findings of misconduct, bad faith or lacking substantial
justification.” See Zdravkovich v. Bell Atlantic-Tricon Leasing, Corp., 323 Md. 200, 210
(1991) (explaining that, to award attorneys’ fees under Rule 1-341, the court must make
“an explicit finding that a claim or defense was in bad faith or without substantial
justification” accompanied by “some brief exposition of the facts upon which the finding
is based and an articulation of the particular finding involved” (cleaned up)). Not true.
3 In a separate section of her brief, Ms. Lamb also asserts generally that the court
“erred or abused its authority in failing to consider claims raised by motion in district court
as detailed in [her] Supplemented and Renewed Motion to Alter or Amend.” She presents
no argument, however, and simply cites to her motion in the record. It is a party’s
responsibility to present, in their principal brief, “[a]rgument in support of [their] position
on each issue.” Md. Rule 8-504(a)(6). “We cannot be expected to delve through the record
to unearth factual support favorable to [Ms. Lamb] and then seek out law to sustain [her]
position.” Van Meter v. State, 30 Md. App. 406, 408 (1976). See also Diallo v. State, 413
Md. 678, 692 (2010) (“Arguments not presented in a brief or not presented with
particularity will not be considered on appeal.” (cleaned up)). Thus, because Ms. Lamb has
presented 	no 	further 	argument 	that 	the 	court 	erred 	in 	denying 	her 	motion 	for
reconsideration, we do not further address the issue.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
4
The court found that the Lambs’ complaint was both without substantial justification
and brought in bad faith. As to the first prong, the court found the complaint was based on
the same underlying facts as Mr. Lamb’s prior suit and found that Ms. Lamb was “privy to
. . . what her husband knew.” This finding was sufficient to support the court’s
determination that the complaint lacked substantial justification because all of the Lambs’
claims were barred by res judicata and they had no reasonable basis to believe otherwise.
See Inlet Assocs. v. Harrison Inn Inlet, Inc., 324 Md. 254, 268 (1991) (explaining that a
claim lacks substantial justification if a party has no “reasonable basis for believing that
the claims would generate an issue of fact for the fact finder”).
As to the second prong, the court found that the Lambs left Ms. Lamb off of
Mr. Lamb’s prior suit but added her to the complaint here because they were trying to
“prolong the case.” Counsel for Affordable Excavating also read into the record a portion
of a transcript of the hearing at which the same judge had dismissed Mr. Lamb’s prior suit
(after it was appealed to the circuit court) in which the court found that Mr. Lamb was
“engaging in vexatious litigation” and warning him that that transcript was “going to be
[the court’s] Exhibit A when [it] say[s] why [Mr. Lamb is] acting in bad faith” should he
try to bring the same claims again. Either of these findings were sufficient to support the
court’s determination that the complaint was brought in bad faith. See id. (explaining that
“bad faith” means “vexatiously, for the purpose of harassment or unreasonable delay, or
for other improper reasons”). And nothing in the record suggests findings about the Lambs’
conduct 	were 	clearly 	erroneous. 	See 	Christian 	v. 	Maternal-Fetal 	Med. 	Assocs. 	of
Maryland, LLC, 459 Md. 1, 20 (2018).

‒Unreported Opinion‒
5
Ms. Lamb also argues that “the court made no determination that the particular
attorney’s fees imposed are reasonable[.]” Again, this is not true. The court’s order
expressly found that the fees were reasonable. Thus, the court did not err or abuse its
discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to Affordable Excavating, and we shall affirm its
judgment.
JUDGMENTS 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT FOR CHARLES COUNTY
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
APPELLANT.