State v. Rendelman
947 A.2d 546, 2008 Md. LEXIS 256, 404 Md. 500 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A threat to initiate civil litigation, regardless of the claim's merit or the threatener's good faith, does not constitute a 'wrongful threat of economic injury' and therefore cannot be the basis for a criminal extortion conviction under Maryland law.
Facts:
- From 1981 to 1984, Scott L. Rendelman worked as a bookkeeper for William Elmhirst's company, Solarquest.
- In 1984, it was discovered that Rendelman had embezzled $246,000 from Solarquest.
- Elmhirst reported the theft, which led to Rendelman's 1986 criminal conviction for 15 counts of theft and a subsequent prison sentence.
- After being released from custody and completing his probation, Rendelman sent a letter to Elmhirst on December 22, 2004.
- In the letter, Rendelman accused Elmhirst of stealing approximately $22,000 from him twenty years prior.
- Rendelman demanded a $100,000 settlement from Elmhirst.
- Rendelman stated that if Elmhirst did not pay, he would sue him, file liens on his property, have the sheriff seize his assets, and make his remaining years miserable.
- Elmhirst never received the letter because he had moved, but his attorney, Kevin Fay, received a copy and reported it to law enforcement.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott L. Rendelman was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a state trial court, of one count of extortion and one count of extortion by written threat.
- Rendelman, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that a threat of litigation, even if in bad faith, is not a 'wrongful means' under the extortion statute.
- The State of Maryland, as petitioner, successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, to review the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a threat to file a civil lawsuit, even if meritless and made in bad faith, constitute a 'wrongful threat of economic injury' sufficient to support a conviction for extortion under Maryland law?
Opinions:
Majority - Greene, J.
No, a threat to file a civil lawsuit, even if meritless, does not constitute a wrongful threat of economic injury for the purposes of Maryland's extortion statutes. The court's reasoning is that the term 'wrongful' in the extortion statute means 'unlawful' or 'contrary to law.' Under Maryland law, the act of initiating a civil lawsuit, even a frivolous or meritless one, is not an unlawful or criminal act. While civil remedies like sanctions or torts for malicious prosecution exist to deter such conduct, the underlying act itself is not a crime. Therefore, a threat to do something that is not itself unlawful cannot be a 'wrongful' threat sufficient to sustain a criminal extortion conviction. The court emphasizes a public policy of encouraging parties to resolve disputes through the judicial system, and criminalizing threats of litigation would stifle access to courts. This interpretation aligns with the majority of federal circuits that have interpreted the similar federal Hobbs Act.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Maryland that threats of civil litigation are categorically excluded from the scope of criminal extortion statutes. It clarifies that the 'wrongfulness' element of extortion pertains to the legality of the threatened means, not the legitimacy of the ultimate goal. By distinguishing between unlawful acts (which can be extortionate) and lawful but disfavored acts like filing frivolous lawsuits (which are addressed by civil remedies), the court protects the civil litigation process from the chilling effect of potential criminal prosecution. This precedent significantly narrows the application of extortion laws in the context of legal disputes, requiring prosecutors to prove a threat of an independently unlawful act rather than just a threat of a costly, albeit legal, process.
