ÿWPC  c( m<›#Ñ—_¨ïÊÕÈv®Áx µZ µûLðÝRüq/ûñ—Z’åX^ŠÙW œöÜð×4ÂU;UŒ~˜päc+¡ÑèÇz˜ÿyi²ð™b¸úÒÒHýY AÍÃSæ3ª§§Føà g¡žñΦ(~œ3êÝki=/¨œç_WMŒQÚRéšÊ>íVC´?TÉ[Ö^ùº¡ÑËôçiìÊÔö·(ÊÅÝiD…½÷}ÿ ˆŸ* ǧ*‹ÔÖ`¨˜NÛÃ_23a2ƒ„Aî- / ˜'ø;t·Üƒ"âÛò£Ìç¶)ªò&@éØB.É'D ÊHÄp7âê&æØuèœW`„t‚ØÁAâäõ¦•B{º´7©=ø“è}ÓS¦ä7îb%7ŸãáB:‹=ÇíP’ayäèIÐS:.AEd±×}>¦ßTIû¼Ï¨çäá-)`äMÙŠÜÅ#Üá@³*ÔSŸÁËÉrôVZñ…TôoH^%9ÊÍH¨£í¶:÷˜*—ÖqZ-'|¾Ÿd4xH[\úVº\…ÍÄ5ª`4jÒ±u†š“ÚÅ–Ù‡Äâ°£6÷WÞ“ ôOÛW ]FA’È©Âä}ïÝ1ôé"ŒNï~´Ý·ê‚Î7tZ(#!0UNQ %Ÿ 0@¥U Fåw@+4kŽ m§ 0„Å 0DIUFÓeæ UBç UN) U6w w w ­ UF½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ B˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(öæ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÓ  Ó<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular YZ[D\D]D^D_`ab«Mq)TÍ´â'¯qfœþ3|xb ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ $$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ݛԀXXXXÔÔ€ôh°õXXÔHicks€actually€filed€three€versions€of€the€complaint.€€We€refer€to€theÐ ° ÐAmended€Complaint€filed€on€August€27,€1999.(4(3$$¤¤Ý ƒöæ!ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó¥yL –AZ‹.Arial Black Regular Ý ƒ $$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ݛԀXR&XXXÔÔ€ôè€õXXR&ÔThe€language€quoted€from€the€supplemental€motion€also€suggests€that€theÐ ° Ðcourt€consider€the€negligible€effect€of€the€wrongdoing,€the€argument€being€thatÏHicksððs€misconduct€should€not€bar€his€suit€since€it€caused€no€harm€to€hisÏcreditors.€€As€discussed€below,€however,€the€unclean€hands€doctrine€protects€theÏjudicial€œprocess,›€not€people.€€òòSee€Schneider€v.€Schneideróó,€96€Md.€App.€296,€312,Ð xÈ Ð624€A.2d€1319€(1993),€òò¢revððd£€on€other€groundsóó,€335€Md.€500,€644€A.2d€510€(1994).€Ð 0€ ÐThe€misconductððs€effect€on€parties€or€interested€persons€is€therefore€irrelevant.<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹Courier New Ý ƒ $$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ݛԀXR&XXXÔÔ€ôè€õXXR&ÔThe€language€quoted€from€the€supplemental€motion€also€suggests€that€theÐ ° Ðcourt€consider€the€negligible€effect€of€the€wrongdoing,€the€argument€being€thatÏHicksððs€misconduct€should€not€bar€his€suit€since€it€caused€no€harm€to€hisÏcreditors.€€As€discussed€below,€however,€the€unclean€hands€doctrine€protects€theÏjudicial€process€not€people.€€òòSee€Schneider€v.€Schneideróó,€96€Md.€App.€296,€312,Ð xÈ Ð624€A.2d€1319€(1993),€òò¢revððd£€on€other€groundsóó,€335€Md.€500,€644€A.2d€510€(1994).€Ð 0€ ÐThe€misconductððs€effect€on€parties€or€interested€persons€is€therefore€irrelevant.<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular dÝ ƒöæ!ÝÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›Ñ8€îÿXXdðdð8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€X7XXXÔ¢HEADNOTE£:€ò òòòThomas€G.€Hicks€v.€Cindy€Gilbert,€et€al.ó óóó,€No.€2841,Ð ° ÐSeptember€Term€1999.Ìñañòòóóñañò òÌÌUNCLEAN€HANDS€DOCTRINE€„€SUMMARY€JUDGMENT€„€ó óAppellant€sued€appelleeÐ 4„ Ðto€recover€the€property€he€had€transferred€to€her€during€theirÏcohabiting€relationship.€€The€circuit€court€summarily€dismissed€theÏcase€because€appellant€admitted€in€his€trial€complaint€that€he€hadÏtransferred€the€property€to€prevent€his€creditors€from€reaching€it.€ÏIn€accordance€with€the€unclean€hands€doctrine,€the€court€did€notÏabuse€its€discretion€in€declining€to€hear€matters€stemming€fromÏthat€undisputed€material€fact€of€fraud.Ð  l   ÐÒÀ°ÒÑe°ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡X2XXXÒ"ÔÑ  ÑÌÌò òREPORTEDó óÐ @ ÐÌòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSÐ øH ÐÌOF€MARYLANDóóÐ ˆ Ø ÐÌNo.€2841ÌÌSeptember€Term,€1999ÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€G.€HICKSÌÌÌÌv.ÌÌÌÌÌCINDY€GILBERT,€et€al.ÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌÓ  Óà  àà p àSonner,Ìà  àà p àByrnes,Ìà  àà p àBishop,€John€J.,€Jr.,Ìà0  àà0p(#(#àà0Èp(#p(#àà0 È(#È(#àà È à(retired,€speciallyÏassigned)Ð  (# (# Ðà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àJJ.ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌà@/ôàOpinion€by€Sonner,€J.ˆÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌFiled:Ô#†XXXX²Zq#Ôñbñ€November€30,€œ2000ñbñ›Ð °,(3 ÐÐ  †-Ö(4 ÐÒ°ÀÒØØÓÓÓ  ÓÑ  Ñà  àIn€this€appeal,€we€consider€the€venerable€doctrine€of€uncleanÏhands€in€the€context€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€CircuitÏCourt€for€St.€Maryððs€County€summarily€dismissed€the€complaint€ofÏappellant,€Thomas€G.€Hicks,€against€appellees,€Cindy,€Aaron,€andÏSara€Gilbert,€pursuant€to€òò¢Manown£€v.€Adamsóó,€89€Md.€App.€503,€598Ð ` ° ÐA.2d€821€€(1991),€òò¢revððd£€on€other€grounds,€Adams€v.€¢Manown£óó,€328€Md.Ð  h  Ð463,€615€A.2d€611€(1992).€€Hicks€appealed,€and€we€affirm€becauseÏthe€trial€court€applied€the€correct€law€to€the€undisputed€fact€ofÏHicksððs€misconduct.Ìà  àWe€review€the€facts,€and€any€reasonable€inferences€that€can€beÏdrawn€from€them,€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€Hicks.€€òòBaltimore€GasÐ €Ð Ðand€Elec.€Co.€v.€Laneóó,€338€Md.€34,€43,€656€A.2d€307€(1995)òò;€BurwellÐ 8ˆ Ðv.€Easton€¢Memððl£€Hosp.óó,€83€Md.€App.€684,€687,€577€A.2d€394€(1990)Ð ð@ Ð(citing€òòLawless€v.€Merrickóó,€227€Md.€65,€70,€175€A.2d€27€(1961)).€Ð ¨ø ÐHicks€and€Cindy€Gilbert€were€¢cohabitating£€for€approximately€twelveÏyears.€€In€1989,€they€acquired,€as€joint€tenants,€a€parcel€of€realÏproperty€in€Golden€Beach,€Maryland.€€According€to€Hicks,€throughoutÏthe€course€of€the€relationship,€he€invested€ð ðfunds,€time€and€laborððÏinto€the€construction€of€a€home€on€the€property,€which€became€theÏcoupleððs€only€significant€asset.€€They€resided€there€until€theirÏseparation€in€1998.Ìà  àIn€1991„1992,€Hicks€ð ðaccumulated€significant€financialÏburdens.ðð€€Although€creditors€had€not€filed€suit€against€Hicks€orÏencumbered€the€property,€he€anticipated€they€might€do€so.€€He€andÏCindy€Gilbert€transferred€the€property€to€Cindy€Gilbert€and€herÐ -h(0 Ðparents,€Sara€and€Aaron€Gilbert.€€As€Hicks€explained€in€paragraphÏ13€of€his€trial€complaint,€ð ð[¢t]hat£€.€.€.€transfer€was€made€to€avoidÏany€attachment€of€the€property€for€the€debts€of€[Hicks]€which€hadÏnot€been€reduced€to€judgment.ðð€€Hicks€claims,€but€appellees€deny,Ïthat€the€¢Gilberts£€did€not€give€consideration€for€the€property€orÏpay€transfer€taxes.€€He€also€claims,€and€the€appellees€also€deny,Ïthat€the€parties€orally€agreed€to€compensate€Hicks€for€hisÏcontributions€and€investments€in€the€property€in€the€event€it€wasÏsold.Ìà  àAfter€the€transfer,€Hicks€restructured€his€debts€and€satisfiedÏhis€creditors€so€that€he€did€not€need€to€file€bankruptcy€and€wasÏnot€sued€for€debt€collection.€€He€continued€to€live€with€CindyÏGilbert€and€pay€expenses€for€the€property€until€1998,€when€theÏrelationship€ended.€€Hicks€then€approached€Cindy€Gilbert€forÏreimbursement€of€his€contributions€to€the€property.€€She€refused.€ÏOn€March€31,€1999,€Cindy€Gilbert€and€her€parents€transferred€theÏproperty€to€Michael€Gilbert,€Cindyððs€brother,€for€$50,000.Ì€à  àIn€August€1999,€Hicks€filed€a€complaint׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€against€the€¢Gilberts£Ð !l" Ðfor€(1)€unjust€enrichment;€(2)€promissory€estoppel;€(3)€notice€ofÏlis€pendens;€and€(4)€ð ðcomplaint€to€set€aside€real€estateÏconveyance.ðð€€He€sought€imposition€of€a€constructive€trust€on€theÏproperty,€compensatory€damages€in€the€amount€of€$150,000,Ïinvalidation€of€the€conveyance€to€Michael€Gilbert,€and€impositionÐ x)È$, Ðof€a€lien€upon€the€property€in€the€amount€of€the€judgment.€€TheÏ¢Gilberts£€denied€the€allegations€in€Hicksððs€complaint€regarding€hisÏcontributions€and€interests€in€the€property.€€They€admitted€theÏallegation€in€paragraph€13,€however,€that€Hicks€transferred€theÏproperty€to€protect€it€from€creditors.€€Ìà  àThe€¢Gilberts£€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€the€grounds€thatÏthe€parties€agreed€to€the€material€fact€of€the€furtive€motiveÏbehind€the€conveyance€and€that€the€unclean€hands€doctrine,€asÏexamined€in€òò¢Manown£óó,€precluded€him€from€seeking€redress€for€anyÐ `  Ðmatter€related€to€the€misconduct.€€In€his€initial€response€to€theÏsummary€judgment€motion,€Hicks€emphasized€that€when€the€propertyÏwas€conveyed,€it€was€not€the€subject€of€any€debt€proceeding.€€HeÏsuggested€the€conveyance€could€have€beenòò€óócompleted€for€estateÐ Ì Ðplanning€or€to€consolidate€assets€in€anticipation€of€the€financialÏburdens€of€litigation.€€The€wording€of€paragraph€13,€in€his€view,Ïdid€not€trigger,€necessarily,€the€unclean€hands€doctrine.Ìà  àIn€a€supplemental€response,€filed€two€weeks€later,€however,ÏHicks€adopted€a€new€strategy.òò€€óóCitingòò€Sherwood€Company€v.€SherwoodÐ 4!„" ÐDistilling€Companyóó,€177€Md.€455,€9€A.2d€842€(1939),€he€urged€theÐ ì"<$ Ðunclean€hands€doctrine€did€not€apply€because€he€paid€his€creditors.€ÏHe€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€as€in€òòSherwood€Coóó.,Ð ü'L#* Ðthe€Plaintiff€has€purged€the€allegedÏfraudulent€conveyance€of€his€property,€òòmadeÐ ®)þ$, Ðwith€the€admitted€intent€to€hinder€hisÏcreditorsóó,€by€paying€all€of€his€creditors.€€ByÐ f+¶&. Ðpaying€his€creditors,€the€plaintiff€hasÐ B,’'/ Ðcorrected€and€made€restitution€for€hisÏwrongful€act.€€Under€these€circumstances,€heÏis€not€barred€by€unclean€hands€from€seekingÏrelief€in€this€case.ÓßÓÐ ` x` x Ð(Emphasis€added.)€€Thus,€Hicks€turned€from€hypothetical€readings€ofÏparagraph€13€to€a€straight€forward€admission€of€wrongdoing.€€HeÏattempted€to€shift€the€courtððs€focus€from€the€impropriety€to€whatÏhe€did€following€the€impropriety.ñWñœ×ƒ×ñWññWñ׃×ñWñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€Ð â 2  Ðà  àThe€court€convened€a€hearing€on€December€27,€1999,€where€theÏfollowing€interchange€transpired€between€the€court€and€HicksððsÏattorney:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[THE€COURT]:€Are€you€saying€the€facts,€ifÏthis€went€to€trial,€would€show€that€his€intentÏfor€this€transfer€of€this€deed€to€thisÏgirlfriend€and€her€parents€was€not€to€preventÏlegitimate€business€people,€friends,Ïneighbors,€relatives€from€collecting€moniesÏthat€he€owed€them,€because€he€had€gotten€ridÏof€the€asset?Ð ` x` x ÐÓBÓÓÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAre€you€telling€me€the€facts€are€going€toÏshow€something€different€than€what€he€isÏbasically€saying€here?Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8 @ à*€*€*ÌÓ  ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[HICKSððS€ATTORNEY]:€I€canððt€show€ð"ð€I€amÏnot€about€to€stand€before€the€Court,€afterÏpracticing€for€12€years,€and€tell€the€CourtÏthat€my€allegations€in€the€complaint€are€goingÏto€be€any€different€than€what€they€say.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ  Ó*€*€*Ð  &p!( ÐÓû!ÓÌÓæÓÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTruthfully€he€says€I€have€got€financialÏburdens,€which€are€debts.€€No€one€is€suing€me.€ÏNo€one€is€attaching€anything.€€I€am€going€toÏset€it€away€from€their€reach€for€now€until€IÏresolve€the€problem.Ð ` x` x ÐÓH"ÓÓÓÌÓÓFollowing€the€hearing€and€review€of€the€pleadings,€the€court€issuedÏan€opinion€and€order€on€January€13,€2000,€granting€summary€judgmentÏin€favor€of€the€¢Gilberts£.Ìà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€when€there€is€no€genuineÏdispute€as€to€any€material€fact,€and€the€moving€party€is€entitledÏto€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Md.€Rule€2„501(a)€(2000).€€TheÏtrial€court€does€not€make€findings€of€fact,€but€determines€onlyÏwhether€a€real€factual€dispute€exists.€€òòBrown€v.€¢Dermer£óó,€357€Md.Ð >Ž Ð344,€354„55,€744€A.2d€47€(2000)€(citations€omitted);€òòCommercialÐ öF ÐUnion€Ins.€Co.€v.€¢Harleysville£€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€110€Md.€App.€45,Ð ®þ Ð51,€675€A.2d€1059€(1996)òò.€€óóWe€review€whether€the€grant€of€summaryÐ f¶ Ðjudgment€was€ð ðlegally€correct.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€357€Md.€at€355;€òò¢Joswick£€v.Ð n ÐChesapeake€Mobile€Homes,€Inc.óó,€130€Md.€App.€493,€498,€747€A.2d€214Ð Ö& Ð(2000)€(quoting€òò¢Harleysville£óó,€110€Md.€App.€at€51).€€Ð Ž Þ! Ðà  àHicksððs€reason€for€transferring€the€property€to€the€¢Gilberts£Ïwas,€for€purposes€of€the€summary€judgment€motion,€the€material€factÏin€this€case.€€The€trial€court€found€that€fact€revealed€andÏundisputed€in€paragraph€13€of€the€complaint,€where€Hicks€stated€theÏpurpose€of€the€conveyance€was€ð ðto€avoid€any€attachment€of€theÏproperty€for€the€debts€of€the€Plaintiff€which€had€not€been€reducedÏto€judgment.ðð€€The€court€did€not€make€that€factual€finding;€HicksÐ N,ž'/ Ðclearly€averred€it,€and€the€¢Gilberts£€clearly€admitted€it.€€Indeed,Ïhe€asserted€that€fact€again€in€his€supplemental€response€inÏopposition€to€the€Gilbertððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€in€whichÏhe€òòð ðóóadmitted€[the]€intent€[of€the€transfer€was]€to€hinder€hisÐ ´  Ðcreditors,ðð€and€at€the€hearing€on€the€summary€judgment€motion.€€¼à  àñ_ñEven€though€ñ_ñHicks€ñ`ñadmitted€the€purpose€behind€the€transfer,€heÏœñ`ñcites›€òò¢DiGrazia£€v.€County€Executive€for€Montgomery€County,€óó€288€Md.Ð Ä  Ð437,€418€A.2d€1191€(1980)ñYñ,ñYñ€for€the€proposition€that€summaryÏjudgment€is€inappropriate€when€there€is€a€question€of€motive€orÏintent.€€A€more€complete€recitation€of€that€proposition,€however,Ïis€that€ð ðsummary€judgment€generally€is€inappropriate€when€mattersÏð"ð€such€as€knowledge,€intent€or€motive€ð"ð€that€ordinarily€areÏreserved€for€resolution€by€the€fact„finder€are€essential€elementsÏof€the€plaintiffððs€case€or€the€defense.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€357€Md.€at€355;Ð „Ô Ðòòsee€alsoóó€òò¢Clea£€v.€Mayor€&€City€Council€of€Baltimoreóó,€312€Md.€662,Ð <Œ Ð677,€541€A.2d€1303€(1988).€€Hicksððs€misconduct€was€not€an€essentialÏelement€of€the€four€causes€of€action€enumerated€in€his€complaint,Ïalthough€it€was€basic€to€the€¢Gilberts£ðð€defense€of€unclean€hands.€Ïð ðWhile€the€unclean€hands€doctrine€may€involve€factual€questions,Ï[however],€it€is€the€[court€that]€must€determine€when€the€doctrineÏshould€be€invoked€to€bar€a€claim.ðð€€òò¢Manown£óó,€89€Md.€App.€at€513.€Ð P& !( ÐThus,€Hicksððs€reason€for€the€conveyance€was€not€the€kind€ofÏquestion€ð ðreserved€for€resolution€by€the€fact„finder,ðð€andÏtherefore€inappropriate€for€resolution€by€summary€judgment.€€òòBrownóó,Ð `+°&. Ð357€Md.€at€355.€Ìà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€the€¢Gilberts£€wereÏentitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€unclean€handsÏdoctrine€ð ðrefuses€recognition€and€relief€from€the€court€to€thoseÏguilty€of€unlawful€or€inequitable€conduct€pertaining€to€the€matterÏin€which€relief€is€sought.ðð€€òò¢Manown£óó,€89€Md.€App.€at€511.€€It€isÐ  \  Ðð ðnot€applied€for€the€protection€of€the€parties€nor€as€a€punishmentÏto€the€wrongdoer.ðð€€òòAdams€v.€¢Manown£óó,€328€Md.€463,€474„75,€615€A.2dÐ pÀ  Ð611€(1992).€€Rather,€it€protects€the€integrity€of€the€court€and€theÏjudicial€process€by€denying€relief€to€those€persons€ð ðwhose€veryÏpresence€before€a€court€is€the€result€of€some€fraud€or€inequity.ðð€Ïòò¢Manown£óó,€89€Md.€App.€at€511;€òòsee€also€Niner€v.€Hansonóó,€217€Md.€298,Ð ,| Ð309,€142€A.2d€798€(1958).€€€Ìà  àThere€must€be€a€nexus€between€the€misconduct€and€theÏtransaction,€because€ð ð[¢w]hat£€is€material€is€not€that€theÏplaintiffððs€hands€are€dirty,€but€that€he€dirties€them€in€acquiringÏthe€right€he€now€asserts.ðð€€òòAdamsóó,€328€Md.€at€476€(citing€D.€Dobbs,Ð ”ä  ÐòòRemediesóó€ðð€2.4€at€46€(1973));€òòsee€also€Schneider€v.€Schneideróó,€96Ð L!œ" ÐMd.€App.€296,€306,€624€A.2d€1319€(1993)€(ð ðIt€is€only€when€theÏplaintiffððs€improper€conduct€is€òòthe€source,€or€part€of€the€sourceóó,Ð °$ & Ðof€his€equitable€claim,€that€he€is€to€be€barred€because€of€thisÏconduct.ðð).€€Since€ð ðthe€doctrine€is€not€one€of€absolutes,ðð€weÏdisturb€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€invoke€the€doctrine€only€whenÏthe€court€abuses€its€discretion.€€òò¢Manown£óó,€89€Md.€App.€at€511.Ð l+¼&. Ðà  àHicks€does€not€challenge€the€nexus€between€the€misconduct€andÏthe€relief€he€sought€by€his€complaint.€€Instead,€he€distinguishesÐ \¬ Ðòò¢Manown£€óófrom€the€circumstances€of€this€case€and€criticizes€the€trialÐ X Ðcourt€for€ð ðreviewing€òò¢Manown£€óóin€isolationðð€of€earlier€precedent.€òòÐ À  ÐóóThe€plaintiff€in€òò¢Manown£€óówas€involved€in€an€extramaritalÐ x È Ðrelationship€while€he€was€separated€from€his€wife.€€During€theÏcourse€of€the€relationship,€he€transferred€assets€to€hisÏgirlfriend,€with€whom€he€shared€a€home€and€a€business.€€He€did€notÏdisclose€these€assets€to€his€wife€in€the€divorce€action€thatÏensued,€nor€did€he€disclose€the€assets€to€the€bankruptcy€court€whenÏhe€filed€for€bankruptcy€soon€after€the€divorce.€€The€relationshipÏended,€and€the€plaintiff€sued€his€former€girlfriend€to€recover€theÏfunds€he€had€transferred€to€her.€€The€girlfriend€moved€for€summaryÏjudgment€based€on€the€unclean€hands€doctrine.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€motion,€but€we€reversed.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€thenÏaffirmed€our€analysis€of€the€unclean€hands€doctrine,€but€reversedÏon€the€ground€that€the€real€party€in€interest€was€not€joined€in€theÏsuit.Ìà  àHicks€distinguishes€òò¢Manown£óó€because€the€plaintiff€in€that€caseÐ ì"<$ Ðð ðactually€filed€bankruptcy€to€avoid€his€debts€and€creditorsðð€andÏthe€ð ðevidence€that€the€Plaintiff€acted€in€a€fraudulent€mannerÏseemed€overwhelming€because€clearly€he€was€under€no€illusion€as€toÏthe€nature€of€his€conduct.ðð€€Essentially,€Hicks€argues€that€hisÏconduct€was€not€as€bad€or€as€blatant€as€the€plaintiffððs€conduct€inÐ T+¤&. Ðòò¢Manown£.óó€€To€his€credit,€that€appears€to€be€true,€but€the€trialÐ ° Ðjudge€was€still€entitled€to€find€Hicksððs€behavior€bad€enough€toÏinvoke€the€unclean€hands€doctrine.Ìà  àAs€he€did€before€the€trial€court,€Hicks€also€refers€us€toÏòòSherwood€Company€v.€Sherwood€Distilling€Companyóó,€177€Md.€455,€9Ð l ¼ ÐA.2d€842€(1939).€€That€case€involved€a€trademark€dispute.€€TheÏdefendant€attempted€to€bar€plaintiffððs€claim€because€plaintiffððsÏwhiskey€products€bore€a€misleading€label€for€a€period€of€time.€ÏFollowing€a€change€in€the€law,€however,€plaintiff€promptly€modifiedÏthe€label.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€declined€to€invoke€the€uncleanÏhands€maxim€since€plaintiff€purged€the€impropriety.€€The€maximÌÓg:Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àhas€nothing€to€do€with€retribution€orÏpunishment,€or€with€disapproval€of€theÏcharacter€or€past€behavior€of€the€applicant,Ïbut€only€with€the€effect€of€his€presentÏapplication.€€Consequently,€when€there€hasÏbeen€a€question€of€the€propriety€of€conduct€ofÏan€applicant€in€the€past,€but€the€applicantÏhas€corrected€any€alleged€mistake€and€compliedÏwith€the€suggestions€of€the€Court,€hisÏimpropriety€should€be€considered€as€closed€andÏshould€not€debar€him€from€relief.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓ AÓòòId.óó€at€465;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòNiner€v.€Hansonóó,€217€Md.€298,€309,€142€A.2dÐ 4!„" Ð798€(1958)€(ð ðHence€an€impropriety€that€has€been€purged€is€not€aÏbar.ðð).€òò€Sherwoodóó€merely€confirms€the€central€purpose€of€theÐ ˜$è& Ðunclean€hands€doctrine;€we€are€not€concerned€with€the€partyððsÏimpropriety,€but€with€cloaking€that€misconduct€in€legitimacy.€ÏWhere€the€impropriety€has€been€corrected,€or€where€it€is€unrelatedÏto€the€claim€before€the€court,€we€can€rest€assured€that€judicialÐ T+¤&. Ðresources€will€not€be€exerted€to€perpetuate€fraud€or€inequity.€€Ìà  àIn€this€case,€the€conveyance€formed€the€basis€of€HicksððsÏclaim.€€If€the€court€allowed€the€claim€to€go€forward,€it€would€hearÏtestimony€about€the€conveyance€and€could€easily€become€embroiled€inÏthe€sordid€details€of€the€furtive€plan.€€Thus,€even€if€HicksÏultimately€paid€his€creditors,€without€the€major€asset€of€the€home,Ïthe€ð ðeffect€of€his€present€application,ðð€òòSherwoodóó,€177€Md.€at€465,Ð ¸  Ðwas€to€entangle€the€court€in€impropriety.ñañ€€It€was€certainly€withinÏthe€trial€judgeððs€discretion€to€avoid€that€scenario.ñañÌò òÓ  ÓÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJUDGMENT€AFFIRMED;Ð l  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAPPELLANT€TO€PAY€COSTSó ó.ñZñÐ P ÐÐ  ä4 ÐòòñZññ\ñÔ‡X°ƒ XXXR&Ôñ\ññ]ñÔ‡¼Pü»XXR&Ôñ]ññ[ñÐ P ÐÑ  Ññ[ññ^ñÐ P ÐÓ  Óñ^ññZñANDREW€L.€SONNERóóñZññ\ñÔ#†¼Pü» »¼€à#J#Ôñ\ññZñÔ‡¼õw»»¼PüÔò òñZññ]ñÔ#†XR&X»¼PüJ#Ôñ]ññZñÐ ° ÐASSOCIATE€JUDGEÌ50€Maryland€Avenue,€Room€#302ÌRockville,€Maryland€€20850Ì(240)€777„9320ÌÌÌó óÔ ƒÝ ÔNovember€27,€2000Ô!  ÔÐ ª ú ÐñZññ^ñÓqJÓñ^ññZñÌÌÔ#†XR&XXXzñºJ#ÔÔ‡XzñXXXR&ÔHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.Ð  R  Ѐ€Chief€JudgeÌHon.€Charles€E.€Moylan,€Jr.ÌHon.€Arrie€W.€DavisÌHon.€Ellen€L.€HollanderÌHon.€James€P.€SalmonÌHon.€James€R.€EylerÌHon.€James€A.€Kenney,€IIIÔ#†XR&XXXzñåK#ÔÔ‡XÅ6XXXR&ÔÐ zÊ  ÐÔ#†XR&XXXÅ6îL#ÔÔ‡XzñXXXR&ÔHon.€Deborah€S.€ByrnesÐ B’ ÐHon.€Sally€D.€AdkinsÌHon.€Peter€B.€¢Krauser£Ô#†XR&XXXzñEM#ÔÔ‡XzñXXXR&ÔÐ Ò" ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àRe:à0  àò òòòHicks€v.€Gilbertóóó óÐ*z(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àNo.€2841Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àSeptember€Term,€1999Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à(Argued€October€5,€2000)ÌÌDear€Judges:ÌÌà  àAt€the€suggestion€of€Judge€Byrnes,€I€am€submitting€thisÏopinion€for€reporting€in€the€above„captioned€case.€€Kindly€let€meÏhave€the€benefit€of€any€suggestions€that€you€may€have€in€time€forÏtheir€consideration€before€the€November€conference.Ô#†XR&XXXzñÞM#ÔÔ‡XzñXXXR&ÔÐ üL! ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àSincerely,ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€Ô#†XR&XXXzñvP#Ôòòò òÔ‡¼Pü»XXR&ÔÔ‡¼Pü»»¼PüÔAndyÔ#†¼Pü»»¼Pü“Q#ÔÔ#†XR&X»¼PütQ#Ôó óóóÐ ä"4& ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àANDREW€L.€SONNERÌÌEnclosureÌÌcc€Honorable€John€J.€Bishop,€Jr.Ì€€€Honorable€William€W.€WennerÌ€€€Honorable€Raymond€G.€Thieme,€Jr.ÌÌNote€to€Judges€Byrnes€and€Bishop:€This€opinion€is€the€same€oneÏyou€approved€as€panel€members.ñZñ