One week before the sale, Chicago Title Insurance Company, for its own use and for the use of Aegis Funding Corporation ("the Title Co."), filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County ("the Court"), against both Mary B. and Mr. Petr. The Title Co. sought to enjoin the Sheriff’s Sale and to obtain a judgment declaring that its lien against the Property took priority over Mary B.’s judgment. The Title Co. alleged that it held a deed of trust against the property securing a loan for $150,000 made to Mr. Petr. The deed of trust for the loan had been signed on July 15, 2005; however, it was not recorded in the Land Records of Baltimore County ("Land Records"), as required by Maryland law, until two years later on October 9, 2007, after the Sheriff’s Sale was advertised.

Mary B. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that she had brought the civil lawsuit against Mr. Petr after examining the Land Records and determining that there was no debt owed against the Property. The Court granted Mary B.'s Motion for Summary Judgment finding that based on the undisputed material facts, Mary B.'s judgment took priority over the Title Co.'s deed of trust. The Title Co. appealed the Court's judgment, arguing that the Court erred in granting summary judgment for Mary B.

Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 3-201 ("the statute"), [t]he effective date of a deed is the date of delivery, and the date of delivery is presumed to be the date of the last acknowledgment, if any, or the date stated on the deed, whichever is later. Every deed, when recorded, takes effect from its effective date as against the grantor, his personal representatives, every purchaser with notice of the deed, and every creditor of the grantor with or without notice.

Although the deed of trust was not recorded until October 9, 2007, the Title Company argued that the plain language of the statute means that the deed of trust was effective on July 15, 2005, the date it was signed. Therefore, according to the Title Co., the deed of trust takes priority over Mary B.'s judgment. Mary B. argued that a judgment creditor who has become a lienholder against the Property, takes priority over the holder of an unrecorded deed of trust against the Property, even if the deed that was signed before the judgment was entered.

The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the Title Co. and held that a recorded deed of trust is effective against any creditor of the person who granted the deed of trust as of the date of delivery of the deed of trust, not the date recorded. The Court of Special Appeals further held that Mary B. was a creditor within the meaning of the statute, the statute did not distinguish between the various types of creditors; therefore, the deed of trust was effective against her regardless of whether she knew of it.