Long Running Tudor Hall Farm Property Fight Continues After Appeal Dismissed

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland’s Appellate Court on March 5, 2026 dismissed an appeal tied to a long-running dispute over Tudor Hall Farm in St. Mary’s County, ruling that the case cannot proceed until the lower court finishes resolving competing claims to disputed funds.

The appeal was filed by investor Eun O. Kim and several others after a Jan. 31, 2024 ruling by the Circuit Court ordered money connected to the dispute over Parcel K at Tudor Hall Farm to be placed into the court’s registry through a legal process known as interpleader.

The dispute traces back to a mid-2000s investment effort to purchase and develop portions of Tudor Hall Farm, a roughly 141-acre property. Investors were recruited through a development group known as Sunchase Capital Partners XI, which raised millions of dollars to finance the project before it later collapsed amid loan defaults, foreclosure proceedings and bankruptcy filings.

Parcel K–Tudor Hall Farm, LLC filed the current lawsuit in June 2022 seeking clarification of how much money remained owed to investors who held a subordinated deed of trust tied to the property. The company asked the court to allow the funds to be deposited with the court while claimants determine how the money should be divided.

After the circuit court granted the request, Kim and the other investors filed an appeal.

But the Appellate Court of Maryland ruled the case cannot be appealed yet because the dispute over who is entitled to the money has not been resolved.

“The order appealed from is not a final judgment, this appeal is premature, and we dismiss it,” Judge Robert N. Nazarian wrote for the court.

Court records show proceedings in the lower court were paused while the appeal was pending, leaving the competing claims unresolved.

The appellate court said any legal challenges to the interpleader process can be raised after the circuit court completes the case and enters a final judgment. The court did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.

The appellants were ordered to pay court costs.

---