conceded, in its opposition to appellees’ summary judgment motion, that these facts were undisputed. The Verified Complaint, along with its attachments and signed verified statements described sivpra, was attached as an exhibit to appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Appellees further attached a copy of the deed of trust granted by Moriarty to appellant, the existence of which appellant never disputed. Appellees’ pleading, and the documentary support for the facts alleged therein, were part of the record and placed before the court the facts upon which appellees’ motion for summary judgment was based. Accordingly, appellees were not required to submit an additional affidavit supporting their motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Washington Homes, 281 Md. at 718-19, 382 A.2d 555 (<HOLDING>); Cf. Vanhook v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 22
holding that the facts as admitted through pleadings and documents placed before the court were sufficient to support a partys summary judgment motion holding that unverified pleadings and unauthenticated documents did not constitute proper summary judgment evidence holding that in determining motion to dismiss on basis of res judicata the court could take judicial notice of all of the documents which are part of the record before it as well as the documents contained in the record before the state court without having to convert the motion to one for summary judgment holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed holding that pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence