Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the circuit court, Appellant, a law firm, filed a motion to intervene in the case of Julie Zorzit v. John Zorzit (Appellee), seeking to recover counsel fees that it earned while representing Julie. The circuit court denied Appellant's motion and entered a judgment of absolute divorce and for ancillary relief. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of certiorari to address the issue of whether the law firm had the right to intervene in the domestic relations case in order to recover counsel fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that because the circuit court was authorized by Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law 7-107(f) to enter judgment in favor of Appellant and against Appellee, Md. R. Civ. P. 2-214(a)(2) provided Appellant with the right to intervene in the domestic relations proceeding involving Appellee and Appellant's former client, the "nonmonied" spouse. View "Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP v. Zorzit" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner James Sweetney was convicted of robbery and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. At issue on appeal was whether Petitioner's constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the trial court curtailed Petitioner's cross-examination of the State's detective regarding the contents of a search warrant return that directly contradicted the detective's direct testimony about recovering a key piece of evidence. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing the cross-examination of the State's detective about ambiguous language in the out-of-court statement prepared by another law enforcement officer who did not testify at trial. View "Sweetney v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Erick Spencer was convicted of robbery, theft over $500, and second degree assault. On appeal, Spencer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his robbery conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed the robbery conviction, holding that the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime of robbery. Although the State in this case presented evidence showing that Spencer entered an automobile service center and stated to the cashier, "Don't say nothing," there was no evidence that Spencer conducted himself in a manner that could cause apprehension in a reasonable person that Spencer was about to apply force. Remanded. View "Spencer v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, trustee of two trusts owning several hundred ground rent leases, failed to register the trusts' ground leases with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) as required by the state's Ground Rent Registry Statute. Petitioner instead filed an action requesting a declaratory judgment that the Statute was unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting the SDAT from issuing extinguishment certificates regarding the trusts' ground leases as required by the Statute. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of SDAT and issued a declaratory judgment stating that the Statute was constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the extinguishment and transfer provisions of the Statute were unconstitutional under Maryland's Declaration of Rights and Constitution; and (2) the registration requirements were constitutional under federal and Maryland constitutional principles. Remanded. View "Muskin v. State Dep't of Assessments & Taxation" on Justia Law

In the circuit court, summary judgment was entered against Appellants, the Association of Unit Owners of Tomes Landing Condominiums and MRA Property Management, on the ground that they violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act when they provided misleading "resale certificates" to Appellees, persons who purchased units at the Tomes Landing Condominiums. The Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment, holding (1) Appellees were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the resale certificates at issue failed to comply with the requirements of the portion of the Maryland Condominium Act (Act) requiring a seller of a condominium unit to deliver to a buyer a statement of capital expenditures not reflected in the current operating budget; but (2) there was sufficient evidence to generate a jury question on the issue of whether Appellants knowingly violated their duty to comply with the Act's requirements that they furnish to Appellees a statement as to whether the council of unit owners had knowledge of any violation of health or building codes when preparing the resale certificates, and therefore, Appellees were entitled to a trial on the merits of this issue. View "MRA Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner Khiry Montay was convicted of first-degree felony murder and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Petitioner's confession, which was obtained when he was one month past his sixteenth birthday, should have been suppressed as involuntary for several reasons, including the fact that the police unnecessarily delayed presenting Petitioner to a district court commissioner in order to interrogate him and the fact that the police ignored thirteen requests by Petitioner to speak to his mother; and (2) Petitioner was entitled to a new trial at which the State was prohibited from introducing evidence of Petitioner's inculpatory statement. Remanded. View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law

In a guardianship proceeding, the juvenile court granted guardianship of Child to the Department of Social Services (DSS). Mother was deemed to have consented to the guardianship because neither she nor her appointed attorney filed a timely notice of objection on her behalf. The court of special appeals reversed. At issue on appeal was whether Mother had a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel despite her failure to file a timely notice of objection and request for counsel. Mother asserted that because DSS alleged that Mother was disabled, she had a right to counsel in the guardianship proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) once counsel for Mother had entered her appearance, at the request of DSS and after DSS alleged that Mother may have been disabled, Mother thereafter had a right to effective assistance of counsel as an allegedly disabled parent in a guardianship proceeding; (2) counsel rendered ineffective assistance because, after entering her appearance on behalf of Mother, counsel failed to preserve Mother's right to challenge the guardianship proceedings by failing to file a timely notice of objection; and (3) Mother was entitled to file a belated notice of objection. View "In re Adoption of Chaden M." on Justia Law

Petitioner Mark Denisyuk, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to a deportable offense. Petitioner later filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to notify him of the deportation risks of his guilty plea. The postconviction court held that Petitioner was prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to provide proper advice concerning immigration consequences. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that deportation was a collateral consequence of a criminal conviction and therefore did not fall within the scope of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel. Two days later, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that it is ineffective assistance to disadvise, or fail to advise, a client that deportation is a likely consequence of the guilty plea. On review, the Court of Appeals vacated the court of special appeals, holding (1) Padilla applies to postconviction claims arising from guilty pleas obtained after the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; and (2) in this case, defense counsel's failure to advise Petitioner of the deportation consequence of his guilty plea was constitutionally deficient, and counsel's deficient performance prejudiced Petitioner. Remanded for a new trial. View "Denisyuk v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Megan Cathey was a developmentally disabled adult who, pursuant to a court order, lived with her mother in New Jersey for two weeks a month and with her father in Maryland for the remaining two weeks. Petitioner's father applied for Developmental Disability Administration (DDA) services, but the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene determined that Petitioner's interstate custody did not give her the requisite Maryland residency to qualify for such services. The Department's board of review affirmed, and the circuit court upheld the board's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) for the purposes of developmental disabilities law, Petitioner was a "resident" of Maryland during the time she spent with her father in Maryland; (2) as such, Petitioner was eligible for DDA services during the time she lived with her father in Maryland; and (3) the concept of "residence" as presented in the relevant portion of the Code of Maryland Regulations was not exacting as the legal concept of "domicile." Remanded. View "Cathey v. Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an unlicensed subcontractor, filed a complaint against Defendants, licensed contractors, alleging that it was entitled to a judgment in the amount that Defendants agreed to pay for home improvement work that Plaintiff performed as a subcontractor for Defendants. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding that contracts made by unlicensed home improvement contractors or subcontractors were illegal. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the complaint, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law, which regulates contracts between contractors and owners, did not bar Respondent from recovering on its subcontract with Petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Maryland Home Improvement Law did not render unenforceable a contract between a home improvement general contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor. View "Stalker Bros. v. Alcoa Concrete Masonry, Inc. " on Justia Law