Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, a minor and her mother, sued Defendants, owners of residential rental properties, for negligence and deceptive practices in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act after the minor suffered brain injuries allegedly resulting from her ingestion of lead-based paint at one of Defendants' properties. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they had complied with the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act by registering their property, and therefore, they were immune from suit under the immunity provisions of the Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants, holding (1) the Act's provisions granting immunity were constitutional, and (2) Defendants' registration renewals were timely because they were mailed on December 31. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they did not fully comply with the Act where the renewal of their registration was not received by December 31. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to reverse the circuit court, holding that the immunity provisions in the Act were invalid under the Maryland Declaration of Rights because no adequate remedy was substituted for the grant of immunity and the victim was uncompensated for her injuries. View "Jackson v. Dackman Co." on Justia Law

Debtor Maureen Roberson filed a petition under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging that Ford Motor Credit Company wrongfully repossessed her car in the wake of her prior Chapter 7 bankruptcy charge and seeking to recover damages from Ford. During the proceedings, Ford filed a motion for summary judgment. Before the court could rule on the motion, Roberson filed a motion seeking certification of the question of whether a secured creditor is permitted under Maryland law to repossess in a car in which it maintains a security interest when the debtor has filed a bankruptcy petition and has failed to reaffirm the indebtedness, but has otherwise made timely payments before, during, and after bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the positive because the parties agreed that Ford elected Section 12-1023(b) of the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, Commercial Law Article, Maryland Code, to govern the retail installment contract in the present case. View "Ford Motor Credit Co., L.L.C. v. Roberson" on Justia Law

As part of the requirements of refinancing his home loan, Maurice Carter purchased lender's coverage title insurance from Huntington Title & Escrow. On behalf of a putative class of similarly situated persons, Carter alleged in a complaint filed in the circuit court that he was entitled to a reduced policy reissue rate, as mandated by the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA), rather than the original issue rate actually charged. Huntington filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the MIA was invested with primary jurisdiction over Carter's claim, such that Carter must pursue his claim initially in an administrative, rather than judicial, forum. The circuit court granted Huntington's motion and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of certiorari and vacated the judgment of the circuit court, concluding that (1) the MIA possessed primary jurisdiction over Carter's claim, and, consequently, Carter must seek relief initially through the administrative process; and (2) the circuit court should stay the case pending the outcome of any administrative proceeding rather than relinquishing jurisdiction by dismissing Carter's case. View "Carter v. Huntington" on Justia Law

Petitioner sued the owners of her childhood home alleging injuries from lead paint on the premises. At issue was the trial court's instruction regarding the joint responsibilities of landlords and tenants in keeping the property in good condition. The court held that the inclusion of the instruction was error because neither plaintiff's contributory negligence nor negligence of her family members were at issue in the case. The court also held that the error was prejudicial because it introduced into the jury deliberations the idea that plaintiff, or her family, could have also been to blame for the injuries and such an argument was not only irrelevant to the case but prohibited by law and policy. The court further held that the inclusion of the argument could have permitted the jury to speculate or precluded a finding of liability where it was otherwise appropriate.

Respondent, the rental property owner, filed a "Complaint for Repossession of Rented Property under Real Property section 8-401" against petitioner, the tenant, for failure to pay rent that was due. At issue was whether the owner of a multiple dwelling, who failed to obtain a license for the premises, as mandated by Section 11-10-102 of the Anne Arundel County Code, could nevertheless initiate summary ejectment proceedings for a tenant's failure to pay rent under Section 8-401 of the Real Property Article, Maryland Code. The court held that a rental property owner, such as the one here, who did not possess a current license to operate the premises was not entitled to utilize the summary ejectment procedures outlined in section 8-401 upon a tenant's failure to pay rent if the dwelling was located in a jurisdiction that required owners to obtain licenses. The court also held that the district court judge did not err in determining that petitioner did not demonstrate actual loss or injury due to respondent's failure to obtain a license for the premises and thus, was not entitled to damages.