Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Maryland Insurance Commissioner approved a filing by Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (collectively, Allstate) giving notice of its intent to cease writing new property insurance policies in certain geographic areas of the state. The Commissioner concluded that the filing was subject to administrative review under Md. Code Ann. 19-107(a) and Md. Code Ann. Ins. 27-501(a) and that it satisfied the pertinent criteria under both statutes. The circuit court affirmed both aspects of the Commissioner's ruling. The court of special appeals affirmed but on alternative grounds, holding that section 27-501(a) did not apply to the filing and that, even if it did, the statute was not violated. The Court of Appeals affirmed but, again, on different grounds, holding (1) the Commissioner did not err in finding that section 27-501 did apply to the Allstate filing, and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the Commissioner's decision. View "People's Ins. Counsel Div. v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A police officer was dispatched to investigate a two-car collision, where she determined that one of the cars involved in the collision was owned by Respondent, Dana Carpenter. After a post-crash investigation, the officer requested Carpenter to submit to a chemical breath test, and Carpenter refused. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) suspended Carpenter's license for refusal to submit to the breath test. The circuit court reversed the suspension, determining that the police officer did not possess reasonable grounds to detain Carpenter. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that, pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Transp. 16-205.1(b)(2), the ALJ's determination that the police officer had reasonable grounds to detain Carpenter was supported by substantial evidence and was not premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law. Remanded with directions to affirm the decision of the ALJ. View "Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Verizon Maryland, a telecommunications company, and the staff of the Public Service Commission (PSC) obtained PSC approval of a global settlement of six pending cases. Verizon employed an alternative form of regulation (AFOR) under Md. Code Ann. Pub. Util. Co. (PUC) 4-301 that included up to $6,000,000 in bill credits to customers with out-of-service complaints that were not resolved in compliance with specified standards. PSC approved the AFOR pursuant to PUC 4-301. A technicians union objected, contending that the service quality aspects of the AFOR did not ensure the quality, availability, and reliability of service required by PUC 4-301. The circuit court affirmed PSC's approval of the AFOR. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that PSC acted within its discretion in approving the AFOR, as PUC 4-301's use of the term "ensuring" did not require that PSC be completely certain that Verizon's incentive strategy would result in compliance with standards. View "Commc'ns Workers of Am., ALF-CIO v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md." on Justia Law

The claims in these consolidated cases were largely identical in that they shared similar allegations of violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and common law breach of contract. Appellees in these cases were mortgage companies, who were assignees of the original lenders, and Appellants were individual borrowers. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals of each of the cases by the circuit courts, holding (1) the SMLL does not restrict a lender to a single loan origination fee, as long as the aggregate fees charged and collected do not exceed the statutory maximum; (2) Appellees were not required by the SMLL to provide borrowers, who did not intend to use the proceeds of their secondary mortgage loans for commercial purposes, a disclosure form designed expressly to advise commercial borrowers only under the SMLL; and (3) certain Appellants failed to support sufficiently their allegations of breach of contract, CPA violations, and claims in accounting with specific facts. View "Polek v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank" on Justia Law

After Petitioners, Montgomery Preservation, Inc. and others, made proper formal requests, the Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) decided not to recommend a certain building for historic designation, and not to amend the county's master plan or historic preservation to include the building. The Planning Board forwarded this non-recommendation to the Montgomery County Council, which, sitting as an administrative agency, concluded it could take no action on the matter and therefore did nothing. Petitioners sought a writ of administrative mandamus, claiming that the Council's inaction rendered the Planning Board's previous recommendation final and appealable. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, holding that no judicial review of the Planning Board's recommendation could take place because the Council had indeed "acted" under the relevant statute. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Planning Board's recommendation was not a final appealable agency decision. View "Montgomery Preservation v. MNCPP" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding involving a residential sale. In the advertisement for the sale, the trustees included an additional condition not found in the mortgage documents or authorized by the Maryland Rules that any successful purchaser at the sale would be required to pay the legal fees of attorneys who would be utilized to review the documents on behalf of the trustees by which they would hold settlement and ultimately convey title. The circuit court and court of special appeals ratified the sale. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that in the absence of specific authority in the contract of indebtedness or contained in statute or court rule, it is an impermissible abuse of discretion for trustees or the lenders who 'bid in' properties to include the demand for additional legal fees for the benefit of the trustees in the advertisement of sale or in any other way that is in contrary to the duty of trustees to maximize the proceeds of the sales and, moreover, is not in conformance with state or local rules and is against public policy. View "Maddox v. Cohn" on Justia Law

After three separate trials for several criminal offenses, Appellant Benoit Tshiwala was sentenced to an aggregate of seventy years in prison. Appellant subsequently filed an application for review of his sentences, and a three-judge review panel reduced the total period of imprisonment to thirty-nine years. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied. Appellant then instituted the present action by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Md. R. Crim. P. 4-345(a), alleging that the three judges who denied reconsideration were not authorized to rule on the motion. The circuit court denied Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Tshiwala's claim was not cognizable under a motion to correct an illegal sentence because Tshiwala's claim did not involve an "illegal sentence" within the meaning of Rule 4-345(a). View "Tshiwala v. State" on Justia Law

Respondents, the owner of the City Paper and a reporter, published two articles in the City Paper that reported on a double murder. Petitioner, Nicholas Piscatelli, who was mentioned unflatteringly in the articles, perceived that his reputation had been injured thereby and he had been portrayed in a false light. Piscatelli sued Respondents for damages based on defamation and false light claims. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for summary judgment. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the manner in which Respondent published the statements placed them within the protection of fair reporting and fair comment privileges, and consequently, Piscatelli's claims were not actionable. View "Piscatelli v. Smith" on Justia Law

After an auction sale was ratified, Respondent David Simard defaulted on his contract to purchase the real property in question. Simard admitted liability for the risk and expense of the initial resale, but when the purchaser at the resale defaulted as well, Simard balked at paying the expense and loss incurred at a second resale. Applying Md. R. Civ. P. 14-305(g), the circuit court held that Simard was liable for the risk and expense of both resales. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Rule 14-305(g) required that a defaulting purchaser be responsible for only one resale. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that absent special circumstances, a defaulting purchaser at a foreclosure sale of property is liable, under Rule 14-305(g), for only the one resale resulting from his or her default. View "Burson v. Simard" on Justia Law

Six individuals and the Magothy River Association (Appellees), brought suit against the recent purchasers of Dobbins Island (Appellants), seeking to establish a public right to use a beach located alongside the island's northern crescent area. Following a bench trial, the trial judge determined that Appellees had demonstrated the existence of a prescriptive easement on behalf of the public and ordered the removal of portions of a fence erected on the beach by Appellants. In making this determination the trial judge applied the general presumption of adverse use and, accordingly, placed the burden on Appellants to prove that the use was, in fact, permissive. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's application of the general presumption of adverse use was in error, as the beach at issue was unimproved and otherwise in a general state of nature; and (2) therefore, the proper presumption, under the circumstances, was that public use was by permission of the owner. Remanded. View "Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n " on Justia Law