Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was Chapter 286 of the 2007 Session Laws of Maryland. The legislation revised existing law by replacing ejectment with a lien-and-foreclosure process for defaulting lessees of ground leases when more than six months of rent is overdue. Plaintiffs, a group of lessors holding ground leases, brought an action against the State challenging Chapter 286 on constitutional grounds, claiming that the Legislature impermissibly abrogated their vested rights. The State counted that the legislation simply substituted one remedy for another remedy that achieves the same purposes. The circuit court held that the General Assembly exceeded its power and that Chapter 286 operated as an unconstitutional taking of the ground lease holder’s property. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the foreclosure-and-lien remedy of Chapter 286 does not provide the same safeguards for leaseholders as the prior ejectment remedy did; (2) accordingly, the foreclosure-and-lien remedy cannot effectively replace the ejectment remedy, which is essential for the right of re-entry in Maryland ground rents; and (3) thus, Chapter 286 cannot survive constitutional scrutiny because the right of re-entry is vested in ground rents entered prior to its enactment. View "State v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

In two cases, Montgomery County took a portion of properties owned by Respondents. Because the parties disputed the value paid for either taking the County filed a complaint for condemnation. During the proceedings, the circuit court imposed discovery violation sanctions precluding Respondents from introducing evidence as to the fair market value of the taken properties. Respondents were therefore unable to generate a genuine issue of material fact concerning the County's appraisal valuations. As a result, the circuit court granted summary judgment for the County on the issue of just compensation. The court of special appeals reversed, concluding that summary judgment on the question of just compensation is not available in condemnation proceedings because a property owner cannot be deprived of the constitutional right to have a jury determine just compensation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) permitting summary judgment does not violate the constitutional right to have the opportunity for a jury trial to ascertain just compensation in compensation actions provided the landowner litigates the case according to the Maryland Rules; and (2) summary judgment was properly granted in each case because there was no genuine dispute of material fact and the County was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Montgomery County v. Soleimanzadeh" on Justia Law

Defendant was assigned the serving rights to Plaintiff's mortgage on a piece of property. Plaintiff sued Defendant, claiming that Defendant attempted to collect more than was due on the loan. The parties settled. Plaintiff then filed this action against Defendant, alleging breach of the settlement agreement, defamation, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. An order of default was later entered against Defendant. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, requesting that the default judgments be set aside because Plaintiff's claims were legally deficient. The trial court denied the motion. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a defaulting party who does not file a motion to vacate the order of default after a default judgment has been entered cannot file a Maryland Rule 2-534 motion to alter or amend a judgment to contest liability, and the defaulting party cannot appeal that judgment in order to contest liability. View "Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Nefflen" on Justia Law

Druid Ridge Cemetery Company entered into a contract to sell thirty-six acres of the approximately 200 acres it owned and were a part of its cemetery operation. The intended purchaser entered into the contract to construct residences on portions of the land immediately adjacent to Park Heights Avenue. The Dumbarton Improvement and Long Meadow Neighborhood Associations challenged the sale, claiming that the residential development violated a restrictive covenant contained in the deed conveying the cemetery property to Druid Ridge. The circuit court determined (1) the language of the restrictive covenant was ambiguous, and (2) alternatively, there were radically changed circumstances in the area rendering the restrictive covenant ineffective and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the language of the restrictive covenant was unambiguous; and (2) the nexus between the changed circumstances and the purpose of the covenant was not sufficient to render the restrictive covenant unenforceable. Remanded. View "Dumbarton Improvement Ass'n v. Druid Ridge Cemetery Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners, the Webbs, believing they held title to a quarter-acre tract of land, contended that the land was part of three parcels they acquired in 2000. The land abutted and shared its western boundary with property owned by Respondents, the Nowaks, who claimed title to the disputed land. The parties' disagreement stemmed from conflicting interpretations of a 1928 recorded deed (the Wolf deed), which described a fence in a certain location as constituting the western boundary line of the property conveyed in the deed. The Nowaks asserted that an existing fence was the same fence described in the Wolf deed. The Webbs contended that their property extended beyond the existing fence and that the existing fence did not exist in 1928. The circuit court entered judgment for the Nowaks. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lower court did not clearly err in its factual determination as to the correct boundary line. View "Webb v. Nowak" on Justia Law

Dorothy Urban's estate (Estate) filed suit against Robert Street, asking the circuit court to declare null and void a deed executed by Urban to Street for a residential property on the grounds that the execution of the deed was procured through fraud. Street subsequently executed a deed of trust for a loan that was secured by the property. The majority of the loan was used to pay off a mortgage on the property placed by Urban. Later, the circuit court directed that the property be conveyed in Street's name to the Estate. The court created a constructive trust on the property without expressly declaring the Urban-to-Street deed void ab initio. Street subsequently defaulted on the deed of trust and Petitioners filed a foreclosure action on the property. The Estate filed a motion to dismiss the foreclosure proceedings, which the circuit court denied. The court of special appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although Petitioners were not bona fide purchasers of the property, under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, Petitioners were entitled to priority for the amount loaned to Street used to pay off the balance owed on the preexisting Urban mortgage. View "Fishman v. Murphy" on Justia Law

In 1997, the Bellevale Respondents sold an agricultural preservation easement on their dairy farm, Bellevale Farms, to a state agency (MALPF). Twelve years later, Bellevale asked MALPF to permit it to construct a creamery operation on the farm under the terms of the easement. MALPF approved the proposal, despite challenges from owners of real property adjacent to Bellevale Farms and a community association (collectively Petitioners). Petitioners filed this action against Bellevale Farms, MALPF, and others (collectively Respondents), seeking a declaration that the creamery violated the easement and an order prohibiting the construction of the creamery. The circuit court dismissed the action, concluding that Petitioners lacked standing to enforce the easement. Petitioners appealed, arguing that the easement constituted a charitable trust, and therefore, they possessed standing as "interested persons" under Md. Code Ann. Est. & Trusts 14-302(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the instrument creating the easement and the statutory scheme of the MALPF program through which the easement was purchased did not indicate that Respondents intended to or created a charitable trust with a charitable purpose; and (2) therefore, Petitioners did not have standing under 14-302(a) to maintain a cause of action to enforce the easement. View "Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a contract to sell a shopping center. The contract was amended on several occasions. In one provision, the buyer agreed to indemnify the seller for a real estate commission, which they both disclaimed in the contract itself, that might ultimately be owed to a particular real estate broker. Another provision provided for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit if the transaction did not close on the timetable in the contract. The transaction ultimately closed after the appointed date, and the real estate broker successfully sued the seller for a commission. The buyer went bankrupt, and the seller and the assignee investors were left to sort of the consequences of the course of events. The Court of Appeals held (1) the seller here was not entitled to indemnification from the assignee investors for its liability for the broker's commission, even though the buyer (their assignor) was obligated to indemnify the seller; (2) the seller was not entitled to forfeit the deposit funded by the investors; and (3) the seller was entitled to have the investors' claim for refund of the deposit offset by the amount of indemnification that the buyer owed the seller. View "Pines Plaza Ltd. P'ship v. Berkley Trace, LLC" on Justia Law

Landowners believed they had the right to use a ten-foot wide strip of land that was used as a driveway to property owned by a Trust. The community homeowners association (Association) and six residents of the subdivision (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against the Trust and the Trust's settlor (collectively, Petitioners) seeking a declaratory judgment that the Association held fee simple title to the strip and that the Landowners' property enjoyed an easement over the strip. Petitioners responded with a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the Trust held fee simple title to the strip and no easement existed in favor of any plaintiff. The circuit court concluded that the Trust held all title and interest in the strip and that the Trust's interest was subject to an easement appurtenant to the Landowners' property for the purposes of ingress and egress. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Landowners had an easement over a five-foot wide portion of the strip. View "Lindsay v. Annapolis Roads Prop. Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The City of Baltimore initiated a condemnation action to acquire an old theater once used as a vaudeville venue. The theater's owner (Owner) contested the action, arguing that the City had no right to condemn the property. Six weeks before trial, Owner filed an emergency motion demanding a postponement and an order requiring the City to pay to move all the junk out of the theater prior to trial so the jury would not view the property in its existing condition. The trial court denied the motion and the jury viewed the theater as is. The court of special appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Owner's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Owner was not entitled to a payment in advance of trial, and Owner suffered no prejudice from the denial beyond what it brought upon itself. View "A&E North, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law