Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1999, the Baltimore City Council enacted an urban renewal plan (Plan) to renew a portion of Baltimore City. A five-block area located in the renewal area was the subject of protracted litigation between 120 West Fayette, LLLP and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The current iteration of the litigation focused on a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the City and the Maryland Historical Trust relating to the treatment of historic properties in connection with the Plan. The MOA required the City to submit redevelopment plans to the Trust for approval. After the Trust's director provided conditional approval of a fifth set of plans 120 West Fayette (Appellant) filed a complaint seeking a declaration of rights interpreting the terms of the MOA. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding that Appellant was neither a party to, nor an intended beneficiary of, the MOA, and therefore, Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant, at best an incidental beneficiary to the MOA, could not file a suit requesting declaratory judgment that interprets and enforces an agreement to which it had no part. View "120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

In 1991, the predecessor in title to the disputed property at issue in this case to Petitioner, HNS Development, and Baltimore County failed to resolve conclusively whether certain development restrictions would be placed on parcels including and adjacent to a historic building. HNS purchased the two parcels in 2004 with knowledge of a cautionary note on the 1991 development plan. After having its proposed amended development plan rejected by three county agencies, the circuit court, and the court of special appeals, HNS asked the Court of Appeals to conclude that its amended development plan met the applicable development regulations of the Baltimore County Code and ignore the conceded Baltimore County Master Plan conflict. Respondents, People's Counsel for Baltimore County and the Greater Kingsville Community Association, argued that the Master Plan conflict provided a stand-alone basis for the County to reject the proposed amended development plan. The Court of Appeals agreed with Respondents and affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals. View "HNS Dev., LLC v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County" 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 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

After Leon Coleman failed to perform eight construction contracts for detached homes, he was convicted of eight counts of theft by deception and eight counts of failure to escrow under Deposits on New Homes Subtitle (Act). The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the Act did not apply and that there was insufficient evidence of intent to support the theft convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to conclude that Coleman intentionally deprived buyers of their property, as required under the theft statute; and (2) the plain meaning of the Act indicated that it did not apply to Coleman. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Maryland Real Estate Commission revoked the real estate licenses of Joel Pautsch pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Bus. Occ. & Prof. 17-322(b)(24)(i) based on Pautsch's convictions for child abuse. The circuit court affirmed after finding there was competent, material and substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) there was substantial evidence upon which the Commission relief to support its finding that there was a nexus between Pautsch's convictions and his professional activities; and (2) the sanction was neither arbitrary nor capricious because Pautsch's crimes undermined his trustworthiness in dealing with the public during the course of providing real estate brokerage services and negatively impacted his character and reputation. View "Pautsch v. Real Estate Comm'n" on Justia Law

While making a delivery during the course of his employment, Appellant George Pool walked through a stream of running water that flowed across a parking lot. As a result, Appellant slipped and fell on black ice and suffered injuries. Appellant sued Defendants, the construction company that allegedly pumped the water into the parking lot and the owner of the parking lot, alleging negligence. Several additional defendants were subsequently added. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the original defendants and the two defendants named in Appellant's amended complaint on the ground that Appellant had assumed the risk of his injury. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeals (1) reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the original defendants because Appellant did not assume the risk of his injury as a matter of law; (2) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of one later-named defendant and the dismissal in favor of the other later-named defendant; and (3) disavowed the reasoning related to assumption of the risk in Allen v. Marriott Worldwide Corp. View "Poole v. Coakley & Williams Constr., Inc." 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