Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals held that a law firm that engages in debt collection activities on behalf of a client, including the preparation of a promissory note containing a confessed judgment clause and filing of a confessed judgment complaint to collect a consumer debt, is not subject to the provisions of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Comm. Law 12-301, et seq.This case arose from debt collection activity by Nagle & Zaller, P.C., a law firm, on behalf of its clients. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Nagle & Zaller violated the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (MCLL), Md. Code Comm. Law (CL) 12-301, et seq. Nagle & Zaller filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the MCLL did not apply to the debt collection activities alleged in the complaint. The federal court entered a certification order requesting that the Supreme Court answer whether a law firm that undertakes debt collection activity is required to be licensed under the MCLL. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that the MCLL did not apply to the transactions at issue. View "Nagle & Zaller, P.C. v. Delegall" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and related gun offenses, holding that it was not reversible error for a circuit court to give a destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction based on evidence that Defendant cut off his dreadlocks between the time of the crime and the arrest.At the time of the shooting leading to Defendant's convictions, Defendant wore dreadlocks. One month later, a witness recognized Defendant with a very short, close-cropped haircut and called 911. Defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted. The court of special appeals affirmed, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to generate a destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction, but it would have been preferable to have customized the jury instruction to describe with specificity the cutting of hair between the time of the crime and the arrest. The court then ruled that any instructional error was harmless. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it would have been more precise for the circuit court to have tailored the consciousness of guilt instruction specifically describe a change in appearance instead of a destruction or concealment of evidence, but any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Rainey v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court ruling that a household exclusion in umbrella policy issued by The Travelers Indemnity Company (TIC) was valid and enforceable, holding that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to Travelers on Count VIII of Plaintiffs' complaint.Michael Buarque de Macedo and his wife and child died in a two-vehicle collision in Montgomery County and a remaining child suffered permanent injuries. Michael and his wife were the named insureds of a primary automobile liability insurance policy issued by TIC. The policy contained a household exclusion purporting to preclude coverage for bodily injury or personal injury suffered by Michael or related individuals who resided in Michael's household. Plaintiffs (collectively, the Macedos) brought this action asserting several claims against Michael's estate and the State. Count VIII of the complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the household exclusion was void as against public policy and contrary to statute. The circuit court declared the household exclusion valid and enforceable. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the household exclusion in TIC's umbrella policy was valid and enforceable. View "Macedo v. Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals ruling that it is possible for an accessory before the fact to aid, on impulse and without premeditation, another in the commission of a homicide with the intent to kill, holding that a defendant may be liable as an accessory before the fact to second-degree murder.After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that an accessory before the fact to second-degree intent to kill murder cannot be guilty of second-degree murder because he necessarily deliberates and premeditates the murder. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, based on the Court's holdings in Mitchell v. State, 363 Md. 130 (2001) and Apostoledes v. State, 323 Md. 456 (1992), an accessory before the fact does not necessarily premeditate. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

In this action challenging a proposed amendment that would remove two schoolhouses from a county list of historically protected sites the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court finding that the adoption of CR-72-2019 was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence, holding that Prince George's County Council acted within its legal boundaries when it adopted the minor amendment CR-72-2019.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held (1) the arguments raised by the Town of Upper Marlboro had not been waived because CR 72-2019 was not a final appealable decision; (2) CR 98-2019 was a final agency action subject to judicial review, and the Town was permitted to challenge CR 98-2019 by alleging deficiencies in CR-72-2019; and (3) CR-72-2019 was not procedurally deficient because the resolution adequately provided the purpose and scope of the minor amendment pursuant to Prince George's County Code 2727-642. View "Town of Upper Marlboro v. Prince George's County Council" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming the circuit court's award of custody of T.K. under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. 3-819(e) to a previously non-custodial father, holding that the juvenile court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before awarding Father sole legal and physical custody of T.K.At issue was the mechanics of the application of 3-819(e) to situations in which a local department of social services has limited knowledge about one of a child's parents until after an adjudicatory hearing has concluded. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court, sitting as a juvenile court, awarding custody in this case, holding that because the record did not contain evidence that Father was able and willing to care for the child and because there was no stipulation to that effect, and because Mother was not given the opportunity to present evidence informing the court's best interest analysis, remand was required. View "In re T.K." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conclusions of the circuit court and court of special appeals that the "code key that matches alphanumeric codes in Case Search to the judges on the District Court in Baltimore City" was disclosable to the public and was not exempt from disclosure under the Maryland Rules.At issue was Case Search, an online database overseen by The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) that provides public access to information about court proceedings and records that are open to the public. For cases in the District Court sitting in Baltimore City, the judge who presided over the particular proceeding is identified in Case Search but only by an alphanumeric code. Specifically in question was the whether the record containing the code key given to clerks who enter information from paper records into the digital database that assigns each judge a code falls under the exception from public access in the Maryland Rules. The lower courts concluded that the exception does not apply to the code key. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the code key is disclosable in response to public records requests and is not exempt from disclosure under the Maryland Rules. View "Administrative Office of the Courts v. Abell Foundation" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict filed by Prince George's Hospital Center of Dimensions Health Corporation (Hospital) after the jury returned a verdict finding that the Hospital was vicariously liable for a surgeon's negligence, holding that there was ample evidence supporting the jury's finding that the surgeon was the apparent agent of the Hospital.Plaintiff was treated by a surgeon after motor vehicle crash who inflicted further injuries by failing to exercise the standard of care expected of trauma surgeons. The jury returned a verdict finding that the surgeon was negligent and directly liable. The jury then found that the surgeon was an agent of the Hospital and that the Hospital was vicariously liable for the surgeon's negligence. The circuit court granted the Hospital's judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to show that the surgeon was an agent of the Hospital. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was ample evidence that supported the jury's finding that the surgeon was the apparent agent of the Hospital. View "Williams v. Dimensions Health Corp." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that when a landlord attempts to collect unpaid rent from a tenant during a period when the landlord was unlicensed a tenant may have a claim under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) to the extent that the landlord's unlawful collection activity caused the tenant to suffer damages, including any rent payments made responding to the landlord's attempts to collect unpaid rent.Specifically, the the Court of Appeals held (1) a tenant who voluntarily paid rent to a landlord who lacked a rental license may not bring a private action under the MCPA or MCDCA to recover restitution of rent based upon the landlord's lack of licensure pursuant to the Baltimore City Code, Art. 13, 5-4; and (2) when a municipality or county enacts a rental license law conditioning the performance of a residential lease upon the issuance of a rental license a landlord may not file an action against a tenant to recover unpaid rent attributable to the period when the property was not licensed. View "Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Maher" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that Baltimore City Council's enactment of a local law did not create a private right of action for Baltimore City tenants to recoup rent payments and related fees they paid in connection with their use and occupancy of rental dwellings during a period when the landlord did not have a valid rental license.Petitioners, tenants in a multi-unit apartment building, filed a putative class action alleging that Respondent did not hold an active rental license for the property, as required by the Baltimore City Code, and seeking to recoup paid rent and other fees paid to Respondent. The circuit court dismissed the case prior to a determination of issues relating to class certification. The court of special appeals largely agreed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that section 5-4(a)(2) of Article 13 of the Baltimore City Code does not provide a private right of action to recover rent and related payments that a tenant made during a period in which the landlord was unlicensed. View "Aleti v. Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC" on Justia Law