by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 16, 2012
Effective October 1, 2012, entities that bill Condominiums Councils for water or sewer charges are required to post notices if utility bills are in arrears for more than 60 days, and are authorized to enter the common area of the condominium to post a notice of the default. Under House Bill 884 (Chapter 684) from the 2012 session of the General Assembly, public utilities, sanitary commissions, political subdivisions, and the public service commission, when directly bill the governing bodies of condominiums for utility charges, are required to post notices on the condominium property that a utility bill is in arrears. Previously existing law requires that such utility providers provide notice to property owners that service will be discontinued due to unpaid bills. The new law amends various sections of the Annotated Code of Maryland as to condominiums to require that such notices be posted at the condominium, and authorizes entry into the common area for the purpose of posting the required notice. Effected code provisions include Sections 9-662, 9-724 and 9-726.1 of the Environmental Code, and Sections 7-307.2 and 25-504 of the Public Utilities Code.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 2, 2012
Despite similar bills unanimously passing both houses, the 2012 Maryland General Assembly was unable to finalize an amendment to the Condominium Act that would have precluded developers from restricting rights of action by councils of unit owners and individual unit owners to enforce warranties and other claims. Both House Bill 740 and Senate Bill 725 would have added a new section to the Condominium Act that would have dramatically stripped away the ability of developers to limit the time in which councils and unit owners can bring suit, as well as impose other hurdles to commencing litigation. Both bills would have prohibited provisions in a condominium declaration, bylaws or contract of sale that (1) purport to shorten the statute of limitations applicable to to any warranty claim or other statutory or common law claim; (2) purport to waive the applicable “discovery rule” or other accrual date for claim; (3) operates to prevent the filing of suit, initiating arbitration, or otherwise asserting a claim with the applicable statute of limitations; and (4) requires a claim to be asserted in a period of time shorter than the applicable statute of limitations. Significantly, the new law would also have prohibited provisions requiring that a vote of the owners, approval of the developer or other non-unit owner, (most likely meaning mortgage holders), as a precondition to pursuing a claim; unless such restrictive i is adopted by the council of unit owners after election of the first independent board of directors.
The only difference between the two versions was that the House bill provided an exception for condominiums sold by the developer “as is” and without warranties. This is peculiar since the Condominium Act warranties under Section 11-131 cannot be excluded or modified. Both versions provided an exception for non-residential condominiums. We will see if the legislation is renewed at the next session.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 1, 2012
The 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly resulted in an amendment to the Condominium Act regarding the circumstances under which a council of unit owners may enter a condominium unit. Section 11-125 of the Act previously provided that a council of unit owners, or its authorized designee, has “an irrevocable right and an easement” to enter units for the purpose of making repairs, where the work is “reasonably necessary for public safety or to prevent damage to other portions of the condominium.” The 2012 amendment, House Bill 126 (Chapter 101) expands this authority to also permit entry to “investigate damage” in addition to actually undertaking repairs. A proposal to remove the requirement that entry be limited to circumstances in which it is necessary for public safety or to prevent other damage was deleted from the final bill. It is still required that the council make “a reasonable effort to give notice” to the unit owner that the unit will be entered for purpose of investigation or repair; except that notice is not required “in cases involving manifest danger to public safety or property.” The amendment takes effect on October 1, 2012.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jul 31, 2012
During the 2012 Session, the Maryland General Assembly enacted a new provision that requires the council of unit owners of all condominiums with ten or more units to, by October 1, 2014, provide recycling for the residents, including collection and removal, in accordance with the recycling plan adopted by the county in which the condominium is located. House Bill 1 (Chapter 192) amends Section 9-1711 of the Environment Article to require recyling at condominiums and apartment buildings with ten or more units. It further authorizes the counties to require that such faciliites report to the county on their recyling activities in such manner as the county may determine. The new law does not effect the authority of a county, municipality or other local government to enact and enforce more stringent recycling requirements. It also authorizes a county, municipality or other local government to conduct inspections to enforce these recycling provisions. Violations are subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $50 for each day in which a violation exists.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jul 23, 2012
A Maryland legal ruling recently made national news when the Court of Appeals held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pitbulls, are strictly liable for damages arising from an attack by these dogs. The decision in Tracy v. Solesky changed the common law, which requires that a plaintiff must prove that the dog was known to be dangerous. Now the Court has determined that it will hear arguments to reconsider the decision. Interested groups on both sides of the contovery have filed amicus curie briefs with the Court, and seek to be heard on the issue.
The victim in the underlaying case was Dominic Solesky, a 10-year-old boy who in 2007 was mauled by a pit bull. Solesky was seriously injured in the attack, requiring five hours of surgery, including repair of his severed femoral artery. He spent seventeen days in the pediatric intensive care unit, had additional surgeries, and spent a year in rehabilitation. In 2008, his parents filed a complaint seeking money damages against the dog’s owners and their landlord, alleging negligence and strict liability. The dog’s owners subsequently declared bankruptcy. At trial, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the landlord knew of the vicious nature of the dog. In 2011, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The landlord’s insurer appealed to Maryland’s highest court.
In modifying Maryland common law of liability relating to attacks by pit bulls and pit bull-mixes, the Court of Appeals concluded that “because of its aggressive and vicious nature…pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous” and went on to “impose greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls.”
Stay tuned for developments as the issue is reconsidered.
