by Raymond Daniel Burke | Mar 6, 2012
Under Section 11-114 of the Maryland Condominium Act, and Section 11B- 111.6 of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act require that condominium councils of unit owners and homeowner associations maintain property and liability insurance. House Bill 741 pending in the current session of the Maryland General Assembly would extend an insurance requirement to a management company that contracts with the condominium or homeowners association. The proposed language provides that, if a condominium or homeowners association “contracts with a management company for operation or maintenance services,” such “management company shall purchase fidelity insurance that provides for the indemnification of the [condominium or homeowners association] against loss resulting form acts or omissions arising from fraud, dishonesty, or criminal acts by any agent or other employed of the management company.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Mar 6, 2012
I previously wrote about the recent decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of InMRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011. A majority of the Court of held that the Maryland Consumer Protection Act applies to purchases of condominium units with respect to the information required to be provided by a council of unit owners in the resale certificate. The Court ruled that, where a council of unit owners and its property management company violate the resale certificate disclosure obligations imposed by Md. Real. Prop. Code Ann. Sec. 11-135, “they engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices ‘in the sale of consumer realty.'” Such a violation occurs where the resale certificate states that there are no known violations of the building code if there is information establishing knowledge of building defects. The Court specifically held that such a violation of the Consumer Protection Act can occur even though the defendants were not parties to the sale of the unit, were not “merchants,” and where there had been no code violation citations issued by the county.
Now, however, in response to motions for reconsideration filed on behalf of both sides in the appeal, the Court has agreed to withdraw and reconsider its opinion. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Mar 6, 2012
I am very pleased to have been selected to the 2012 list of Maryland Super Lawyers. This is the six consecutive year that I have had the privilege of being included in this elite group since the inception of the Super Lawyer ratings system in 2007.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. To learn more, you can visit the website at www.superlawyers.com.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 9, 2012
Ober|Kaler is pleased to announce the release of the Maryland Construction Law Deskbook, edited by Joseph C. Kovars and Michael A. Schollaert of the firm’s Construction Group.
Published by the Maryland State Bar Association, the book is designed to serve as a reference tool for those immersed in construction law, as well as for those faced with an occasional construction issue. The book covers key areas of the law, including contracts, performance disputes, damages, delays, dispute resolution, green construction, project delivery systems and other topics.
In addition to serving as editors, Mr. Kovars and Mr. Schollaert also authored chapters for the book. Mr. Kovars contributed “Delays and Time Extensions,” and Mr. Schollaert collaborated with Ober|Kaler principal Paul S. Sugar on “Mechanic’s Liens and Statutory Remedies.” Another firm principal, Raymond Daniel Burke, contributed the chapter “Condominium and New Home Warranties and Rights of Action.”
Mr. Burke is the author of the Maryland Condo Law Blog. He is also the author of numerous articles on condominiums, homeowner associations, contruction law, and litigation, as well as a frequent opinion/commentary writer for The Baltimore Sun. He has been listed in Maryland Super Lawyers in the construction litigation catagory since the inception of this peer-review program in 2007.
Mr. Kovars is co-chair of Ober|Kaler’s Construction Group and is an experienced civil litigator who focuses on construction and public contracts law. He represents contractors, subcontractors, sureties and owners in contract formation and construction disputes involving many types of projects. Mr. Kovars is the author of numerous articles and papers on construction law topics. He has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America in the construction category since 2003 and in Maryland Super Lawyers in the construction litigation category since 2007.
Mr. Schollaert is an associate in the firm’s Construction Group. He represents general contractors, owners, subcontractors and suppliers on private and public construction projects and also provides general litigation, complex commercial litigation, mediation and arbitration representation. Mr. Schollaert has been named a “Rising Star” in construction law by Maryland Super Lawyers every year since 2009.
The Maryland Construction Law Deskbook is available at the Maryland State Bar Association’s website.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Nov 3, 2011
In its recent decsion in MRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011, a majority of the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Maryland Consumer Protection Act applies to purchases of condominium units with respect to the information required to be provided by a council of unit owners in the resale certificate. The Court ruled that, where a council of unit owners and its property management company violate the resale certificate disclosure obligations imposed by Md. Real. Prop. Code Ann. Sec. 11-135, “they engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices ‘in the sale of consumer realty.'” Such a violation occurs where the resale certificate states that there are no known violations of the building code if there is information establishing knowledge of building defects. The Court specifically held that such a violation of the Consumer Protection Act can occur even though the defendants were not parties to the sale of the unit, were not “merchants,” and where there had been no code violation citations issued by the county. (more…)
