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 | 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…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 30, 2011
In a recent post, I discussed the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in an appeal in which I represented a group of condominium owners suing their Council of Unit Owners where the condominium’s suit against the developer for building defects was held to have been filed too late under the applicable statute of limitations. Greenstein et al. v. Council of Unit Owners of Avalon Court Six Condominium, Inc., No. 0485, September Term, 2009. [PDF] The unit owners sought to recover increased and special assessments that were necessary to cover the costs of repairing the defects. Court of Special Appeals expressly held that the individual unit owners have a right of action against the council of unit owners for the board’s failure to properly execute its duty to pursue a timely claim against the developer for defects in the common elements. This is the first Maryland appellate decision recognizing the right of individual condominium unit owners to file suit where the board of directors has failed to pursue a timely claim relating to defects in the common elements. On September 29, 2011, the Court designated this to be a reported opinion, and it will now stand as precedent for future cases.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 30, 2011
I obtained a noteworthy ruling this morning in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County while representing a condominium unit owner in a construction defect suit. The sales agreement provided for arbitration of claims, and contained a provision that precludes the arbitration panel from awarding attorney’s fees. Under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc Code Ann. Sec. 3-221, an arbitration award cannot include attorney’s fees unless provided for in the arbitration agreement.
The complaint filed on behalf of the unit owner included a cause of action under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the award of attorney’s fees. The Court accepted our argument that, because the damages that can be awarded under the Consumer Protection Act could not be awarded in arbitration, the Consumer Protection Act claim was not subject to the arbitration agreement, and can proceed in Court before a jury.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 18, 2011
Anyone who follows this blog knows that I have often warned condominium councils about the consequences of failing to take timely legal action to protect the unit owners when there is evidence of construction defects in the common elements. The most significant consequence, of course, is that, if a contribution to repair costs is not obtained from the developer and/or its insurer, the unit owners will have to bear the full cost of repair. Now, in an appeal in which I represented a group of individual unit owners at the Avalon Court Six Condominium in Pikesville, the Court of Special Appeals has held that individual unit owners have a right of action for negligence against the council of unit owners, acting through the board of directors, in failing to address defects in the common elements by bringing a timely claim against the developer. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Dec 23, 2010
I recently tried a construction defect case in which I was able to secure a significant jury award on behalf of the owners of a townhome in Montgomery County in a claim involving faulty construction and unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. I represented Subhash and Rita Dhawan in a suit against the builder of their home, Churchill Group at Maxwell Square, Inc. The suit alleged construction defects discovered several years after the purchase, and was based on claims of negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA). They were awarded more than $400,000 in damages which included expert consultant costs and more than $300,000 in legal fees. (more…)
