Select Page

Proposed Maryland Legislation Would Have Created State Board To Regulate Property Management Companies

House Bill 433 and Senate Bill 372 from the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly proposed the creation of a State Board of Common Interest Community Managers to regulate the provision of property management services to common interest communities, including condominiums, homeowner associations and housing cooperatives.  The legislation would have required the licensing of community association property managers through the new State Board.  It also would have required condominiums with more than 10 units, associations with more than 50 lots, and any community that is professionally managed, to register with the Board.  The bill was considered by the Environmental Matter Committee, but never came to a vote.

I Will Be Presenting a Free Webinar On June 27: “Condominium and New Home Warranties and Rights of Action”

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, I will be presenting a webinar from noon until 1:30 pm entitled “Condominium and New Home Warranties and Rights of Action.”  The webinar will focus on claims and causes of action that arise in connection with construction defect issues.

For most individuals, the purchase of a new house or condominium unit is the largest investment that they will have ever made.  Moreover, that investment is also a home and place of refuge and relaxation that they share with family and friends.  Few things, therefore, have the potential to be more disturbing than the discovery of construction defect issues that diminish both the enjoyment of the home and its value.  For that reason, new home purchasers inMarylandare afforded various protections in the form of statutory warranties.  They also may receive specific warranties from the seller as part of their purchase agreement.  Additionally, homebuyers may have other statutory and common law rights of action that arise as a result of construction deficiencies.  However, none of these possible remedies provides a certain or easy path to relief.  All such claims are governed by strict statutes of limitations that require considerable diligence or order to preserve the intended benefits.  Pursuing claims is also an expensive and often protracted process that, in addition to the retention of capable legal counsel, also requires the involvement of building consultants who can identify defects, recommend repairs, and offer opinion evidence to support the claim.

This program is intended to shed some light on the issues that confront associations and homeowners when attempting to pursue construction defect remedies, as well as the liability and exposure that effects developers and builders.  It will offer important information for condominium and homewoner associations, unit owners, property managers, developers, builders and contractors.  The is no cost to attend the program.  Here is the link from which you can sign up:

http://www.ober.com/news_events/1836-condominium-new-home-warranties-rights-action

Maryland Implied Warranties That Are Applicable To All Newly Contructed Homes, Including Condominiums

I was recently asked to again discuss the impled warranties under Maryland law.  Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. Tit. 10, certain implied warranties are applicable to the sale of every newly constructed home in Maryland.  These warranties are applicable to all “improvements,” which are defined as “every newly constructed private dwelling unit, and fixture and structure which is made part of a newly constructed private dwelling unit at the time of its construction.”  They are enforceable against a “vendor,” defined as “any person engaged in the business of erecting or otherwise creating an improvement on realty, or to whom a completed improvement has been granted for resale in the course of his business.”  These broadly worded implied warranties provide that the improvement is:  (1) Free from faulty materials; (2) constructed according to sound engineering standards; (3) constructed in a workmanlike manner; and (4) fit for habitation.  However, it is expressly provided that these warranties “do not apply to any condition that an inspection of the premises would reveal to a reasonably diligent purchaser at the time the contract is signed.  Nevertheless, there is a fifth implied warranty that is not subject to the inspection exception.  This is the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.  “If the purchaser, expressly or by implication, makes known to the vendor the particular purpose for which the improvement is required, and it appears that the purchaser relies on the vendor’s skill and judgment, there is an implied warranty that the improvement is reasonably fit for the purpose.” (more…)

Maryland Legislature Considering Bill To Require Property Mangagers To Purchase Fidelity Insurance For Dishonest Acts

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…)

New Maryland Construction Law Deskbook

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.

 

 

Award of Attorney’s Fees Under the Consumer Protection Act May Not Be Subject To An Arbitration Agreement

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.