by Raymond Daniel Burke | Nov 21, 2012
Ober|Kaler Construction Group principal Raymond D. Burke and associates Mathew T. Vocci and Jackson B. Boyd secured judicial confirmation earlier this year in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of a significant arbitration award on behalf of the owner of a penthouse condominium unit located at 100 Harborview Drive in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. The Circuit Court’s confirmation of the $1,252,487 arbitration award resulted in what is believed to be Maryland’s largest judgment against a condominium council of unit owners for its failure to maintain, repair, and replace the common elements of a condominium building (in this case, the roof system, exterior façade, and HVAC ductwork of a 27-story high-rise). The Circuit Court also confirmed the arbitration award’s order of specific performance, which requires the condominium’s council of unit owners to replace the building’s roof system, repair its exterior façade, clean its HVAC ductwork, and insulate its rooftop exterior HVAC ductwork. The value of the work required by the specific performance order is approximately $6 million. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Nov 2, 2012
As condominium boards and property managers should well know, Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act imposes a duty on councils of unit owners to provide unit purchasers with a resale certificate whenever a unit is being re-sold. One significant disclosure that must be made in a resale certificate is “[a] statement as to whether the council of unit owners has knowledge of any violation of the health or building codes with respect to the unit, the limited common elements assigned to the unit, or any other portion of the condominium.” This, of course, gives rise to the question of what constitutes “knowledge” of a code violation for disclosure purposes. The Maryland Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue, but only in a footnote contained in MRA Property Management, Inc. v. Armstrong, 426 Md. 83, 43 A. 3d 397 (2012). While the issue was not actually before the Court, it, nevertheless, took the unusual step of considering the question, and concluded that the disclosure requirement involves only “charged violations;” that is, only violations as to which a formal violation notice has been issued by the code authority. It can certainly be argued that “knowledge” of a code violation includes knowing that a deviation from a code requirement exists, such as in the form of an engineer’s report, and that such information is highly relevant to a consideration of what maintenance and repair costs may confront the unit purchaser. However, the Court’s voluntary discussion of this issue, while only dicta, certainly indicates the direction and narrow reading of the statute the Court may take if the issue were to be placed squarely before it. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 28, 2012
I am frequently asked to discuss my representation of the owner of a multi-million dollar penthouse condominium unit on the top floor of a residential high-rise building on Baltimore’s Inner Harbor known as Harborview Condominium. The claim concerned the failure of the Condominium’s Council of Unit Owners to correct defects in the common elements of the roof, exterior façade and HVAC system. These defects were alleged to have permitted water intrusion through the exterior envelope and into the Plaintiff’s unit, resulting in damage to building components, interior finishes and furnishings and other personal property, along with microbial contamination, which rendered the unit uninhabitable.
The case was tried over five days before a three-judge arbitration panel in September 2011. In November 2011, the arbitration panel awarded the Plaintiff cash damages in the amount of $1,252,487, representing the cost to repair damage to the unit and to remediate the environmental contamination, along with alternative living expenses and other related costs. The panel also issued a specific performance award directing the Condominium to undertake an identified scope of work to repair to the roof, exterior façade and HVAC system. The value of the repair is approximately $5,000.000. The panel ordered that the HVAC repairs be completed within 60 days, and that the remaining building repairs be completed by December 2013. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 21, 2012
After granting a motion to reconsider its ruling imposing strict liability on the owners of pit bulls and their landlords, the Maryland Court of Appeals has revised its decision by keeping the ruling in place as to pure bred pit bulls, but deleting its application to cross breds. The Court originally held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pit bulls, 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 knowledge on the part of the owner or landlord that the dog was dangerous. Subsequently, the Court determined that it would hear arguments to reconsider the decision. Interested groups on both sides of the contovery filed amicus curie briefs with the Court, and the matter was a subject of the recent special session of the Maryland General Assembly, which considered but did not pass legislation on the issue. The revised ruling means that the common law, requiring proof of knowledge that the dog is dangerous, continues to apply in Maryland to all breeds, including those deemed to be cross-bred pit bulls, but that strict liability applies to pure bred pit bulls. Look for this issue to again be taken up when the Maryland General Assembly meets in its regular session commencing in January 2013.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 16, 2012
The recent special session of the Maryland General Assembly, called primarily to enact legislation expanding gambling, also considered but did not finalize legislation that would have addressed the decision of the Court of Appeals imposing strict liability on the owners of pit bulls and their landlords. This means that the current process of reconsideration of the ruling by the Court of Appeals will proceed. The Court held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pit bulls, 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. Subsequently, the Court 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.
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.
