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 | Jun 5, 2012
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
by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 1, 2012
In a unanimous opinion filed on April 30, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals has established that provisions the Maryland Consumer Protection Act apply to the information contained in a condominium resale certificate, and a council of unit owners and property manager can be liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices if the information has a tendency to mislead the purchaser, even though they are not party to the sales contract, and even if they have otherwise complied with the condominium resale disclosure requirements contained in Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act. I have previously written about an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of MRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011. A majority of the Court 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.’” 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.” 
Subsequently, however, in response to motions for reconsideration filed on behalf of both sides in the appeal, the Court withdrew and agreed to reconsider its opinion. Following re-argument, the Court has now issued its final opinion, holding that the statutory duties to provide the disclosure information required under Section 11-135 of the Condominium Act, “sufficiently implicated [the council and the property manager] in the entire transaction so as to impose liability under the Consumer Protection Act.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Apr 14, 2012
Section 11-131 of the Maryland Condominium Act provides significant warranty protections for the purchasers for new condominium units. Section 11-131 (a) codified the ruling in StarfishCondominium Ass’n v. Yorkridge Service Corp., and established that new home warranties under Section 10-203 “apply to all sales by developers” of condominiums, and that “a newly constructed private dwelling unit means a newly constructed or newly converted condominium unit and its appurtenant undivided fee simple interest in the common areas.” Specific warranties are applicable to certain specified components of both individual units and the common elements, and they are the obligation of the condominium’s developer. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Mar 25, 2012
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…)
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…)
