by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 30, 2013
Under Section 11-127 of the Maryland Condominium Act, devel0pers of condominiums are required to file a Public Offering Statement with the Maryland Secretary of State. Until the Public Offering Statement is registered, and until 10 days after all amendments have been filed, a contract for the sale of any unit may not be entered into, and any such contracts are void. Additionally, under Section 11-126 of the Maryland Condominium Act, the initial purchaser of a condominium unit must receive a copy of the Public Offering Statement at or before the time the contract of sale is entered into, or the contract is unenforceable by the seller. Such contracts of sale are also required to contain, in conspicuous type, a notice of the purchaser’s right to receive a Public Offering Statement.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 26, 2013
The Maryland Court of Appeals has affirmed a decsion of the Court of Special Appeals ruling that certain expert testimony is not admissible to support medical clams arising from exposure to mold and other environmental byproducts of damp buildings.
Such claims are often supported by a medical analysis known as “differential diagnosis” and sometimes referred to as “repetitive exposure protocol,” which as been used by physicians to attribute various medical symptoms to inhalation of mold in water-damaged buildings. Rather than demonstrating a specific exposure to a specific mold resulting in a specific reaction, differential diagnosis uses a process that “rules out” or “rules in” possible causes of symptoms a patient is experiencing to determine that their symptoms are related to exposure to mold. Differential diagnosis has been frequently used to show an association between exposure to mold in wet buildings and certain human health effects. In its opinion in the case of Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chesson, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that this method is not sufficiently accepted in the scientific community so as to be used as a basis for medical testimony in mold cases. The Court of Special Appeals reversed a trial court ruling that found such medical testimony to be reliable and admissible. Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has now affirmed the Court of Special Appeals decision. Chesson v. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 97, Sept. Term 2012. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 25, 2013
An amendment to the Maryland Contract Lien Act, as it relates to the foreclosure of liens by condominiums and homeowners associations, takes effect on Tuesday, October 1, 2013. The new law modifies Section 14-204 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Annotated Code to prohibit condominiums and homeowners associations from foreclosing on liens for anything other than delinquent periodic or special assessments. As a result, unpaid fines or other charges may not be the basis for a lien. Additionally, the new law requires that related costs and fees imposed in connection with the lien be limited to “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees directly related to the filing of the lien and not exceeding the amount of the delinquent assessments.” The law expressly provides that it is “to apply only prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on or application to any lien filed before the effective date.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 24, 2013
A new Maryland law that permits closed condominium board meetings for the purpose of discussing business transactions takes effect this coming Tuesday, October 1, 2013. House Bill 388 and Senate Bill 197 were both approved by unanimous votes in each house of the Maryland General Assembly and signed by the Governor. The new law amends Section 11-109.1 of the Maryland Condominium Act to provide that the board of directors of a condominium council of unit owners may meet in closed session for “consideration of the terms or conditions of a business transaction in the negotiation stage if disclosure could adversely affect the economic interests of the council of unit owners.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 6, 2013
The House of Representatives is considering a bill to make condominiums, as well as housing cooperatives, eligible to receive grants for storm recovery relief for common element damage. H.R. 2887, introduced by several members of the House representing New York, would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to provide that individuals eligible for FEMA assistance under the Act include the associations that govern condominiums and housing cooperatives with respect to the property elements that are the responsibility of the assoication. It further would provide that the maximum amount that an association may receive could be adjusted by regulation and not limited to the amounts payable to indiviual homeowners. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jun 25, 2013
The interpretation of condominium resale disclosure requirements remains unclear as a result of certain Maryland court decisions and the Maryland General Assembly’s failure to provide clarification during the 2013 Session. Those disclosure requirements are intended to provide prospective condominium purchasers with sufficient information about potential expenses so as to permit them to make an informed purchase decision. Uncertainty arose when the Maryland Court of Appeals, in a footnote concerning an issue not even before the Court, offered the opinion that the required disclosure of known code violations, at the time of resale of a unit, under Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act, refers only to “charged violations.” While this observation was offered in dicta, and is not binding law, it suggested that knowledge of building or health code violations, that ultimately could lead to expensive repairs, need not be disclosed to a would-be purchaser unless the condition had been formally cited by the local code authority. During the 2013 session, legislation was considered that would have touched on this issue by requiring disclosure of “potential” special assessments, but the proposed new law was never enacted. Subsequently, in at least one unreported opinion, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals relied on the Court of Appeals statement to hold that knowledge of a violation requires “notice or citation from an official enforcement agency.” While the unreported opinion is also not binding law, the two decisions have clearly suggested a limited disclosure requirement that may not provide the level of information intended by the statute. (more…)
