Select Page

Bill In Maryland General Assembly Would Preclude Lien Foreclosures From Including Amounts Due For Fines and Related Fees

A bill now pending in the Maryland Legislature would prevent condominium’s, cooperative housing corporations, and homeowner associations from including in a lien foreclosure action  amounts due for fines and attorney’s fees incurred in recovering fines.  Instead, under House Bill 286,  foreclosure of a lien could only involve delinquent monthly or special assessments. (more…)

Bill In Maryland Legislature Would Add Business Negotiations As A Further Basis For A Closed Meeting Of A Condominium’s Board of Directors

House Bill 388, now pending before the General Assembly, would permit a condominium’s board of directors to hold a closed meeting to discuss negotiations pertinent to a business transaction.  It would amend Section 11-109.1 of the Maryland Condominium Act to permit closed board meetings for “consideration of the terms and conditions of a business transaction in the negotiation stage if the disclosure could adversely affect the economic interests of the council of unit owners.” (more…)

Maryland Legislature Considers Bill To Require Information As To “Potential” Special Assessments In Resale Contracts

House Bill 23, now before the Maryland General Assembly, would require information concerning “potential” special assessments to be included in resale contracts for both condominium units  and properties subject to  a homeowers association.  Perhaps in response to the protracted litigation in MRA Property Management, Inc. v. Armstrong,  426 Md. 83, 43 A. 3d 397 (2012), which concerned the alleged failure to disclose knowledge of defects that would ultimately require special assessments to repair, the proposed legislation would amend Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act and Section 11B-106 of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act to require that any resale contract include a notice of “any potential special assessment that is referenced within the preceding 12 months in” (1) the agenda or minutes of any meeting of the board of directors of a condominium, or the governing body of a homeowners association; or (2) a vote at a meeting of a condominium’s council of unit owners or a homeowners association.  As proposed, the new requirement would apply to a mere reference to the possibility of a special assessment, and not to just actual special assessment proposals or enactments.

Significant Maryland Condominium Arbitration Award Confirmed By Balitmore City Circuit Court

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…)

Disclosure of Code Violations In Maryland Condo Resale Certificates May Mean Only “Charged Violations”

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…)

The Harborview Condominium Case

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…)