by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 20, 2012
Another bill effecting condominiums and homeowners association that failed to pass during the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly related to insurance coverage for property management companies. House Bill 741 would have required management companies, employed by condominiums, homeowners associations or housing cooperatives, to purchase fidelity insurance that would indemnify the assoication from an act or omission arising from fraud, dishonesty or criminal acts by an agent of employee of the mangagement company. The proposed law received an umfavorable report from the Environmental Matters Committee, and never came to a vote.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 16, 2012
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.
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 16, 2012
Effective October 1, 2012, entities that bill Condominiums Councils for water or sewer charges are required to post notices if utility bills are in arrears for more than 60 days, and are authorized to enter the common area of the condominium to post a notice of the default. Under House Bill 884 (Chapter 684) from the 2012 session of the General Assembly, public utilities, sanitary commissions, political subdivisions, and the public service commission, when directly bill the governing bodies of condominiums for utility charges, are required to post notices on the condominium property that a utility bill is in arrears. Previously existing law requires that such utility providers provide notice to property owners that service will be discontinued due to unpaid bills. The new law amends various sections of the Annotated Code of Maryland as to condominiums to require that such notices be posted at the condominium, and authorizes entry into the common area for the purpose of posting the required notice. Effected code provisions include Sections 9-662, 9-724 and 9-726.1 of the Environmental Code, and Sections 7-307.2 and 25-504 of the Public Utilities Code.
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.
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.
