Select Page

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.

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…)

Proposed Insurance Requirement for Property Management Companies Fails in the Maryland Legislature

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.

Proposed Maryland Legislation Would Have Created State Board To Regulate Property Management Companies

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.

Maryland Special Session Considers But Does Not Act On Pit Bull Legislation

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.