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
Under Section 11-114 of the Maryland Condominium Act, and Section 11B- 111.6 of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act require that condominium councils of unit owners and homeowner associations maintain property and liability insurance. House Bill 741 pending in the current session of the Maryland General Assembly would extend an insurance requirement to a management company that contracts with the condominium or homeowners association. The proposed language provides that, if a condominium or homeowners association “contracts with a management company for operation or maintenance services,” such “management company shall purchase fidelity insurance that provides for the indemnification of the [condominium or homeowners association] against loss resulting form acts or omissions arising from fraud, dishonesty, or criminal acts by any agent or other employed of the management company.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Nov 3, 2011
In its recent decsion in MRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011, a majority of the Maryland Court of Appeals 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. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Aug 30, 2011
I obtained a noteworthy ruling this morning in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County while representing a condominium unit owner in a construction defect suit. The sales agreement provided for arbitration of claims, and contained a provision that precludes the arbitration panel from awarding attorney’s fees. Under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc Code Ann. Sec. 3-221, an arbitration award cannot include attorney’s fees unless provided for in the arbitration agreement.
The complaint filed on behalf of the unit owner included a cause of action under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the award of attorney’s fees. The Court accepted our argument that, because the damages that can be awarded under the Consumer Protection Act could not be awarded in arbitration, the Consumer Protection Act claim was not subject to the arbitration agreement, and can proceed in Court before a jury.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jul 12, 2011
The Maryland General Assembly enacted new legislation aimed at helping to resolve disputes concerning the election of officers and board members of a homeowners association. Senate Bill 532 amends Section 11B-115 of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act to give the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office authority to resolve election disputs. A lot owner who believes that the governing body of an HOA has failed to comply with the election procedures under the association’s governing documents can submit their dispute to the Division for resolution if any one of five specific matters are at issue: (1) Notice about the date, time, and place for the election; (2) the manner in which a call for nominations for the board was made; (3) the format of the election ballot; (4) the format, provision, and use of proxies during the election process; or (5) the manner in which a quorum is determined for election purposes. The new law take effect on October 1, 2011.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jun 29, 2011
Unlike the Title 10 warranties that are applicable to the sales of all new homes in Maryland, including condominiums, the Title 11 condominium warranties “may not be excluded or modified” by any action or written document. In other words, the purchaser cannot be required to agree to eliminate these statutory warranties, or change the terms of the warranties as required by the statute. Any such agreement, written or otherwise, is invalid. This recognizes that a condominium purchaser is buying an interest in the common elements of a building, or perhaps a number of buildings, and is not have the same ability as a purchaser of an individual home to inspect the entire premises. It includes both the warranty on components of the common elements that is given by the developer to the council of unit owners, and the warranty on components of the individual units that is given by the developer to each individual unit owner purchaser. Therefore, the condominium warranties apply regardless of any agreement to exclude them or modify the content. However, the Title 11 condominium warranties are expressly limited so as not to apply “to any defects caused through the abuse or failure to perform maintenance by a unit owner or the council of unit owners,” and are also inapplicable to non-residential condominium regimes.
