Select Page

Maryland Condo Law Blog

An online resource for condominium and homeowner associations and their members, and for developers, builders, contractors, architects, engineers and others in the building industry.

New Maryland Law Requires Recycling At Condominiums

During the 2012 Session, the Maryland General Assembly enacted a new provision that requires the council of unit owners of all condominiums with ten or more units to, by October 1, 2014, provide recycling for the residents, including collection and removal, in accordance with the recycling plan adopted by the county in which the condominium is located.  House Bill 1 (Chapter 192) amends Section 9-1711 of the Environment Article to require recyling at condominiums and apartment buildings with ten or more units.  It further authorizes the counties to require that such faciliites report to the county on their recyling activities in such manner as the county may determine.  The new law does not effect the authority of a county, municipality or other local government to enact and enforce more stringent recycling requirements.  It also authorizes a county, municipality or other local government to conduct inspections to enforce these recycling provisions.  Violations are subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $50 for each day in which a violation exists.

Maryland Court of Appeals Reconsidering Pit Bull Ruling

A Maryland legal ruling recently made national news when the Court of Appeals held that the owners of pit bull breeds, as well as landlords who permit tenants to own pitbulls, 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.  Now the Court has 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.

The victim in the underlaying case was Dominic Solesky, a 10-year-old boy who in 2007 was mauled by a pit bull.  Solesky was seriously injured in the attack, requiring five hours of surgery, including repair of his severed femoral artery.  He spent seventeen days in the pediatric intensive care unit, had additional surgeries, and spent a year in rehabilitation.  In 2008, his parents filed a complaint seeking money damages against the dog’s owners and their landlord, alleging negligence and strict liability.  The dog’s owners subsequently declared bankruptcy.  At trial, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the landlord knew of the vicious nature of the dog.  In 2011, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The landlord’s insurer appealed to Maryland’s highest court.

In modifying Maryland common law of liability relating to attacks by pit bulls and pit bull-mixes, the Court of Appeals concluded that “because of its aggressive and vicious nature…pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous” and went on to “impose greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls.”

Stay tuned for developments as the issue is reconsidered.

I Will Be Presenting a Free Webinar On June 27: “Condominium and New Home Warranties and Rights of Action”

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, I will be presenting a webinar from noon until 1:30 pm entitled “Condominium and New Home Warranties and Rights of Action.”  The webinar will focus on claims and causes of action that arise in connection with construction defect issues.

For most individuals, the purchase of a new house or condominium unit is the largest investment that they will have ever made.  Moreover, that investment is also a home and place of refuge and relaxation that they share with family and friends.  Few things, therefore, have the potential to be more disturbing than the discovery of construction defect issues that diminish both the enjoyment of the home and its value.  For that reason, new home purchasers inMarylandare afforded various protections in the form of statutory warranties.  They also may receive specific warranties from the seller as part of their purchase agreement.  Additionally, homebuyers may have other statutory and common law rights of action that arise as a result of construction deficiencies.  However, none of these possible remedies provides a certain or easy path to relief.  All such claims are governed by strict statutes of limitations that require considerable diligence or order to preserve the intended benefits.  Pursuing claims is also an expensive and often protracted process that, in addition to the retention of capable legal counsel, also requires the involvement of building consultants who can identify defects, recommend repairs, and offer opinion evidence to support the claim.

This program is intended to shed some light on the issues that confront associations and homeowners when attempting to pursue construction defect remedies, as well as the liability and exposure that effects developers and builders.  It will offer important information for condominium and homewoner associations, unit owners, property managers, developers, builders and contractors.  The is no cost to attend the program.  Here is the link from which you can sign up:

http://www.ober.com/news_events/1836-condominium-new-home-warranties-rights-action

Maryland Court of Appeals Rules That The Consumer Protection Act Applies to Condominium Resale Certificates And Imposes Potential Liablitly On A Condominium Council And Its Managing Agent

In a unanimous opinion filed on April 30, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals has established that provisions the Maryland Consumer Protection Act apply to the information contained in a condominium resale certificate, and a council of unit owners and property manager can be liable for unfair and deceptive trade practices if the information has a tendency to mislead the purchaser, even though they are not party to the sales contract, and even if they have otherwise complied with the condominium resale disclosure requirements contained in Section 11-135 of the Maryland Condominium Act.   I have previously written about an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of MRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011.   A majority of the Court  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.’”  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.”   Subsequently, however, in response to motions for reconsideration filed on behalf of both sides in the appeal, the Court  withdrew and agreed to reconsider its opinion.  Following re-argument, the Court has now issued its final opinion, holding that the statutory duties to provide the disclosure information required under Section 11-135 of the Condominium Act, “sufficiently implicated [the council and the property manager] in the entire transaction so as to impose liability under the Consumer Protection Act.” read more…

Implied Warranties for New Condominiums In Maryland

          Section 11-131 of the Maryland Condominium Act provides significant warranty protections for the purchasers for new condominium units.  Section 11-131 (a) codified the ruling in StarfishCondominium Ass’n v. Yorkridge Service Corp., and established that new home warranties under Section 10-203 “apply to all sales by developers” of condominiums, and that “a newly constructed private dwelling unit means a newly constructed or newly converted condominium unit and its appurtenant undivided fee simple interest in the common areas.”  Specific warranties are applicable to certain specified components of both individual units and the common elements, and they are the obligation of the condominium’s developer. read more…

Maryland Implied Warranties That Are Applicable To All Newly Contructed Homes, Including Condominiums

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.” read more…

Maryland Condo Law Blog To Be Featured In The Ocean City Spring Home,Condo and Outdoor Show Program

Ocean City area residents and visitors should look for information on this blog in the Ocean City Spring Home, Condo and Outdoor Show Program.  The 28th annual show will take place at the R.E. Powell Ocean City Convention Center for three days this week:  Friday March 9 from noon to 6:00 p.m., Saturday March 10 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday March 11 from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.  The program will be available at the show, and can also be found as an insert in this week’s edition of The Bayside Gazette  and Ocean City Today.

Maryland Legislature Considering Bill To Require Property Mangagers To Purchase Fidelity Insurance For Dishonest Acts

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.” read more…

Maryland’s Highest Court Reconsidering Issues Condominium Disclosure Decision

I previously wrote about the recent decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of InMRA Property Management, Inc., et al. v. Armstrong, No. 93, Sept. Term 2007, filed on October 25, 2011.   A majority of the Court of  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.  Now, however, in response to motions for reconsideration filed on behalf of both sides in the appeal, the Court has agreed to withdraw and reconsider its opinion. read more…

2012 Maryland Super Lawyers

I am very pleased to have been selected to the 2012 list of Maryland Super Lawyers.  This is the six consecutive year that I have had the privilege of being included in this elite group since the inception of the Super Lawyer ratings system in 2007.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.  To learn more, you can visit the website at www.superlawyers.com.

ABOUT

Raymond Daniel Burke

The Maryland Condo Law Blog is written by Raymond Daniel Burke. One of the region's top construction and real estate development lawyers, Ray has more than 35 years of experience in matters relating to condominium and other multi-use development matters.

ARCHIVES

CATEGORIES