|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, November 3, 2011: Bar Admissions No. 30 Joanna Davis v. Michael A. Petito, Jr. ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - IN DETERMINING AN AWARD OF COSTS & ATTORNEY’S FEES IN A CUSTODY CASE, FAM. LAW. ART. SEC. 12-103(b)(2) OF THE MD CODE REQUIRING THE COURTS TO CONSIDER INTER ALIA THE FINANCIAL STATUS & NEEDS OF EACH PARTY, WAS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOWER COURT TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE MOTHER WAS REPRESENTED PRO BONO & TO DISREGARD HER DAY-TO-DAY FINANCIAL NEEDS PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO CARING FOR THE CHILD? Attorney for Appellant: John R. Seward Attorney for Appellant: Marc A. DeSimone, Jr.
ISSUE - TAX LAW - DID THE MD GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ENACTING TG 13-1104(c)(2)(i) INTEND FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO BEGIN TO RUN ON MD REFUND CLAIMS ON THE DATE A TAXPAYER’S FEDERAL INCOME TAX LIABILITY IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RATHER THAN THE DATE THAT THE IRS ISSUES A REPORT PROPOSING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TAXPAYER’S LIABILITY? Attorney for Appellant: David S. DeJong No. 28 Calvin Montgomery Waker v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHERE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REDUCES THE PENALTY FOR AN OFFENSE AFTER A DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE BUT BEFORE HE IS TRIED & SENTENCED & WHERE THE ACT IS SILENT AS TO ITS APPLICATION IN SUCH A SITUATION, IS THE DEFENDANT SUBJECT TO THE HARSHER PENALTY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR THE REDUCED PENALTY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL & SENTENCING? (2) DID PETITIONER FAIL TO PRESERVE HIS APPELLATE CLAIM REGARDING HIS CONVICTION & SENTENCE FOR FELONY THEFT WHERE PETITIONER DID NOT STATE A CLAIM OF SENTENCE ILLEGALITY? Attorney for Appellant: Brian M. Saccenti No. 35 John Burson, et al. v. David Simiard ISSUES - STATUTORY LAW - (1) WAS THE LOWER COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT MD RULE 14-305(g) CONTEMPLATES THAT WHEN A FORECLOSURE PURCHASER DEFAULTS THE DEFAULTING PURCHASER’S “RISK & EXPENSE” ATTACHES ONLY TO THE ONE RESALE RESULTING FROM HIS OR HER DEFAULT? (2) WAS THE LOWER COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT A DEFAULTING PURCHASER IS ONLY LIABLE FOR THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE SALE & THE FIRST RESALE BECAUSE HE DID NOT CAUSE THE SECOND DEFAULTING PURCHASE TO BREACH? Attorney for Appellant: Richard W. Drury No. 24 Michael T. Polek, et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al. ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) DOES SEC. 12-405 OF THE MD SECONDARY MORTGAGE LOAN LAW (SMLL) LIMIT LENDER COMPENSATION TO ONLY A SINGLE LOAN ORIGINATION FEE OR MAY A LENDER COLLECT ANY NUMBER OF SEPARATELY LABELED CLOSING FEES, COSTS & CHARGES AS LONG AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH FEES, COSTS & CHARGES, LOAN ORIGINATION & FINDER’S FEES ARE LESS THAN 10% OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN? (2) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1? (3) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 3-306 WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PERSON TAKING AN INSTRUMENT, OTHER THAN A PERSON HAVING THE RIGHTS OF A HOLDER-IN–DUE-COURSE IS SUBJECT TO A CLAIM OF A POSSESSORY OR PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE INSTRUMENT OR ITS PROCEEDS? (4) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (5) DOES THE 12-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SMLL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ASSIGNEES OF SECOND MORTGAGES? Attorney for Appellant: E. David Hoskins No. 25 Richard S. Dinnis, et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 3-306? (2) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (3) DOES THE 12-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SMLL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ASSIGNEES OF SECOND MORTGAGE? (4) DOES AN ASSIGNEE’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A BORROWER WITH COPY OF THE SECOND MORTGAGE LOAN FILE GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER MD LAW? (5) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1? Attorney for Appellant: E. David Hoskins No. 26 John W. Kinsey, Jr., et ux. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) DOES SEC. 12-405 OF THE SMLL LIMIT LENDER COMPENSATION TO ONLY A SINGLE LOAN ORIGINATION FEE OR MAY A LENDER COLLECT ANY NUMBER OF SEPARATELY LABELED CLOSING FEES, COSTS & CHARGES AS LONG AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES, COSTS & CHARGES, LOAN ORIGINATION & FINDER’S FEES ARE LESS THAN 10% OF THE NET PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN? (2) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1? (3) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN. COM. LAW SEC. 3-306? (4) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (5) DOES THE 12-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SMLL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ASSIGNEES OF SECOND MORTGAGES? Attorney for Appellant: E. David Hoskins No. 38 Frank J. Schultz, Jr. v. Citimortgage, Inc. ISSUES - COMMON LAW - (1) IS THE SMLL VIOLATED WHEN A LENDER FAILS TO PROVIDE A BORROWER THE DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 12-407.1? (2) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW SEC. 3-306 WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PERSON TAKING AN INSTRUMENT, OTHER THAN A PERSON HAVING THE RIGHTS OF A HOLDER-IN-DUE-COURSE, IS SUBJECT TO A CLAIM OF A POSSESSORY OR PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE INSTRUMENT OR ITS PROCEEDS? (3) IS AN ASSIGNEE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO THE SMLL CLAIMS THAT COULD BE RAISED BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE ORIGINATING LENDER BY OPERATION OF MD COMMON LAW? (4) DOES AN ASSIGNEE’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A BORROWER WITH COPY OF THE SECOND MORTGAGE LOAN FILE GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER MD LAW? Attorney for Appellant: E. David Hoskins No. 33 Sam Nichols, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse W. Suiters v. Virginia Lee Suiters ISSUES - ESTATES & TRUSTS - (1) DID LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION OF SEC. 4-105 OF THE ESTATES & TRUSTS ART. WHEN IT REFUSED TO APPLY THE STATUTE TO REVOKE BENEFITS TO THE DIVORCED SPOUSE UNDER THE WILL WHICH WAS EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE DIVORCE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND THAT AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 4-105 APPLIED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL CONCLUDED THAT THE EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE DECEDENT INTENDED TO BENEFIT RESPONDENT WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE DECEDENT’S INTENT AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE & WHERE THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER RESPONDENT WOULD BENEFIT UNDER THE WILL IF THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT DIVORCE? (4) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN MAKING FACTUAL FINDINGS THAT WERE NOT MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT & RELYING UPON EVIDENCE NOT ADMITTED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AT THE DE NOVO HEARING? Attorney for Appellant: Demetrios G. Kaouris No. 39 Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v.
Public Service Commission of Maryland, ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) IS THE COMMISSION’S ORDER 83137 SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? (2) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IT ORDERS VERIZON TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ALTERNATIVE FORM OF REGULAR (AFOR) THAT DOES NOT PROTECT CONSUMERS BY ENSURING THE QUALITY, AVAILABILITY & RELIABILITY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES THROUGH THE STATE OF MARYLAND? (3) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IN ORDERING VERIZON TO IMPLEMENT A NEW AFOR THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING THAT THE NEW AFOR PROTECTS CONSUMERS BY PRODUCING AFFORDABLE & REASONABLY PRICED BASIC LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE? (4) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IT ORDERS VERIZON TO IMPLEMENT A NEW AFOR THAT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? (5) IS THE ORDER AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW IN THAT IT ESTABLISHES A NEW BALANCING OF THE INTEREST TEST BY ITS APPROVAL OF THE AFOR? Attorney for Appellant: Vincent Trivelli No. 37 Kimberly Jones v. State of Maryland, et al. ISSUES - TORTS - (1) IS EVIDENCE THAT POLICE OFFICERS COMMITTED INTENTIONAL TORTS & CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS COUPLED WITH TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS THAT THEIR ACTIONS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRAINING & EVIDENCE THAT THE OFFICERS ENTERED A CITIZEN’S HOME WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO PROVE A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENT TRAINING? (2) IS EXPERT TESTIMONY NECESSARY FOR A PLAINTIFF TO MEET HER BURDEN OF PROOF ON A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENT TRAINING OR SUPERVISION OF POLICE OFFICERS? (3) DOES THE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE SHIELD THE STATE FROM A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE WHEN ITS POLICE OFFICERS COMMIT INTENTIONAL TORTS AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS? Attorney for Appellant: Cary J. Hansel No. 132 (2010 T.) Nicole Pace, as Mother and Next Friend of Liana Pace v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING STATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FINDING THAT THE STATE HAD NO DUTY OF CARE TO PETITIONER RATHER THAN SPECIAL OR STATUTORY DUTY TO ENSURE HER “INDIVIDUAL” “SPECIAL” DIETARY NEEDS WERE MET & TO PROTECT HER FROM DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF EITHER RACE OR DISABILITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM? Attorney for Appellant: Philip J. Sweitzer
AG 44 (2010 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anthony Maurice Harmon Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell No. 29 Pro-Football, Inc. t/a Washington Redskins, et al. v. Thomas J. Tupa, Jr. ISSUES - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - (1) WHETHER MD PUBLIC POLICY INVALIDATES AN OTHERWISE VALID FORUM-SELECTION PROVISION IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT THAT SPECIFIES THE VA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION AS THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES RELATED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS? (2) WHETHER A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER WHO ONLY PLAYS APPROXIMATELY 10 GAMES EACH YEAR IN MD FOR A TEAM BASED IN VA CAN PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED A “COVERED EMPLOYEE” UNDER THE ACT? (3) WHETHER AN INJURY THAT ARISES FROM PARTICIPATION IN A PROFESSIONAL SPORTING EVENT CONSTITUTES AN “ACCIDENTAL INJURY” UNDER THE ACT? Attorney for Appellant: David O. Godwin, Jr. No. 36 Montgomery Preservation, Inc., et al. v.
Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland- ISSUES - ZONING - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO UNDERTAKE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD’S DECISION TO DETERMINE IF THE BOARD’S ACTION WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS OR OTHERWISE DEFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT PLANNING BOARD ACTION IN THIS CASE WAS A “RECOMMENDATION” RATHER THAN AN APPEALABLE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S DECISION? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE PETITIONERS PROPER RECOURSE IN THIS CASE WAS TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL? Attorney for Appellant: Michele McDaniel Rosenfeld No. 34 Paul B. DeWolfe, in his official capacity as the
Public Defender for the State of Maryland, et al. ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT INITIAL BAIL HEARINGS: (a) BEFORE DISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONERS UNDER MD’S PUBLIC DEFENDER ACT? (b) UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT & ART. 21 OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? (c) UNDER MD OR FEDERAL GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS? (d) WHEN COMMISSIONERS IMPOSE BAIL”PRESET” BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN ABSENTIA? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE CLASS DECLARATORY RELIEF IN ACCORD WITH ITS FINDINGS THAT DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING THE CLASS’S STATUTORY & CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? (3) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ISSUING THE DECLARATION WITHOUT IN ANY WAY ADDRESSING REMEDY & HOW THIS UNDISPUTED FUNDING SHORTFALL MIGHT BE PRACTICABLY ADDRESSED? Attorneys for Appellant: Julia Doyle Bernhardt and A. Stephen Hut, Jr.
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified. After November 8, 2011, the Court will recess until December 1, 2011.
BESSIE M. DECKER |