SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013:
AG No. 2 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michelle Hamilton Davy
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Michelle Hamilton Davy
No. 1 Hector Butler, Jr. v. S&S Partnership, et al.
Issues - Torts - 1) In a lead paint case, where the plain language of the scheduling order provided that "Defendants who still own a subject property" shall be permitted to attend the lead test of that property, did CSA err in ruling that the Plaintiff was required to have notified the Defendants and to have permitted attendance at a lead test conducted at a property which was not still owned by a defendant? 2) Did the motions court err in imposing discovery sanctions on Plaintiff when no discovery motion was ever made by the Defendant, no objection was ever made regarding the discovery violations, and the court itself raised the discovery issues for the first time sua sponte in open court at a hearing on an unrelated motion with no advance notice to the Plaintiff that a sanctions motion was being considered by the court? 3) In a lead paint case located in Baltimore City, where the cause of action is based on MD's Consumer Protection Act, must a Plaintiff prove the existence of chipping, peeling and/or flaking paint at the inception of a lease, or is proof of any violation of the Baltimore City Housing Code which is present at least inception and ultimately proximately causes an injury sufficient for a prima facie case for violation of the misrepresentation provisions of the CPA? 4) Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment for Defendant because it was "unimpressed" with Plaintiff's evidence or did it thereby make an impermissible credibility determination?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Brian S. Brown and Saul E. Kerpelman
Attorneys for Respondent: Frank F. Daily and William C. Parler
No. 2 Flora Lipitz, et al. v. William A. Hurwitz
Issues - Real Property - 1) Did CSA evade the normal process of determining the existence of an ambiguity in statutory language by not asking whether the statute is "plainly susceptible of more than one meaning" or whether there is "a doubt" as to the General Assembly's intent? 2) Where a statute grants to a "member of the public" a right to cancel a contract to purchase real property in a homeowner's association development if certain information is not furnished to the purchaser, does a purchaser qualify as a "member of the public" if he already owns other property in the development, has lived there for nine years, already possesses the requisite information, and rejects the seller's post-contract efforts to give him any information he needs? 3) Did CSA err in its analysis of whether the construction of the statute leads to a result which is "absurd, illogical, or inconsistent with common sense"? 3) Where a statute grants a purchaser of real property a right of cancellation if certain disclosures are not made, does the doctrine of equitable estoppel bar the purchaser from exercising that right where the purchaser already has knowledge of all matters for which disclosure is required and he declined the seller's request to provide him with the required information?
Attorney for Petitioner: Shale D. Stiller
Attorney for Respondent: Lee B. Rauch
No. 79 (2012 Term) Shelton Burris a/k/a Tyrone Burris v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – (1) Whether it was error for the trial court to admit extensive gang-related evidence, including expert testimony, that Petitioner was a member of the Black Guerrilla Family gang? (2) Whether CSA erred in holding that expert testimony on gangs was admissible to explain why several witnesses recanted prior to trial?
Attorney for Petitioner: Allison M. Sayers
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
AG No. 83 (2011 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anthony Maurice Harmon
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Anthony Maurice Harmon
No. 3 Carolyn Delorise Patton v. Wells Fargo Finanacial Maryland, Inc.
Issues - Commercial Law - 1) Did the trial court err by applying the wrong statute of limitations when it held that Plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to Title 12, Subtitle 10 of the Commercial Law Code were time-barred pursuant to Title 12, Subtitle 7 of the Commercial Law Code? 2) Did the trial court err in dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract claim on the basis that Wells Fargo could not be sued for its failure to follow the law selected as the governing law in the Retail Installment Sale Contract?
Attorney for Appellant: Thomas J. Minton
Attorney for Appellee: Martin C. Bryce, Jr.
No. 8 State of Maryland v. Stanley Goldberg, et al.
Issue - Real Property - Is legislation substituting one remedy for failure of a ground lease tenant to pay rent (lien and foreclosure) for another (ejectment) a permissible alteration of remedies that does not impermissibly abrogate vested rights of ground lease owners?
Attorney for Appellant: Matthew J. Fader
Attorney for Appellee: Edward J. Meehan
AG No. 68 (2012 Term) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patrick Edward Vanderslice
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Patrick Edward Vanderslice
No. 120 (2011 Term) Millicent Sumpter v. Sean Sumpter
Issue - Constitutional Law - Did the lower court err in refusing to vacate & remand the case to the trial court when the parties & the best interest attorney were not provided a copy of the custody investigation report in violation of constitutional due process?
Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen J. Cullen
Attorney for Respondent: William Brockman
No. 99 (2012 Term) BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Russel Rosen, Individually, etc., et al.
Issues - Torts - 1) In limiting its analysis and holding to "commercial enterprises," did CSA incorrectly create a distinction not previously recognized in determining the validity of exculpatory agreements in MD? 2) Did CSA err in both disregarding and misinterpreting MD public policy in adopting what it described as the "majority view"? 3) Did CSA err in applying the same flawed public policy rationale in holding the indemnification clause invalid?
Attorney for Petitioner: Christopher R. Dunn
Attorneys for Respondent: Ari S. Casper and Denis C. Mitchell
No. 89 (2012 Term) 101 Geneva LLC v. Ethel E. Wynn, et al.
Issues - Real Property - (1) Does the trial court, in a foreclosure sale involving a third-party purchase, have the authority to sua sponte undertake what are tantamount to "Exceptions to the Sale" when none are taken in a timely fashion by the Borrower nor any interested party, and thereafter, despite uncontested opposition, vacate the sale based on Maddox v. Cohn? (2) Is the trial court's issuance of a Notice of Non-Compliance pursuant to Rule 14-207.1 proper once a foreclosure sale has occurred and is Rule 14-207.1 applicable to the trial court, acting sua sponte, for post-foreclosure sale reviews performed beyond the timeframe of the Rules (i.e. Md. Rule 14-305(e)) which calls for the ratification of the sale? (3) Is the right of the trial court to act sua sponte in objecting to the "fairness or properness" of the sale barred by failing to undertake an equitable review within 60 days of the filing of the Report of Sale or the time when Exceptions were due and were not filed, or if they were filed, were denied? (4) Did the trial court err in setting forth a "policy" relative to the decision in Maddox v. Cohn, which it has improperly retroactively applied uniformly to all foreclosure sales in Montgomery County in violation of Md. Rule 1-102? (5) Does the imposition of this "policy" by the trial court in vacating the sale, in lieu of denying ratification for cause pursuant to Md. Rule 14-305(e), constitute a violation of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, by effectively denying the (Substitute) Trustees the right of appeal?
Attorneys for Appellant: Robert H. Hillman and Andrew J. Brenner
Attorney for Appellee/Amicus: Matthew J. Fader
No. 98 (2012 Term) Jamar Holt v. State of Maryland
Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA err in finding reasonable articulable suspicion to seize Petitioner based on the actions of another individual and Petitioner's association with that individual? 2) Did CSA err in holding that any new crime committed by a defendant after an illegal stop by the police purges the Fourth Amendment taint of the police's illegal conduct
Attorney for Petitioner: Kenneth W. Ravenell
Attorneys for Respondent: Thiruvendran Vignarajah and Carrie Williams
No. 5 Susan Mummert, et al. v. Massoud B. Alizadeh, et al.
Issue - Torts - Under MD law, is a wrongful death beneficiary's right to file a lawsuit contingent upon the decedent's ability to bring a timely negligence claim on the date of her death?
Attorneys for Appellant: Paul D. Bekman and Emily C. Malarkey
Attorney for Appellee: Matthew Fogleson
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 September 11, 2013 the Court will recess until October 3, 2013.
BESSIE M. DECKER