by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 30, 2013
Under Section 11-127 of the Maryland Condominium Act, devel0pers of condominiums are required to file a Public Offering Statement with the Maryland Secretary of State. Until the Public Offering Statement is registered, and until 10 days after all amendments have been filed, a contract for the sale of any unit may not be entered into, and any such contracts are void. Additionally, under Section 11-126 of the Maryland Condominium Act, the initial purchaser of a condominium unit must receive a copy of the Public Offering Statement at or before the time the contract of sale is entered into, or the contract is unenforceable by the seller. Such contracts of sale are also required to contain, in conspicuous type, a notice of the purchaser’s right to receive a Public Offering Statement.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 26, 2013
The Maryland Court of Appeals has affirmed a decsion of the Court of Special Appeals ruling that certain expert testimony is not admissible to support medical clams arising from exposure to mold and other environmental byproducts of damp buildings.
Such claims are often supported by a medical analysis known as “differential diagnosis” and sometimes referred to as “repetitive exposure protocol,” which as been used by physicians to attribute various medical symptoms to inhalation of mold in water-damaged buildings. Rather than demonstrating a specific exposure to a specific mold resulting in a specific reaction, differential diagnosis uses a process that “rules out” or “rules in” possible causes of symptoms a patient is experiencing to determine that their symptoms are related to exposure to mold. Differential diagnosis has been frequently used to show an association between exposure to mold in wet buildings and certain human health effects. In its opinion in the case of Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chesson, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that this method is not sufficiently accepted in the scientific community so as to be used as a basis for medical testimony in mold cases. The Court of Special Appeals reversed a trial court ruling that found such medical testimony to be reliable and admissible. Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has now affirmed the Court of Special Appeals decision. Chesson v. Montgomery Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 97, Sept. Term 2012. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 25, 2013
An amendment to the Maryland Contract Lien Act, as it relates to the foreclosure of liens by condominiums and homeowners associations, takes effect on Tuesday, October 1, 2013. The new law modifies Section 14-204 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Annotated Code to prohibit condominiums and homeowners associations from foreclosing on liens for anything other than delinquent periodic or special assessments. As a result, unpaid fines or other charges may not be the basis for a lien. Additionally, the new law requires that related costs and fees imposed in connection with the lien be limited to “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees directly related to the filing of the lien and not exceeding the amount of the delinquent assessments.” The law expressly provides that it is “to apply only prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on or application to any lien filed before the effective date.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 24, 2013
A new Maryland law that permits closed condominium board meetings for the purpose of discussing business transactions takes effect this coming Tuesday, October 1, 2013. House Bill 388 and Senate Bill 197 were both approved by unanimous votes in each house of the Maryland General Assembly and signed by the Governor. The new law amends Section 11-109.1 of the Maryland Condominium Act to provide that the board of directors of a condominium council of unit owners may meet in closed session for “consideration of the terms or conditions of a business transaction in the negotiation stage if disclosure could adversely affect the economic interests of the council of unit owners.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Sep 16, 2013
Under Section 11-109(c)(16) of the Condominium Act, the developer of a condominium is required to provide certain notices and materials in connection with the first meeting of the council of unit owners at which the unit owners assume control of the condominium. The developer must provide notice to all unit owners that the necessary percentage of units have been sold in order to pass control from the developer to the unit owners, and the specifics of a meeting to be held for the election of an independent board. Following the meeting, the developer is then required to turnover various materials, including (1) drawings, architectural plans or other documents setting forth the necessary information for location, maintenance, and repair of all condominium facilities; (2) the condominium funds, including operating funds, replacement reserves, investment accounts, and working capital; (3) the tangible property of the condominium; and (4) a roster of current unit owners, including mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and unit numbers. If the developer fails to comply with these requirements, any unit owner in the condominium may submit the dispute top the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, which is expressly authorized under Section 11-109(c)(16)(vi) to resolve the issue. (more…)
