by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 22, 2014
In a case in which my colleague, Jack Boyd, and I represented the unit owner, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City has held a high-rise condominium in contempt of a prior order of the Court to undertake and complete repairs to the exterior common elements needed to make the building watertight. During a three-day trial, the Court found that both the failure to include certain specified items in the repair contract, and the failure to complete the repairs within the time ordered by the Court, amounted to willful contempt, and called for the imposition of sanctions. The Court further found that the case presented the “exceptional circumstances” required under Maryland law for the award of compensatory damages as part of the sanction. The Court also established certain construction deadlines to be met in order for the Condominium to avoid additional damage payments. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 14, 2014
In terms of the accrual of causes of action, Maryland abides by the discovery rule, through which a cause of action arsies when it is disovered or should have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence. Once discovered, a claim must then be instituted within 3 years under Maryland’s general statute of limitations. However, where construction defects are concerned, the discovery rule does not permit building defect claims in older properties. Under Maryland’s Statute of Repose, construction defect claims are absolutely barred after 20 years, regardless of when they were or could have been discovered. Additionally, architects, professional engineers and contractors can be held liable for building defects for just 10 years after construction. The full statute is set forth in the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code of the Annotated Code of Maryland at Section 5-108.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 13, 2014
Both houses of the Maryland General Assembly rejected bills that would have created a regulatory system for property managers. Senate Bill 274 died in the Judicial Proceedings Committee, while House Bill 10 suffered the same result in the Environmental Matters Committee. Each bill would have brought residential property managers for condominiums, cooperatives and homewoner associations under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Department of Licensing and Regulation. The Senate bill called for a registration process, while the more broad House version would have established a formal licensing procedure. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 6, 2014
The Maryland House of Delegates failed to take action on House Bill 259, which would have prevented residential condominium developers from including certain provisions in the project’s governing documents or sales contracts that limit the developer’s liability for construction defects. The Maryland Senate, by a vote of 36 – 11, passed Senate Bill 207, which would prohibit provisions in the declaration, bylaws or rules and regulations that limit the ability of a council of unit owners to file suit on behalf of itself or the unit owners or enforce warranty claims. However, the House version died the Environmental Matters Committee. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | May 5, 2014
The Maryland General Assembly failed to take action on a bill that would require condominiums to remove limits on the number or percentage of units that can be rented, if the unit owner demonstrates “financial hardship” and meets certain other requirements. House Bill 1039 proposed to establish new Section 11-111.4 in the Maryland Condominium Act, and provide that unit owners who meet one of the bill’s six definitions of financial hardship may request a waiver from any rental limitations applicable to the community. The unit must be the owner’s primary residence, and the appraised value of the unit must be less than 90% of what is owed.
