by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 11, 2022
House Bill 140, now pending in the Maryland General Assembly, would make several amendments to the Maryland Condominium Act relating to governance during the period of developer control and, in all condominiums, would expand unit owner participation in meetings of the board of directors. In proposed new provisions to Section 11-109(c)(8) of the Maryland Condominium Act, the Bill would require a developer in control of a condominium to appoint a unit owner to the board of directors. Where a developer controlled condominium has a board of directors and 25% of the units have been sold, the developer would be required to appoint at least one unit owner, not affiliated with the developer, to the board. Where there is no board of directors, once 25% of the units are sold, the developer would be required to establish a board of directors, including at least one unit owner, not affiliated with the developer.
The Bill would also require and additional open agenda board meeting per year that provides an opportunity for unit owner comment. Section 11-109(c) presently requires that condominium boards hold at least one such meeting each year. House Bill 140 would amend this provision to require a board of directors to hold two such open agenda meetings per year. This requirement would also apply to board meetings during the period when the developer is still in control of the condominium.
Additionally, the Bill would add a new provision to Section 11-116 requiring that, during the period of developer control, the condominium’s books and records be maintained “separate and apart from the developer or of any other person.”
The Bill proposes to add similar provisions to the Maryland Homeowner Association Act. Please watch this blog for further developments on this legislative proposal.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jun 30, 2021
The tragic collapse of the Champlain Towers Condominium in Surfside Florida, and the horrific consequences to residents and their families, will, no doubt, continue to be the subject of multiple news reports and long-term investigations. And it will be some time before we learn the true cause of the disaster, and how it might have been prevented. But the fundamental issue — deteriorated building conditions — is something about which all condominium unit owners and property managers need to be especially conscientious. Previously, I have written about the high importance of regular building evaluations by competent consultants. As a practical matter, these studies are necessary in order for an association to have information needed to develop accurate budgets for maintenance and reserves. Of equal importance to conducting a building survey, however, is properly allocating funds to address any conditions that the report identifies. The fact that the Maryland Condominium Act requires that condominiums adopt annual budgets that specifically include reserves and capital items indicates that the association must have a detailed understanding of its buildings if the specified budget items are to present a meaningful picture of building maintenance issues. The fact that the Condominium Act, and most condominium governing documents, makes the council of unit owners responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements creates potential liability where due diligence as to building conditions is not properly undertaken. Most often, the consequences of failing to adhere to good maintenance practices are financial — resulting in expensive repair projects and burdensome special assessments. But as Champlain Towers demonstrates, some building conditions can lead to far more dreadful results.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jun 1, 2021
A bill that proposed significant changes to the Maryland Condominium Act, as well as the Maryland Homeowner Association Act, concerning the period during which the developer is in control of the council of unit owners or the homeowner association, was passed in the House of Delegates by a vote of 101 – 31. However, it was never brought to a vote in the Senate. As it relates to condominiums, the bill would require that the developer hold at least two meeting per year, rather than the current one annual meeting, and that the unit owners have an opportunity to comment on condominium matters during those meetings. Additionally the bill would require that, if the condominium has a board of directors, within 30 days after 25% of the units have been titled to unit owners, the developer must appoint a board member who is a unit owner and not otherwise affiliated with the developer; and that, if there is no board at that time, a board must then be established The bill would further require the developer to disclose any governmental bonds affecting the project, and provide notice in advance of requesting release of any such bonds. Also, it would be required that the maintenance of the condominium’s books and records begin on the date that the council of unit owners is established, and that the condominium’s books and records be kept separate and apart from those of the developer. The House approved similar changes to the Maryland Homeowner Association Act. In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which is as far as it went during the 2021 legislative session.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Feb 15, 2021
A bill proposed in the Maryland House of Delegates would make significant changes to the Maryland Condominium Act that relate to the period during which the developer is in control of the council of unit owners. House Bill 352 would require that the developer hold at least two meeting per year, rather than the current one annual meeting, and that the unit owners have an opportunity to comment on condominium matters during those meetings. Additionally the bill would require that, if the condominium has a board of directors, within 30 days after 25% of the units have been titled to unit owners, the developer must appoint a board member who is a unit owner and not otherwise affiliated with the developer; and that, if there is no board at that time, a board must then be established The bill would further require the developer to disclose any governmental bonds affecting the project, and provide notice in advance of requesting release of any such bonds. Also, it would be required that the maintenance of the condominium’s books and records begin on the date that the council of unit owners is established, and that the condominium’s books and records be kept separate and apart from those of the developer. The bill proposes similar changes to the Maryland Homeowner Association Act.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jul 14, 2020
In a newly issued opinion, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has clarified existing law and expressly recognized an independent cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. In William H. Plank, II, et al. v. James P. Cherneski, et al., Misc. No. 3, September Term, 2019. the Court observed that whether Maryland recognizes an independent cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is a question that “Courts and commentators have been asking … for 23 years since this Court articulated its holding in Kann v. Kann, 344 Md. 689 (1997).” In Kahn, the Court declared that there was “no universal omnibus tort for the redress of breach of fiduciary duty,” but noted that “[t]his does not mean that there is no claim or cause of action available for breach of fiduciary duty.” 344 Md. at 713. In its new decision, the “Court recognizes an independent cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. To establish a breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) breach of the duty owed by the fiduciary to the beneficiary; and (3) harm to the beneficiary. The recognition of an independent cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is pertinent to the operations of condominium and homeowner associations, and, in particular, may impact the potential liability of developers during the period of time when they are in control of an association’s board.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jun 1, 2020
An amendment to Section 11-103 of the Maryland Condominium Act, adopted by the General Assembly during 2020 legislative session, clarifies the procedures for obtaining the consent of the holders of mortgages and deeds of trust to amendments to the condominium’s declaration, where such consent it required under a condominium’s governing documents. It is intended to address circumstances in which holders of mortgages or deeds of trust do not respond to notices of proposed amendments. The new law provides that the condominium provide holders of mortgages and deeds of trust with a copy of the proposed amendment, and, if the holder fails to object in writing within 60 days after receiving the notice, they are deemed to have consented to the amendment. This provision is not applicable where the proposed amendment would (1) alter the priority of the lien of the mortgage or deed of trust; (2) materially impair or affect the unit as collateral; or (3) materially impair or affect the right of the holder to exercise rights under the mortgage or deed of trust. In those instances, express consent must still be obtained. A similar amendment was enacted to Section 11B-116 of the Maryland Homeowner Association Act. These new provisions take effect on October 31, 2020.
