by Raymond Daniel Burke | Jan 22, 2014
Maybe it is the weather, but we have been receiving a number of questions about condominium insurance coverage as between the common elements and units. Here is a summary: A condominium master policy must, at a minimum, cover property damage to all of the condominium structure, including both the common elements and units as originally constructed and finished by the developer, with the unit owners providing individual insurance for their improvements and personal contents. Section 11-114 of the Maryland Condominium Act states that the council of unit owners is required to maintain insurance “[f]or property and casualty losses to the common elements and the units, exclusive of improvements and betterments installed in the units by the unit owners other than the developer.” (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Dec 13, 2013
I have received some questions regarding the new law, which took effect on October 1, 2013, that limits the basis for foreclosure of a lien on a condominium unit by the council of unit owners and foreclosure of a lien on a property by a homeowners association. 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; meaning that unpaid fines may not be the basis for a lien foreclosure. Additionally, the new law requires that related costs and fees 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.” Unpaid fines and other charges may still form the basis of a lien, but the lien may not be foreclosed on the basis. (more…)
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Nov 5, 2013
The Maryland Condominium Act contains a somewhat unusual provision that expressly vests broad authority to address violations of the Act in the office of the Attorney General. Section 11-130 provides that, “[t]o the extent that a violation of any provision of this title affects a consumer, that violation shall be within the scope of the enforcement duties and powers of the Division of Consumer Protection of the Office of the Attorney General.” For purposes of this provision, a consumer is defined as “an actual or prospective purchaser, lessee, assignee or recipient of a condominium unit.” Also included as a consumer is any “co-oligor or surety for a consumer.” Accordingly, prospective purchasers and persons having an possessory interest in a condominium unit, alleged to be aggrieved by a violation of any provision of the Condominium Act, may seek the intervention of the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office.
by Raymond Daniel Burke | Oct 25, 2013
The Ocean City Condo Show is this weekend at the R.E. Powell Ocean City Convention Center, Saturday, October 26 and Sunday, October 27. Please look for the ad for this blog in the show program and in this week’s edition of The Bayside Gazette and Ocean City Today.
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…)