John C. Eldridge

The case involved a dispute between twenty-five condominium unit purchasers and the Tomes Landing Condominium Association along with its management company MRA over operating budgets included in resale packages that allegedly violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by misleading buyers about repair costs and known construction defects that later led to a special assessment. The Circuit Court for Cecil County granted partial summary judgment to the purchasers on CPA claims, finding the budgets had the capacity to mislead, but the Court of Appeals reversed that determination on appeal. The court held that the CPA could apply to disclosures in resale certificates by a condominium association and management company during unit sales, and that material factual disputes existed regarding whether the budgets constituted unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Act, including the extent of the defendants' prior knowledge of building issues.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a challenge by Laurel Racing Association to decisions by Maryland's Video Lottery Facility Location Commission regarding bids and licensing for video lottery terminals under recently enacted constitutional and statutory provisions authorizing up to five such facilities. The parties raised issues of statutory interpretation and constitutionality concerning bid deadlines, fees, and facility locations. The court held that the Circuit Court improperly exercised jurisdiction because the governing statutes require exhaustion of the administrative remedy before the State Board of Contract Appeals, which has exclusive initial authority over disputes involving unsuccessful bidders for these licenses. The core reasoning was that the statutory scheme mandates this administrative process first, with judicial review available only after a final Board decision, and that constitutional questions could also be addressed in that forum.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned disciplinary proceedings against attorney James L. Prichard by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. Pursuant to a joint petition for indefinite suspension by consent under Maryland Rule 16-772, the Court of Appeals ordered Prichard indefinitely suspended from the practice of law effective May 1, 2003, with eligibility to petition for reinstatement only after 90 days, and directed the clerk to strike his name from the attorney register. The court's decision rested on the parties' consent and the provisions of the Maryland Rules governing attorney discipline.

procedure

In Doe v. Doe, a husband filed claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against his wife after learning of her adultery and discovering through blood tests that he was not the biological father of twins born during the marriage, in addition to seeking a divorce and related relief. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Special Appeals and dismissed the tort counts, holding that Maryland law does not recognize such causes of action. The court reasoned that the state's public policy, as shown by the legislative abolition of alienation of affections and criminal conversation claims, bars these intra-spousal tort actions arising from adultery and paternity misrepresentation, and that prior restrictions on such claims remain in effect.

family lawtorts & liability

The case concerned whether the Maryland Racing Commission could impose a $5,000 fine on a licensed racehorse owner for violations of Commission regulations, including improper acts and dishonest conduct related to racing, even without an explicit statutory provision authorizing fines. The petitioner, Frank Lussier, challenged the fine after an investigation and hearing found he had concealed ownership and published falsified workout reports for his horses. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission's authority, ruling that the regulation authorizing fines was valid because the enabling statute granted the Commission broad power to adopt rules for racing conduct and to impose sanctions, with fines serving as an alternative to license suspension or revocation. The court distinguished prior precedents cited by the petitioner and noted that the Commission's long-standing practice of imposing fines was consistent with its regulatory role.

business & regulatory

This case involved a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs after the Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal from orders granting a motion to dismiss their initial pleading in a suit against the County Commissioners of Kent County. The plaintiffs and an amicus argued that the dismissal ruling was a novel change in law that overruled prior precedent requiring explicit use of the word 'judgment' on the docket for finality, and thus should apply only prospectively or under a 'unique circumstances' doctrine to allow their appeal. The court denied the motion, holding that its prior decision was not novel and did not overrule settled authority, which had long treated an unqualified order dismissing the initial pleading as a final appealable order without needing the term 'judgment.' The reasoning emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to pursue a timely appeal to this court after the intermediate appellate court dismissed their case, and no reliance on erroneous judicial action justified an exception.

procedure