Hall Hammond

The case involved a builder suing a homeowner for the cost of extra labor and materials beyond the original written contract for constructing a house addition. The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for the builder after finding that a payment made to obtain a lien release settled only disputes over the original contract performance and did not constitute an accord and satisfaction covering the extras. The appellate court affirmed, applying the clearly erroneous standard of review to the trial court's credibility determinations, noting written evidence that the payment excluded extras, and finding sufficient testimony from the experienced builder on the reasonable value of the claimed items.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned enforcement of a 1949 separation agreement between Henry Charles Zouck and his wife Betty Long Zouck, under which the husband agreed to pay weekly child support, assign insurance policies to their daughter, and execute a will leaving her his interests in certain trusts, in exchange for dismissal of pending divorce proceedings. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed a decree requiring the husband to pay arrearages and future support, assign the policies, execute the will, and awarding custody to the mother, while holding that the spendthrift trust administered by the Safe Deposit & Trust Company could be invaded to satisfy the decree. The court determined that jurisdiction and venue were proper in Baltimore County over the non-resident husband because the action was transitory and in personam, and service had been obtained within the state. It further reasoned that public policy permitted reaching the trust assets to enforce the contractual obligations for child support, notwithstanding the spendthrift provisions.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Potomac Sand & Gravel Company seeking a declaratory judgment that a 1971 Maryland public local law (Chapter 792) banning dredging for sand, gravel, or other materials in the tidal waters and marshlands of Charles County was unconstitutional. The company owned parcels adjoining state wetlands where it planned to dredge millions of tons of material for sale in the construction industry, but the areas were ecologically sensitive habitats for fish, birds, and other wildlife. The court upheld the law as a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect natural resources and the environment, consistent with prior statutes regulating dredging in the Potomac River and recognizing the public interest in preserving wetlands over private commercial use.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned the enforcement of a 1969 option contract granting John Dougherty the right to purchase a tavern and its property in Anne Arundel County from Frank and Mildred Krick and Walter and Bertha Hoerl for $65,000, as well as an alleged later settlement agreement. The Circuit Court granted specific performance of the option but declined to enforce the settlement and overruled certain procedural objections by Dougherty. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, concluding that Dougherty was entitled to conveyance of the property free and clear of any subsisting mortgage or liens, with a corresponding abatement of the purchase price for any amounts needed to release such encumbrances, and remanded the case for formulation of a decree consistent with that ruling.

property

In Blickenstaff v. Bankers Mortgage Co., homeowners sought to set aside a promissory note and deed of trust on their home securing a loan, alleging fraud by the lender Bankers Mortgage Company and note purchaser Atlas, while requesting an injunction against foreclosure and return of payments made. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss after the plaintiffs presented their case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the borrowers were educated adults with prior loan and business experience who had the opportunity to review the documents but chose not to, received the full $4,000 as agreed along with a clear payment schedule, and presented no evidence of actual or constructive fraud or misleading conduct by the defendants.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from a directed verdict in favor of defendant Dr. Sugar in a medical malpractice suit brought by Robert Baulsir and his wife. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Sugar's hip replacement surgery using an Austin-Moore prosthesis, followed by his failure to correct its dislocation, caused permanent injury including a shortened leg. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show a causal link between any alleged abandonment by Dr. Sugar and the patient's final condition. Specifically, there was no proof that the prosthesis could or should have been safely removed earlier, as medical consultations had recommended rehabilitation first due to the patient's health risks, and no testimony indicated inadequate care in the interim or worsening from delay.

torts & liabilityhealthcare