Articles Posted in Consumer Law

The Maryland Court of Appeals published its opinion in Wietzke v. Chesapeake Conference Association, a Silver Spring, Montgomery County case dealing with the law of nuisance (which I know nothing about).

The nutshell is that the church – Seventh Day Adventists – built a new parking lot which causes “repeated and continu[ed] flooding” of the residents next door. The neighbors demanded $3 million in damages which, you know, is what you ask for when someone floods your property a bit. Neighbor loses at trial but gets another crack because the Maryland high court reversed the trial judge’s decision.

One thing to point out before I even begin this post: our law firm does not handle collection cases involving HOAs (or any other kinds of collection cases – just serious personal injury claim). The purpose of the Maryland Lawyer Blog is to allow me to muse on topics outside of Maryland personal injury cases. So I feel compelled to put in this caveat so that we get calls on a collections issue. (Honestly, I don’t know anyone who defends HOA collection cases.)

Anyway, with that unnecessarily long prelude, a Maryland homeowners’ association in Prince George’s County is suing P.G. County Executive Jack Johnson for failure to pay his homeowner’s association dues. In an article I read on this case a few minutes ago, his lawyer defending the case is quoted as saying: “It’s a racket. There is no oversight or regulation.”

Exactly. It is absolutely ridiculous how these HOAs run amok, going after essentially their own clients. I fully support requiring people to pay their bills and charging them a penalty in the process for not paying their debt. I recently handled one of these types of cases for an employee who made an honest mistake, thinking she had prepaid for the year. It is absolute torture dealing with these HOAs that have the agreements with homeowners so rigged that they can extort ridiculous fees that are so out-of-line with the crime of missing a few payments. I also think many deliberately avoid advising the homeowner of the debt so that the penalties accumulate.

A divided Maryland Court of Appeals took away a Baltimore County jury verdict against Bank of America on Thursday in a case relevant to personal injury lawyers to the extent that it underscores when expert testimony may be needed at trial.

This case appears to be the classic “money-grubber woman takes advantage of an old man” story. BOA allowed said money-grubber to add her name on to the man’s account. After his death, his son looked at the bank statements and brought a claim on behalf of the Estate against BOA for breach of contract and negligence for allowing the woman to be added onto the account in the first place.

The jury bought it, awarding $23,475 on the breach of contract claim and $7,600 on the negligence claim. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding that expert testimony was necessary to establish BOA’s standard of care when adding an individual’s name to a bank account.

The Baltimore Sun reports that the Maryland Court of Appeals suggested during oral arguments in a foreclosure case Monday that the court may change with the times and alter notification procedures for foreclosures, which have been on the rise in Maryland and around the country as many of us have taken out loans we cannot afford. At issue, in this case, is the rule that allows that a home can be sold about two weeks after notification is sent to the homeowner. As in most states, there is no requirement that the notification actually should be received by the homeowner.

In a separate but related story, the Baltimore Sun reports that Baltimore has filed suit against Wells Fargo Bank alleging that the bank violated federal housing law by specifically luring blacks into high-interest mortgages.

Interestingly, the city chose Relman & Dane, a Washington based law firm, to bring suit on Baltimore’s behalf. Now, I realize from my 10-second review of their website to provide a link that they have a great deal of experience in this area of law. Still, are there no lawyers in Baltimore, who help support the city’s tax base, that could have handled this case? Peter Holland, albeit in Annapolis, is quoted in the Maryland Daily Record about the case. He is one of the leading consumer rights advocates in the state. Did anyone ask him? I have no idea what the selection process was and I know little about this area of the law. But it would make sense to have someone from Maryland representing Baltimore in these kinds of cases.

Wednesday, a Cecil County judge awarded the plaintiff in a settled “lemon law” case more than $12,000.00 in attorney’s fees. The case involves a complaint filed by the plaintiff which stated that her 2005 Hyundai was a “useless” vehicle and was brought into the dealership where she purchased it over four times in one year for dashboard light problems. She claimed that Hyundai violated Maryland’s Automotive Enforcement Warranty Act and Consumer Protection Act, as well as the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act.

Apparently, on the morning of trial, Hyundai offered the plaintiff a new vehicle, and she accepted. Plaintiff, in asking for attorney’s fees, alleged that she was the “prevailing party” and therefore eligible to receive attorneys’ fees. Hyundai, of course, disagreed, claiming that the settlement was not an admission of liability.

I don’t appreciate the nuances of consumer protection law but I am pleased that Hyundai’s offer to settle for what was apparently full value on the courthouse steps led this Cecil County court to find that she was the “prevailing party.” We often have the same problem in personal injury cases when the insurance company makes the personal injury lawyers jump through hoop after hoop only to settle the case for the policy limits just before trial. A lot of time and money can be saved for everyone by offering fair value from the beginning.