Christopher Kehoe

The case involved John William Smith, Jr., who was charged with criminal offenses in Maryland while imprisoned in another state and invoked the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) by requesting final disposition of the charges. After the 180-day period for trial expired without a valid continuance granted in open court showing good cause, Smith moved to dismiss the charges; the trial court denied the motion, and he was convicted and sentenced following a plea. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that the State failed to comply with IAD requirements for continuances or to establish waiver by the defendant. The court reasoned that an unrecorded chambers conference could not satisfy the statutory mandates of open-court proceedings and a record of good cause, shifting the burden entirely to the State to ensure compliance, and that silent acquiescence by defense counsel was insufficient. As a result, the charges were required to be dismissed with prejudice under the IAD.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Andre Jerome Hammond's conviction after a bench trial for knowingly failing to register as a sex offender under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. Art § 11-721, where he argued that depression and grief caused him to forget his registration deadline, negating the required mental state. The Appellate Court of Maryland first addressed preservation, finding the issue preserved because defense counsel raised it in a motion for judgment of acquittal and closing argument, giving the trial court notice and an opportunity to rule. On the merits, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that Hammond's prior timely registrations, signed requirements form, and previous conviction for non-registration established sufficient notice of his duty, so that forgetting did not negate the "knowingly" element. The court reasoned that prior knowledge satisfies the mens rea requirement under the statute, that an "I forgot" defense would undermine the registration law's purpose, and that mental health circumstances are appropriately addressed through sentencing rather than as a complete defense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a boundary dispute between adjacent waterfront property owners over accreted land formed near a pier and bulkhead, along with related claims of trespass involving gardens and fences. The trial court ruled that the appellee owned the disputed land because the accretion occurred landward of an approved bulkhead protecting his shoreline and found that a prior settlement did not bar the claims under res judicata. The court denied remittitur after finding competent evidence supported the jury's damages award. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in declaring ownership based on the selected survey, rejecting res judicata, or denying post-trial motions.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a parent's appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) challenging a finding of indicated child neglect, which was stayed due to a pending Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceeding in court. Despite the statutory stay under Maryland family law, OAH dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's affirmation of the dismissal, holding that OAH lacked authority to dismiss an appeal subject to the mandatory stay and that such dismissal constituted an irregularity requiring vacatur to allow a hearing after the CINA case concluded.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned the Prince George’s County Planning Board’s approval of a variance under the county’s tree conservation ordinance allowing removal of eleven specimen trees to build a new public school. The circuit court dismissed the appellants’ petition for writ of administrative mandamus on grounds of mootness and lack of standing. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the dismissal, holding that it had jurisdiction over the appeal from the circuit court’s exercise of original jurisdiction. It reasoned that forest conservation variances are distinct from zoning variances because they focus solely on the subject property and do not require consideration of effects on surrounding properties, so the appellants had no cognizable legal interest in the trees. The court further held the case was moot because the trees had already been removed without any steps taken by the appellants to prevent it.

environmentprocedure

In Mergner v. Estate of Mergner, Dorothy Mergner sought a declaratory judgment that a 2016 marital property agreement was unenforceable so she could claim a statutory elective share of her late husband John's estate under Maryland law. The agreement required John to fund an irrevocable trust providing Dorothy with lifetime income and stated that Dorothy waived all claims to John's property, including any spousal elective share. After receiving over $450,000 in trust income, Dorothy challenged the agreement's validity, but the Estate argued she was barred by estoppel for retaining the benefits. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Estate, holding that Dorothy's continued acceptance of trust income estopped her from contesting the agreement's enforceability.

family law

This case involves appeals by the Prince George’s County District Council from circuit court rulings in several land use proceedings challenging prior zoning decisions affecting properties including Robin Dale Land. The central issue was whether the Council’s 2021 Countywide Sectional Map Amendment, which reassigned zoning classifications to approximately 300,000 properties as part of implementing a revised zoning ordinance, rendered the pending cases moot. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the amendment did not moot the appeals. It reasoned that the 2021 resolution was a non-substantive, technical reclassification that failed to satisfy the legal requirements for comprehensive rezoning, including covering a substantial area through careful study, directing land use consistent with public interest, and regulating substantially all permitted uses in the jurisdiction, nor did it meet the additional criteria in the County Code.

property

The case concerned whether Prince George’s County’s 2021 Countywide Sectional Map Amendment, which reclassified approximately 300,000 properties to new zoning districts under a revised ordinance, rendered moot several pending land use appeals arising under the prior zoning rules. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the amendment did not moot the appeals. The court reasoned that the amendment was a non-substantive technical reclassification that did not satisfy the essential attributes of comprehensive rezoning, including coverage of a substantial area through careful study, direction of land use consistent with present and planned future conditions in the public interest, and regulation of all permitted uses, nor did it meet additional county code criteria for sectional map amendments.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over fire insurance proceeds following the destruction of a mortgaged property in a fire that also resulted in the death of the homeowner, William R. Pyle. After the reverse mortgage became due, Celink foreclosed and purchased the property for less than the loan balance, leading to a claim for the deficiency from the insurance policy. The circuit court ruled that the foreclosure extinguished Celink's rights to the proceeds, awarding them to the estate. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, applying the loss before foreclosure rule, which permits a mortgagee to recover insurance proceeds to cover any deficiency after foreclosure when the loan is due and payable.

property

The case involved residential tenants suing their landlord for allegedly improper late fees exceeding statutory limits, unauthorized charges, and related practices in lease agreements and eviction proceedings under Maryland Real Property Article sections 8-208 and 8-401. The Appellate Court of Maryland interpreted 'rent' consistently as the periodic sum owed for use or occupancy of the premises and defined 'costs of the suit' as specific court clerk and sheriff fees listed in the District Court cost schedule. The court concluded that the tenants presented viable claims for violations of the real property statutes, breach of contract, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It therefore reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the landlord and its denial of class certification, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved tenants suing their landlord, Westminster Management, over lease provisions and practices for late fees, rent collection, and costs in eviction proceedings under Maryland's residential landlord-tenant laws. The court addressed the meaning of "rent" in Md. Code, Real Prop. §§ 8-208(d)(3) and 8-401(e)(2)(iv) as the periodic sum owed for use or occupancy of the premises, and defined "costs of the suit" as specific court and sheriff fees. It also considered claims under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and Consumer Protection Act, along with breach of contract. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the landlord and denial of class certification, holding that the tenants had presented viable claims on these issues.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved residential tenants suing their landlord, Westminster Management, over lease provisions imposing late fees and other charges that allegedly exceeded limits under Maryland Real Property Article § 8-208 and violated consumer protection statutes. The tenants sought damages, declaratory relief, and class certification for claims including breach of contract, violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act in the context of summary ejectment proceedings. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the landlord and denied class certification. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that 'rent' under the relevant statutes means only the periodic sum owed for use or occupancy of the premises, that the tenants' statutory and contract claims were viable, and that class certification should be reconsidered on remand under updated standards.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death and survival action filed by Claudia Grier against Timothy Heidenberg after their young child died, allegedly due to the father's negligence. The circuit court dismissed the claims against the father, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed that decision. The court held that the longstanding doctrine of parent-child immunity, first adopted in Maryland in 1930, continues to bar such negligence-based claims even after the child's death, consistent with precedent in Smith v. Gross. The opinion declined to abrogate the immunity doctrine in full, citing insufficient changes in societal values since prior decisions and the constraints of stare decisis.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned Vincent S.'s petitions in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to expunge records of his first-degree burglary convictions under Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 10-110, which the court denied because the required waiting periods had not elapsed. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals addressed whether § 10-105(c)(9)'s provision allowing expungement "at any time on a showing of good cause" could apply to petitions filed under the broader § 10-110. The court affirmed the denials, holding that the good-cause authority in § 10-105(c)(9) is limited to the narrower categories of offenses and dispositions specified in § 10-105 and does not extend to convictions eligible for expungement under § 10-110. This conclusion followed from the statute's plain text, its legislative history, relevant case law, and the need to avoid rendering the waiting-period and subsequent-conviction provisions of § 10-110 meaningless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Vincent S.'s petitions to expunge records of his first-degree burglary convictions under Md. Code Crim. Proc. § 10-110, which the circuit court denied because the required waiting periods had not elapsed. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the "good cause" authority in § 10-105(c)(9) to order expungement at any time extended to the broader categories of convictions eligible under § 10-110. The court held that it did not, affirming the denials. The core reasoning was that the plain text of the statutes, their legislative history, relevant case law, and the need to avoid rendering the waiting periods and related provisions in § 10-110 meaningless all indicated the General Assembly intended the good-cause exception to apply only to the narrower offenses listed in § 10-105.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Maryland case, Vincent S. filed petitions under Crim. Proc. § 10-110 to expunge records of his first-degree burglary convictions, which were denied by the circuit court because the required waiting periods had not elapsed and he had a subsequent conviction. He argued on appeal that § 10-105(c)(9), which permits expungement "at any time on a showing of good cause," should apply to broaden access beyond the narrower categories in § 10-105. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the denials, holding that the good-cause authority in § 10-105(c)(9) is limited to the offense and disposition categories specified in § 10-105 and does not extend to the broader convictions eligible under § 10-110. The court reached this conclusion based on the plain statutory text distinguishing the two sections, legislative history, case law on statutory interpretation, and the need to avoid rendering § 10-110's time limits and subsequent-conviction rules meaningless. The judgments were affirmed in both appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over a deceased member's interest in a Maryland limited liability company. James Potter's operating agreement and members' agreement designated his interest to pass automatically to Ruby Potter upon his death, but the agreements were not executed according to the formalities of Maryland's statute of wills. The circuit court ruled that the interest passed to Ruby, but the Court of Special Appeals reversed. The court held that an LLC membership interest qualifies as property under the Estates and Trusts Article and that any transfer effective upon death must comply with Md. Code, Est. & Trusts § 4-102 unless a statutory or common-law exception applies. Because no such exception was shown, the interest and related distributions belonged to James's estate rather than the designated successor.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Scott Corey Coale, who invoked the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) while serving a sentence in California to demand prompt disposition of pending Maryland charges from Howard and Anne Arundel counties. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed whether the 180-day IAD deadline had been violated due to delays in notifying the appropriate court and prosecutor, leading to continuances before Coale's convictions by plea. The court reversed the post-conviction court's grant of relief, ruling that the 180-day period begins upon the prosecutor's actual receipt of notice under Md. Code Corr. Servs. § 8-412 and federal precedent like Fex v. Michigan, and that the cases were resolved within the limit without prejudice to Coale. The core reasoning focused on the IAD's notice requirements, the duty of officials to cooperate, and the fact that any delays did not extend beyond the statutory period or render the convictions unfair.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a proposed class action by plaintiff Enoch Silver III against several Maryland hospitals, alleging they violated state law by overcharging patients for copies of medical records over four years. The circuit court denied certification of a damages class after finding that individual issues would predominate over common ones and that a class action would not be a superior method of adjudication; it also denied a separate injunctive-relief class because it viewed the request as dependent on the damages class. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the damages class but held that the circuit court had erred by failing to evaluate the injunctive-relief request independently under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2). The appellate court therefore vacated that portion of the judgment and remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion on the injunctive class, explaining that appellate review of class certification is for abuse of discretion and that alternative grounds should be considered by the trial court in the first instance.

procedurehealthcare

In Bodeau v. State, the petitioner filed for a writ of error coram nobis to challenge his 1979 daytime burglary conviction, claiming that the trial court's instruction that the jury was the judge of the law as well as the facts rendered the conviction constitutionally invalid. The circuit court denied relief on the basis of laches, concluding that the decades-long delay was unreasonable and had prejudiced the State. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, ruling that the claim became ripe only after the Court of Appeals' 2012 decision in Unger v. State, so the delay was not unreasonable until some point in the following seven years, and the State had not proven prejudice arising after that time or efforts to locate its key witness.

criminal lawprocedure