Bontempo v. Lare (Md. Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: August 6, 2015

Opinion by: Robert N. McDonald

Holdings:

(1) The standard for determining whether a minority shareholder has been “oppressed” by the majority is the shareholder’s “reasonable expectations” upon obtaining an ownership interest in the company. This standard does not, however, dictate the type of equitable relief a trial court must provide, unless it is to be dissolution of the company.

(2) A breach of fiduciary duty to a corporation does not constitute fraud, absent a finding of fraud by the court. In this case, the majority shareholder’s self-dealing was a breach of his fiduciary duty, but because it did not involve deception, it did not rise to the level of fraud. The requested remedies of dissolution of the company and an award of punitive damages were therefore denied.  

Facts: See prior summary of Bontempo v. Lare (Md. Ct. Spec. App.).

Analysis:

The Court agreed with the opinions of the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals on the standard for determining whether a minority shareholder has been “oppressed”: The court should look to the shareholder’s “reasonable expectations” at the time of acquiring an ownership interest in the company. If oppression has occurred, then dissolution of the company can be a remedy.

The Court of Appeals found, however, that even upon a finding of oppression, other, less punishing remedies can also be considered. In choosing a possible remedy, the court should take into account other stakeholders who may be affected, including other shareholders, managers, employees, and customers.

In this instance, Plaintiff argued that he had a reasonable expectation of future employment when he acquired a stake in the company. He said his investment, in the form of sweat equity, should trump his status as an at-will employee. The Court said a “reasonable expectation” can be used to determine whether oppression has occurred but does not dictate what form of equitable relief a court should grant. In addition, reinstating Plaintiff as an employee would not have been a viable option because he and Defendant could not reasonably have been expected to run a business together.

A provision in the shareholder agreement requires an employee to sell his stock upon termination “for cause.” Plaintiff argued that this provision effectively created an employment agreement, overriding his status as an employee at will. The Court was unpersuaded by this argument as well, noting that a buy-out requirement when a shareholder-employee is terminated for cause does not imply that the individual may be terminated only for cause.

On another mater, Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider his allegations of fraud, which the Circuit Court had denied. He argued that Defendant’s breach of his fiduciary duty to the company constituted fraud as to the company itself and to Plaintiff as an oppressed shareholder.

The Court affirmed the lower court’s finding, noting that although Defendant’s self-dealing did constitute a breach of his fiduciary duty to the company, he made no attempt to conceal the activity. The illicit personal expenditures from the corporation’s accounts were entered into the company’s books, to which Plaintiff had full access.

Plaintiff made his allegations of fraud in connection with seeking dissolution of the company and an award of punitive damages for his benefit. As to the request for punitive damages, the Court said that they are not available as an equitable remedy and that, in any event, a finding of fraud would not support an award of punitive damages.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Bontempo v. Lare (Md. Ct. Spec. App.)

Filed: April 30, 2014

Opinion by: Douglas R. M. Zanarian

Holding:

(1) When a minority stockholder petitions a court for dissolution pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 3-413 (the “dissolution statute”), such stockholder’s rights will be informed by any existing stockholder agreement and, where there is no evidence of a deadlock of the board of directors or that the company is likely to become insolvent, the court has discretion under the statute to order alternatives to the extraordinary remedy of dissolution.

(2) The dissolution statute does not provide for personal liability, even if fraud is proven.

(3) The proper remedy when a court finds an officer or director has breached his or her fiduciary duties to the company by diverting money from the company for personal use is an order directing such officer or director to repay such money to the company, not an order requiring the company to declare equivalent distributions for all stockholders.

(4) An award of attorneys’ fees and expenses is only appropriate if the injured company has recovered a common fund.

(5) It is the trial court’s role to determine a party’s credibility and whether evidence is sufficient to support the existence of an oral contract.

Facts: Plaintiff became a minority stockholder of Quotient, Inc. (“Quotient”), a close corporation organized under Maryland law, in 2001. Plaintiff executed a shareholder agreement with the other stockholders of Quotient – the defendants, the Lares (a husband and wife collectively owning 55% of the stock in Quotient). In addition to being a director and officer of Quotient, Plaintiff was also an employee pursuant to an oral agreement with Mr. Lare, which Plaintiff alleged included that he would receive a salary equal to that of the Lares combined. In addition to certain “perks” (e.g., company credit cards for gas, meals and entertainment and a corporate fitness trainer), paid for by Quotient and received by Plaintiff and the Lares, the Lares began paying household employees from Quotient’s payroll account in 2006, advanced interest-free loans from Quotient to two companies in which the Lares had an interest and took a loan from Quotient for renovations to the Lares’ personal home. The relationship between Plaintiff and the Lares began to sour and in 2010 Mr. Lare terminated Plaintiff’s employment with Quotient after Plaintiff refused to voluntarily resign and sell his shares in Quotient. Plaintiff remained an officer and director of Quotient for six months after termination, however, and continued to receive distributions as a stockholder. Plaintiff filed suit against the Lares seeking relief pursuant to Maryland’s dissolution statute and asserted derivate claims on behalf of Quotient for imposition of a constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud and a direct claim for breach of contract.

The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiff as to his petition for dissolution; however, the trial court refused to dissolve Quotient and instead ordered Quotient to pay Plaintiff $167,638 in damages. The trial court also ruled in favor of Plaintiff as to his claim for breach of fiduciary duty and ordered that the misappropriated funds be treated as a distribution from Quotient and ordered Quotient to pay Plaintiff a proportionate amount, including attorney’s fees, but ruled in favor of the Lares as to Plaintiff’s claim for constructive fraud. The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiff as to his claim for breach of contract and ordered Quotient to pay Plaintiff $81,818.18 in unpaid distributions, but refused to find an oral equal-compensation contract existed. Both parties appealed.

Analysis: The Court affirmed the holding of the trial court, including the trial court’s refusal to dissolve Quotient; however, it found that the trial court erred in how it allocated the damages.

Although the Court upheld the trial court’s finding, not contested on appeal, that Mr. Lare’s behavior met the standard for oppressive conduct, particularly his threat and ultimate firing of Plaintiff for refusing to voluntarily resign and sell his shares in Quotient, the Court also upheld the trial court’s conclusion that dissolution was not the only available remedy. The Court noted that it was Plaintiff’s status as a stockholder of Quotient, as defined by the shareholder agreement, that defined and bound the rights he was entitled to vindicate under the dissolution statute and the appropriate remedies. Unlike in Edenbaum v. Shcwarcz-Osztreicherne, 165 Md. App. 233 (2005), the Court noted that the shareholder agreement did not mention Plaintiff’s employment rights, thus the shareholder agreement did not give Plaintiff a reasonable expectation of employment or provide an enforceable to such. Instead, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to participate in distributions and the affairs and decisions of Quotient consistent with his status as a stockholder. Although Mr. Lare’s actions frustrated such rights, Plaintiff had resigned from Quotient’s board of directors and thus there was no evidence of a deadlock justifying dissolution, nor was there any evidence to suggest that, despite the use by the Lares of Quotient’s funds for personal expenses, Quotient was likely to become insolvent. Therefore, the extreme remedy of dissolution was inappropriate.

The Court also held that the Lares could not be personally liable under the dissolution statute, even if their actions constituted fraud, because the purpose of that statute is to vindicate the reasonable expectations of minority stockholders, in such capacity, against oppression by majority stockholders. Plaintiff’s injury as a minority stockholder was lost distributions, and thus, Plaintiff was made whole by accounting to determine how much money the Lares diverted from Quotient and an order to pay distributions to Quotient stockholders based on the amounts diverted.

The Court also agreed that the Lares had breached their fiduciary duties as directors and officers of Quotient by diverting money from Quotient for personal use; however, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering a distribution to all stockholders as a remedy. The Court noted that it was Quotient, not Plaintiff, who was harmed because it was Quotient’s money that was taken by the Lares and, thus, distributions would not make Quotient whole but would instead take more money from Quotient. The Court held that the appropriate remedy would have been ordering the Lares to repay Quotient for the money taken. Because such payment would result in a recovery by Quotient of a common fund, the Court noted that an award by the trial court on remand of attorneys’ fees and expenses would be appropriate under the common fund doctrine.

Despite holding that the Lares had breached their fiduciary duties to Quotient, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the Lares as to Plaintiff’s claim for constructive fraud. Although constructive fraud usually arises from a breach of fiduciary duty, the Court noted that they are not equivalent and that “a director can breach fiduciary duties without committing fraud.” The Court found that, although the Lares had used bad judgment in using funds from Quotient for their personal expenses, they had not engaged in a long course of illegal or fraudulent conduct, especially since all of the transactions were recorded on the books of Quotient and Plaintiff had access to such books. For the same reason, the Court found that the Lares did not act with malice.

Finally, the Court found that the trial court committed no error in refusing to find that an oral equal-compensation contract existed between Plaintiff and Quotient. Although Plaintiff and his wife testified to the oral equal-compensation agreement and evidence showed that Plaintiff was paid a salary equal to the Lares for four years, there was also evidence that, for multiple years in the beginning and towards the end of his employment, the salaries of Plaintiff and the Lares differed significantly. The Court noted that it was the trial court that heard the evidence and it was not for the Court to determine on appeal whether the trial court gave appropriate weight to the parties’ credibility.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

MHD-Rockland Inc. v. Aerospace Distributions Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed:  January 3, 2014

Opinion by Catherine C. Blake

Holdings:  (1) In a transaction between merchants, an acceptance that contains the words “subject to” along with additional terms does not render the acceptance “expressly made conditional on assent to the additional terms” for purposes of Section 2-207(1) of the Commercial Law Article.

(2) In a transaction between merchants, objection to the condition of goods and the return of such goods is not a timely objection of additional terms in an acceptance for purposes of Section 2-207(2) of the Commercial Law Article. 

Facts:  Plaintiff, through use of a purchase order, ordered four airplane wheel assemblies in “overhauled” condition from defendant.  Defendant sent the assemblies and an acknowledgment form representing that the assemblies were in overhauled condition.  The acknowledgment form further stated it was “subject to” the Conditions of Sale printed on the reverse side of the form, which purported to limit liability for consequential damages and disclaim any express or implied warranties.  Plaintiff returned two assemblies allegedly not in overhauled condition, which were therefore defective.  Disagreements arose whether the two returned assemblies were defective. 

Plaintiff alleged, among other claims, breach of contract.  Defendant argued plaintiff should not be allowed to seek lost profits because the contract expressly foreclosed any warranty, including liability for consequential damages.  Plaintiff claimed it rejected the conditions upon return of the assemblies. 

Analysis:  The Court applied Section 2-207 of the Commercial Law Article as the case involved a sale of goods between merchants.  Section 2-207 provides an acceptance containing additional terms is still an acceptance that forms a contract unless the “acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.”  The Court noted that Maryland courts have not decided whether an acceptance “subject to” additional terms amounts to an acceptance “expressly made conditional.”  The Court agreed with cited precedent that concluded the “subject to” language does not make the acceptance expressly conditional on the buyer’s assent to the additional terms.  Accordingly, the Court held that defendant’s acceptance of the purchase order was not expressly made conditional on plaintiff’s assent to the additional terms in the Conditions of Sale.

Section 2-207 further provides that if there is an acceptance, the additional terms become part of the contract between merchants unless: “(a) [t]he offer limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [t]hey materially alter it; or (c) [n]otification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.”  The Court noted that the plaintiff did not allege how and when it rejected the additional terms.  The Court stated that plaintiff’s objection to the condition of the assemblies does not amount to a timely objection to the additional terms in the defendant’s acceptance.  The Court dismissed the claim for lost profits from the alleged breach of contract. 

In a lengthy footnote, the Court also discussed an argument that the terms should be excluded from the contract because they materially alter the agreement.  The Court stated that such argument, if raised, would have failed under the applicable Maryland test. 

The full opinion is available in PDF.

CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: November 27, 2012
Opinion by Judge Sally D. Adkins

Held: Where two parties enter into a contract for the lease and development of real estate and one party subsequently breaches that contract, evidence of post-breach market conditions is not admissible to prove lost profits if the parties did not contemplate the market conditions when they contracted.

Facts: Landlord entered into two 90-year ground leases with Tenant, a "successful real estate company," related to a tract of land in Maryland, consisting of two adjoining properties. Under the ground leases, Tenant agreed to construct two apartment buildings that it would sell after construction and initial rental. After temporary modifications, the parties reverted to their original plan to build two apartments and arranged financing for the first building. However, as construction began, Landlord failed to provide estoppel certificates and, as a result, financing fell through. In November 2006, Tenant sued for breach of contract, seeking recovery of lost profits. 

Tenant based its claim on market projections as of December 2006, the time of the initial breach. Landlord contended that, because in 2006 the apartments weren't projected to be fully leased until 2010 and 2012, the actual market conditions in 2010 and 2012 were relevant. Landlord sought to show that under the conditions of the current market, Tenant would not have profited regardless of whether there was a breach. Landlord offered expert testimony about the real estate market crisis in 2008–2010, a time when “the world . . . changed” and “the cataclysmic events of 2008 in the economy” took place. 

The trial court ruled against Landlord on several motions, including, among other things, that Landlord could not introduce evidence of the 2008 crash in the real estate market to show that Tenant would not have made profits.

The jury found for Tenant, awarding it over 36 million dollars in collateral damages. Landlord appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in not admitting evidence of “post-breach market conditions.” It argued that such evidence is a necessary part of any lost profits claim and that, without it, a plaintiff cannot meet the requirement that lost profits be proved with “reasonable certainty.” 

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing the “general principle” that contract damages are measured at the time of breach.

Analysis: The Court engaged in a lengthy discussion of measuring lost profits and reliance  damages. The Court determined that “consequential lost profits are calculated with reference to what the parties can reasonably be said to have anticipated when they entered into the contract.” The Court explained that, for this reason, “circumstances that cannot be said to have been ‘known to the parties’ when they contracted—such as a post-breach boom or bust in the market—should not affect the measure of consequential damages that would ‘ordinarily arise’ according to the ‘intrinsic nature of the contract.’” 

The Court explained, although many contracts are made with the possibility of future market downturns and, accordingly, allocate such risk between the parties, the contract in this case did not. Under this contract, the success of both parties depended on a relatively stable market and it could not be said that a subsequent, unforeseen, “cataclysmic”  market crash was within the parties’ contemplation.  Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of post-breach market conditions.

The Court went on to discuss separate issues raised by Landlord regarding waiver of the attorney client privilege and joint and several liability.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust, et al. v. Blinds to Go (U.S.) Inc., et al. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: October 26, 2011

Opinion by Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander

Held: When a tenant is contractually obligated to pay rent even after acts that could be considered termination of the lease as a matter of real property law, the damage principles of contract law apply and, in the absence of a lease provision with reasonable clearness to the contrary, a defaulting tenant is entitled to the benefit of any excess rent realized from reletting the premises.

Facts: Crest Net Lease, Inc., as landlord, entered into a triple net commercial Lease with Blinds to Go (U.S.) Inc. ("BTG"), as tenant, on September 21, 2011 and entered into a Guaranty with Blinds to Go Inc. ("BTG's Parent"), the parent company of BTG, on the same date for the guaranty of the obligations of BTG under the Lease. On August 21, 2011, Crest Net Lease, Inc. assigned all of its right, title and interest in the Lease and Guaranty with the Blinds to Go entities to the plaintiffs, Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust, Dr. Roger E. Herst, Trustee of the Roger E. Herst Revocable Trust, and Joshua R. Herst (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). Under the terms of the Lease, all rent was due and payable on the first day of each calendar month during the term and there was a late charge of 3% of the monthly rent each time the rent was late and interest also accrued on all amounts that had not been paid to the landlord at the rate of 5.25%. On or about August 31, 2009, BTG abandoned and vacated the leased premises and sent a letter to the Plaintiffs on the next day informing the Plaintiffs of the decision to vacate the leased premises. In its letter, BTG informed the Plaintiffs that it would cease paying any and all rent and additional rent otherwise payable under the Lease and suggested that it was in the best interests of the parties to terminate the Lease due to the rental rates under the Lease being well below market rates and permit the Plaintiffs to directly recover a higher rent from a new tenant. Following receipt of the BTG's letter, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to BTG informing it the the Plaintiffs "fully rejected the unilateral termination" by BTG of the Lease and would hold BTG responsible for payment of all rent and expenses set forth in the Lease through the expiration date of the Lease. Subsequent to sending the letter to BTG, the Plaintiffs also entered into an Exclusive Leasing/Sales Agreement with StreetSense Retail Advisors, LLC ("StreetSense") to authorize StreetSense to act as the Plaintiffs' agent to obtain a new tenant of the leased premises. In attempting to find a tenant, StreetSense reached out to KLNB to see if any of KLNB's clients would be interested in the premises. BTG also contacted Bialow Real Estate, LLC ("Bialow") in an effort to find a new tenant for the leased premises. On November 30, 2009, Bialow sent KLNB, on behalf of Vitamin Shoppe a letter for intent to express Vitamin Shoppe's interest in the premises. The letter of intent eventually made it to the Plaintiffs and was countersigned by the Plaintiffs on December 7, 2009. On August 3, 2010, the Plaintiffs and Vitamin Shoppe executed a lease agreement (the "Vitamin Lease") for the premises with an initial term of 10 years. The premises were delivered to Vitamin Shoppe on September 1, 2010. Because the Vitamin Lease contained provisions that gave the tenant a build-out period of 90 days in which to make tenant improvements to the premises for purposes of getting the premises ready for Vitamin Shoppe's business and a building improvement allowance of up to $87,500. The Vitamin Lease's term began on December 1, 2010 and , unlike BTG's Lease, was not a triple net lease. For delivering Vitamin Shoppe as a tenant and because there were three brokers involved, StreetSense, KLNB and Bialow, the Plaintiffs' paid commission equal to $81,218.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against in the Fall of 2010 against BTG and BTG's Parent (collectively, the "Defendants") alleging breach of the Lease and the Guaranty and seeking recovery for damages incurred as a result of such breaches, including unpaid rent from the Defendants for a total of 23 1/3 months, representing the amount of time from Defendants' breach in September 2009 until when the Plaintiffs received rent payments from Vitamin Shoppe, late charges for unpaid rent, repayment of real estate taxes and utilities, reimbursement of brokers' commission, reimbursement for costs with entering into the Vitamin Lease, administrative costs, litigation costs, and prejudgment interest. In response to the claims of Plaintiffs, the Defendants challenged the reasonableness of the Plaintiffs' efforts in mitigating their losses, the reasonableness of some of the concessions made in connection with the Vitamin Lease, the necessity of the build-out period and the reasonableness of the tenant improvement allowance, the administrative charge, litigation expenses regarding zoning issues for Vitamin Shoppe's signage and brokers' commission. The Defendants also argued that the Plaintiffs' claimed damages should be prorated to account for the time period that the Vitamin Lease extends beyond the term of the BTG's Lease and that their liability should be offset by the surplus rent that the Plaintiffs are receiving as a result of the rent being charged under the Vitamin Lease being much more than that under BTG's Lease.

Analysis: Because the parties stipulated as to the amount of unpaid rent and the amount of late charges, the Court turned first to addressing the Defendants' arguments that the length of time it took the Plaintiffs' to execute a lease with Vitamin Shoppe was unreasonable. The Court noted that while the Defendants' claim that the Plaintiffs received four originals of the lease for execution from Vitamin Shoppe's attorney on May 15, 2010 but did not sign the lease until August 3, 2010, the Defendants failed to provide any evidence indicating whether the lease that was finally signed was identical to the lease that was delivered in May. Even with such evidence, the Court explained that it would not have mattered because not only did the exact terms of the lease provide that the projected delivery date of the premises would be on September 1, 2010 but that it was clear from the outset that the lease would not be executed until the end of 2010 due to the letter of intent expressing Vitamin Shoppe's desire for the premises to be delivered "on or about January 3, 2011." The Court then quickly dismissed the Defendants' argument that the inclusion of a 90 day build-out period was unreasonable in light of BTG having been granted a 180 day build-out period under its lease with the Plaintiffs. While the Court found the number of hours claimed by Dr. Herst for purposes of performing administrative services as a result of the Defendants' breach, the Court found the hourly charge of Dr. Herst to be commensurate with market rates and awarded the Plaintiffs' recovery of the administrative charges due to them being expressly allowed under the terms of the Lease, less the number of hours the Court found to be excessively high or covered as a result of professionals hired by the Plaintiffs. Similarly, to the other challenges of Defendants' questioning the reasonableness of the brokers' commission, the title fees, the litigation fees expended to unsuccessfully deal with a zoning issue for Vitamin Shoppe's signage, the Court found all such charges to be reasonable, within the ability of the Plaintiffs' to recover as a result of Defendant's breach and within market rates.

The Court next turned its attention to the argument of Defendants' that the damages should be prorated to account for the additional months of tenancy obtained by the Plaintiffs as a result of the term of the Vitamin Lease being longer than the remainder of BTGs' Lease. As support for their argument, the Defendants pointed to Wilson v. Ruhl, 277 Md. 607 (1967), and the Maryland Court of Appeals approval of the proration of a broker's commission that a landlord paid to procure a replacement tenant. The Plaintiffs argued that Wilson was inapplicable because it concerned a residential lease and not a commercial lease and, even if it applicable to commercial leases, it was overruled by Millison v. Clarke, 287 Md. 420 (1976). The Court first noted that Wilson's holding regarding the proration of a brokerage fee to exclude that portion of the brokers' commission that is for a term in excess of the breaching tenant did differ for residential and commercial leases and then explained that Millison only overruled dicta of Wilson that suggested that a landlord's reletting of premises for a term longer than the original term of the lease was the landlord accepting the surrender of the the premises by the original tenant and not the proration holding. The Court also found that while the express language of the Lease obligated BTG to pay the brokers' commission as one of the listed items that can be incurred in reletting the premises if there is a breach by BTG, it did not warrant disregarding the holding of Wilson. Therefore, with respect to the brokers' commission, the Court held that to the extent that amount requested for the brokers' commission would be reduced to allocate to the Plaintiffs that amount of the brokers' commission that was applicable solely to Vitamin Shoppe's tenancy beyond the balance of the remainder of BTG's tenancy under the Lease.

Turning to the Defendant's next argument, the Court addressed Defendants' argument that they were entitled to setoff the damages owed by them by the amount of the surplus rent that has already been received, and that will be received, by the Plaintiffs as a result of Vitamin Shoppe's rent under the Vitamin Lease being higher than BTG's rent under the Lease. The Plaintiffs' argued that the Defendants were not entitled to a deduction for such surplusage. Because neither of the parties cited any cases, the Court reviewed secondary sources and cases from other jurisdictions regarding Defendants' argument. The Court found the New York case Hermitage Co. v. Levine, 162 N.E. 97 (N.Y. 1928), to be particularly instructive. In Hermitage, the court held that "in the absence of a lease provision to the contrary, a defaulting tenant was entitled to the benefit of any excess rent realized from reletting." The court also acknowledged that a contract damages provision could be drafted in such as way to not require the landlord to account for surplus. In referencing the terms of the Lease, the Court noted that Section 17.2.3 of the Lease expressly authorized the Plaintiffs to relet the premises without terminating the Lease and required the Plaintiffs to apply any rent received by the Plaintiffs "to the account of [BTG], not to exceed [BTG's] total indebtedness to [Plaintiffs]". Because the express terms of the Lease required the Plaintiffs to apply any amount received from reletting to the account of the Defendants, the Court held that the Defendants were entitled to set-off as a result of the surplus rent being received, but that the surplus amounts had to be adjusted to account for present value of future surplus and, in light of the fact that BTG's Lease was a triple net lease and the Vitamin Lease is not a triple net lease, the amounts that would have been paid for taxes utilities and maintenance by the Defendants.

Lastly, the Court addressed the issue of prejudgment interest. Referencing Fourth Circuit precedent that applied state law to questions involving prejudgment interest and Maryland precedent setting prejudgment interest at 6% per annum unless another percentage is established by contract or statute, the Court held that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount of 5.25% per annum, as set forth in the Lease, for unpaid rent and late charges beginning on the date due, but were only entitled to pre-judgment expenses for all other awards of damages, including the brokers' commission, the attorneys' fees, the administrative costs and any other amounts from the date of the Court's order until the date judgment was entered against the Defendants. The Court explained that pre-judgment interest was allowable for the unpaid rent and late charges from the date due because those amounts had previously become due and were capable of precise calculation from the date that they were due. The other damages could not have been determined precisely as of any date certain prior to the ruling of a trier of fact and therefore could not begin running interest until they became due and certain as a result of the resolution of the case.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Jackson v. Dackman (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: October 24, 2011

Opinion by: Judge John C. Eldridge

Held: Immunity provisions of the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act which, under specific conditions, grant immunity to a rental property owner from personal liability suits arising from lead paint poising, are invalid under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

Facts: The case involves two rental properties, which were owned and maintained by defendants. In January 2007, plaintiff and her daughter moved into the first property when the daughter was one year old. When the lease was first executed, the tenants failed to note any defective conditions. Nevertheless, paint chipped and flaked throughout the apartment, which plaintiff’s daughter ingested, causing her to suffer from lead poising. In February 1999, plaintiff and her daughter moved to the second property, which had been inspected pursuant to the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act and represented as lead-free. However, similar to the first property, paint chipped and flaked throughout the apartment, which the daughter again ingested. Plaintiff brought suit against the defendants and sought damages based on her daughter’s severe and permanent brain injuries allegedly resulting from ingestion of lead-based paint.

Analysis: Section 6-828 of The Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act grants immunity from personal injury suits to a rental owner who has complied with the statute, unless notice is given to the owner and the owner has been given the opportunity to make a qualified offer to the person at risk or to a parent or legal guardian of a minor. The statute sets forth specific blood-lead levels at which the tenants are required to give notice to rental owners. The Act also caps the maximum amount payable under a qualified offer to $17,000, which includes medical and relocation expenses. The Act provides that acceptance of a qualified offer releases the owner from all potential liability. It further states that if the qualified offer is rejected “[a]n owner of an affected property is not liable, for alleged injury or loss caused by ingestion of lead by a person at risk in the affected property.”

An issue presented to the court focused on whether the immunity provisions in the Act were invalid under Article 19 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Article 19 establishes the right to a remedy for a person who experiences an injury to person or property. The Court explained that the remedy may be found at common law, or substituted by the legislature through statute. The general inquiry, under Article 19 jurisprudence, “is whether the abolition of the common law remedy and substitution of a statutory remedy is reasonable.” Article 19 permits the legislature to impose a reasonable limit upon non-economic damages recoverable in tort cases. The Court, while reaffirming that some restrictions upon judicial remedies have been upheld -- including certain well-established immunities, ultimately held the immunity provisions of the Act to be unreasonable.

The immunity granted by the Act was not a well-established immunity in personal injury actions because it did not exist prior to the enactment of the statute in 1994. Under the Act, the only remedy offered in substitution for a personal injury action is a qualified offer by the owners which is accepted by a “person at risk, or a parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a person at risk.” The Court noted that the statute did not provide a remedy where no qualified offer was made. In addition, under the statute, the maximum compensation that may be offered is $17,000, which the Court deemed “minuscule” for a child who is found to be permanently brain damaged. Thus, the Court reasoned, “the remedy which the Act substitutes for a traditional personal injury action results in either no compensation (where no qualified offer is made or where a qualified offer is rejected) or drastically inadequate compensation (where such qualified offer is made and accepted).”


Furthermore, the Act has no exception to the owner’s immunity in the situation where an injured child reaches the age of majority and attempts to bring, in his or her own name, a personal injury action against the owner. The Court held, that because no adequate remedy was substituted for the grant of immunity, the immunity provisions of the Act were unreasonable and therefore invalid under Article 19. However, the Court found that the invalid provisions were severable from the rest of the statute, ultimately upholding the Act.

The full opinion is available in pdf. 

Hospitality Partners, LLC v. Brewmasters Hotel, LLC (Mont. Co. Cir. Ct.)

Filed: September 12, 2011
Opinion by Judge Ronald B. Rubin

Held: A defendant cannot attempt to terminate a contract for cause under one termination provision and, upon failing to justify the termination and losing a jury trial, invoke a different termination provision (that it did not comply with) to argue that the plaintiff's "expectation interest" in the contract, and thus its claim for damages, must be limited.

Facts: A hotel management contract had multiple clauses providing for termination, including termination for "no cause" whereby the terminating party would owe only 6 month's notice. The defendant terminated the contract for cause, on the ground that the plaintiff was grossly negligent in performing. The plaintiff sued and won a $2.8 million damages verdict from a jury. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that, had it terminated the contract for no cause, it would have owed only six month's notice. The defendant argued that, because it could have terminated for no cause upon six month's notice, the plaintiff's expectation interest in the contract was limited to six month's worth of damages.

Analysis: The court held that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the "no cause" termination clause after attempting, and failing, to terminate the contract pursuant to a different clause. The court distinguished the case from other Maryland cases where a plaintiff's expectation interest was deemed limited to the amount of notice it was entitled to receive before termination of a contract: Cottman v. Maryland Dep't of Natural Res., 51 Md. App. 380 (1982) and Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland, 168 Md. App. 50 (2006).

The court pointed out that the defendant had not invoked or attempted to comply with the requirements of the "no cause" provision. The contract was a complex set of interlocking promises and promised benefits. The parties clearly had the expectation that, absent good faith compliance with the express terms of the available termination provisions, the contract would last ten years. The defendant could have availed itself of the "easy out" of terminating for no cause if it had given notice and paid a small fee. Instead, the defendant chose another path and refused to give notice or pay the fee. After failing to justify its termination, the defendant was not entitled to invoke a different termination provision in order to cap its exposure to damages proven at trial.

The full opinion is available in .pdf.

Central Truck Center, Inc. v. Central GMC, Inc. (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: September 7, 2010.
Opinion by: Judge J. Frederick Sharer.

Held: This Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Seller of a truck dealership on the basis that no fraud had been committed by the Seller and that an integration clause found in an agreement barred the Buyer from asserting claims of fraud (including fraud in the inducement), concealment, and negligent misrepresentation.

Facts:

The Seller initially sued the Buyer for breach of a written contract by failing to pay approximately $50,000. The Buyer counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, concealment, and negligent misrepresentation based upon Seller’s inaccurate financial statements resulting in a large part from the cancellation of a contract between the Seller and a government agency. The Buyer asserted that the proceeds of the government contract had inflated the Seller’s sales figures in the financial reports and that the Seller’s gross receipts on the financial reports were inflated due to overbilling the government agency.

The Seller sought summary judgment based, in part, on the grounds that the sale agreement contained an integration clause stating that it constituted a complete integration of the terms of the contract and superseded "all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, inducements or conditions, express or implied, oral or written, with respect hereto, except as contained herein." The sale agreement also did not contain any representations or stipulations to Buyer as to a continuation of Seller’s past income or the accuracy of Seller's financial statements.

The Seller also argued that: (i) the Buyer had no expectation of income from the government contract because it had expired months before the sale agreement was executed; (ii) the Seller retained (and thus did not sell) the accounts receivable after the closing; and (iii) the Buyer was aware of a pending audit of the Seller's billing practices by the government agency because the Seller had disclosed the investigation in the Exhibits to the sale agreement.

The trial court found no clear and convincing evidence that the Seller made any false representations to the Buyer, with the intent that the Buyer would rely on them, with regard to the status of the financial statements, the status of the government contract, and the allegedly overbilled contract.

The trial court determined that the Seller's financial statements were prepared and utilized in the ordinary course of business, not in anticipation of the parties' negotiations for the purchase and sale of the truck dealership. The Buyer asked to view the statements well before closing, but it did not take further action to verify or question the numbers prior to entering into the Agreement, even in light of its undisputed knowledge that an audit of the allegedly overbilled contract was in the offing. Especially given the integration clause, the fact that the financial statements were not incorporated into the agreement, and that the parties were sophisticated in business matters and represented by counsel, there was no evidence that Buyer reasonably relied on the figures in the Seller’s financial statements.

The Buyer appealed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the grounds that the lower court erred by employing the incorrect standard in evaluating the claims and wrongly concluded there was no dispute of material facts and improperly relied on the sale agreement’s integration clause to foreclose any argument on fraud, concealment and any of the tort claims such as negligent misrepresentation.

The Seller argued against the appeal on the grounds that the lower court: (i) properly applied the integration clause to bar the court from considering any document outside of the four corners of the agreement; (ii) correctly ruled that the record did not support a finding that the Seller made any false representations, and (iii) the lower court found proper notice of the status of the government contract and thus any reliance by the Buyer on a different status was improper.

Analysis:

This Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Seller because the Buyer did not show that the Seller made any false representations that it justifiably relied upon or that it suffered compensable injury from such representations.

The Court evaluated the matter based on the elements for fraud under Maryland law, which are: (1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) that its falsity was either known to the defendant or that the representation was made with reckless indifference to the truth, (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) that the plaintiff suffered compensable injury resulting from the misrepresentation.

The Court found that the government contract, books and records were found to be in existence long before the sale agreement was even contemplated, and that the exhibits to the sale agreement provided notice to the Buyer of the pending audit by the government agency, and that the Seller made no representation to the Buyer that it could expect the same level of income in the summer months following the closing of the transaction.

The Court also found that the Buyer’s reliance on any statements by the Seller was improper because the Seller’s financial statements were prepared by the Seller and used by the Seller in its ordinary course of business and were provided to Buyer well before closing and the Buyer made no further investigation of the financial statements even though it had notice of a pending audit. It also found that the parties were represented by sophisticated service providers and could not understand how the Buyer could conclude that financial statements reporting the past could guarantee future performance.

The Court also found that the integration clause combined with the sophistication of the parties made the reliance by the Buyer of documents not part of the sale agreement (the financial statements were not included in the agreement) unreasonable.

The Court, even after assuming for argument purposes that the Seller misrepresented the sales figures and the Buyer justifiably relied on the misrepresentation, held that the Buyer did not present any clear and convincing evidence of any compensable injury as a result of such acts. Buyer's evidence of damages consisted of the speculative and unsupported assertion that it paid more for Seller’s dealership than the dealership was worth. The mere fact that Buyer's sales in the first three months of operating the dealership were lower than anticipated, based on the allegedly inflated revenues in Seller's financial statements, does not by itself establish that the Buyer's losses were caused by any unfulfilled promise by the Seller. Even if the allegedly overbilled contract had improperly inflated the Seller’s revenues, the Buyer had no expectation of any revenue from that contract, which expired prior to the negotiations for purchasing the dealership. Furthermore, the Seller had retained all rights to collect its account receivables.

The Court affirmed that lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the Seller because there was no evidence of any misrepresentation or concealment by the Seller.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Thomas v. Capital Medical Management Associates, LLC (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Date: December 7, 2009
Opinion by Judge Alexander Wright, Jr.

Held:

Because the defendants, a doctor and a medical practice, failed to raise negative averments in their answer concerning their capacity to be sued, they were precluded from disputing their status as parties to the contract. Further, because terms in the agreement were found to be ambiguous, parol evidence was admissible to prove that the defendants had additional duties to facilitate the plaintiff billing company's collection efforts. The plaintiff was entitled to recover lost profit for work yet to be performed because it was able to prove the losses with reasonable certainty. Finally, because the indemnification clause in the agreement did not expressly provide for recovery of attorney fees in a first-party enforcement claim, the plaintiff was precluded from recovering attorney fees and costs.

Facts:

The defendant doctor and medical practice retained the plaintiff billing company to process its bills. The billing company terminated the contract after 16 months and sued, alleging that the defendants failed to provide the billing company with timely information, failed to compensate the billing company, and failed to take steps necessary to ensure that the bills processed by the billing company would be paid.

The trial court ruled in favor of the billing company and awarded it contract damages, including lost profit for work not yet performed. The trial court also awarded attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants appealed, arguing four issues: (1) The defendants were not proper parties to the lawsuit; (2) The defendants had no contractual duty to provide the information and assistance at issue; (3) The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for work yet to be performed; and (4) The plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to the contract's indemnification clause.

Analysis:

(1) The defendants were parties to the agreement

The defendants argued that neither was actually a party to the contract. The Court rejected the argument. The Court noted that the defendants failed to raise negative averments concerning their capacity in the answer as required by Maryland Rule 2-323(f). Instead, the defendants admitted that there was an agreement between the parties and averred that it spoke for itself. Accordingly, the Court held that a written contract was properly executed between the parties and the defendants were bound by it.

(2) Parol evidence established that the defendants had duties to facilitate the plaintiff's billing work

The trial court accepted the plaintiff's theory that the defendants had a duty to provide demographic information and to perform certain credentialing so that the plaintiff could process the defendants' bills. On appeal, the defendants argued that there was no such duty written into the contract. The Court found the terms of the contract ambiguous. Reviewing the parol evidence, the Court concluded that the trial court properly held that the defendants had such a duty.

3. The plaintiff was properly awarded damages for lost profits

The defendants argued that the award of damages for lost profit on future work was entirely speculative. The Court stated that a claimant may recover for lost profit if the loss is reasonably foreseeable and can be proven with reasonable certainty. Damages can be proven by reference to some fairly definite standard, such as market value, established experience, or direct inference from known circumstances.

At trial, the plaintiff proved its lost profit by means of testimony from its billing manager. She had experience in medical billing and was acquainted with the plaintiff's transactions. After considering the records of prior collections, she calculated an estimate of the lost expected profit on the work yet to be performed. The Court approved of the method and affirmed the award.

4. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover for attorneys' fees

An indemnification clause in the contract was the only clause that provided for recovery of attorneys' fees. The Court noted that a party may recover attorneys' fees pursuant to contract only if the contract expressly provides for it. Here, the indemnification clause did not expressly provide for attorney's fees for enforcement in a first-party breach of contract action. Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover its fees from the defendants.

The full opinion is available in PDF.