Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sued the owners of her childhood home alleging injuries from lead paint on the premises. At issue was the trial court's instruction regarding the joint responsibilities of landlords and tenants in keeping the property in good condition. The court held that the inclusion of the instruction was error because neither plaintiff's contributory negligence nor negligence of her family members were at issue in the case. The court also held that the error was prejudicial because it introduced into the jury deliberations the idea that plaintiff, or her family, could have also been to blame for the injuries and such an argument was not only irrelevant to the case but prohibited by law and policy. The court further held that the inclusion of the argument could have permitted the jury to speculate or precluded a finding of liability where it was otherwise appropriate.

Respondent, the rental property owner, filed a "Complaint for Repossession of Rented Property under Real Property section 8-401" against petitioner, the tenant, for failure to pay rent that was due. At issue was whether the owner of a multiple dwelling, who failed to obtain a license for the premises, as mandated by Section 11-10-102 of the Anne Arundel County Code, could nevertheless initiate summary ejectment proceedings for a tenant's failure to pay rent under Section 8-401 of the Real Property Article, Maryland Code. The court held that a rental property owner, such as the one here, who did not possess a current license to operate the premises was not entitled to utilize the summary ejectment procedures outlined in section 8-401 upon a tenant's failure to pay rent if the dwelling was located in a jurisdiction that required owners to obtain licenses. The court also held that the district court judge did not err in determining that petitioner did not demonstrate actual loss or injury due to respondent's failure to obtain a license for the premises and thus, was not entitled to damages.

Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners alleging that petitioners had breached their agreement to pay the "Advisory Fee" that respondent earned while acting as petitioners' broker in the sale of petitioners' real property. At issue was whether the seller of real property was entitled to refuse to pay an agreed upon fee to the broker who represented seller on the ground that the broker was a "dual agent." The court held that it was questionable whether there was any legally sufficient evidence of dual agency; and if there was any evidence, the jury was entitled to decide as a matter of fact that a dual agency did not exist. The court also held that there simply was no evidence of any other material fact that respondent had a duty to disclose but did not. Therefore, the court affirmed the jury award of damages to respondent.