June 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in three cases (all civil appeals). Those cases, with questions presented, are below.

The following questions arose from a reported ACM opinion by Judge Kehoe, which involved five tenant-plaintiffs versus a common landlord and its interpretation of the definition of “rent”:

Westminster Management, LLC, et al.v. Tenae Smith, et al. – Case No. 4, September Term, 2023- Petition and conditional cross-petition granted

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that the undefined term “rent” in Md. Code § 8-401 of the Real Property (“RP”) Article means only the periodic charge for use or occupancy of the premises, contrary to this Court’s precedent? 2) Does Maryland law allow a landlord and tenant to contract in the lease the manner in which the tenant’s payments for rent and other hard costs will be applied and allocated? 3) Does Maryland law allow a landlord to pass on its costs in initiating a summary ejectment action under RP § 8-401, including agent and summons fees, to a delinquent tenant under a lease? 4) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial courts denial of class certification, where the unique and individualized circumstances of the claims and defenses as to each putative claimant render this lawsuit unsuitable for class action treatment? 5) Whether Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on liability and declaratory judgments regarding their rights?

Charles Riley, Jr., Revocable Trust, et al. v. Venice Beach Citizens Association, Inc. – Case No. 5, September Term, 2023

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by vacating and reversing an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, given that the court (a) did not vacate the interlocutory order until the conclusion of a trial in which Petitioner had no reason to put on evidence concerning claims that were already adjudicated in its favor and (b) entered judgment in favor of Respondent because, according to the ACM, “the evidence at trial did not support” Petitioner’s claims? 2) Did the ACM abuse its discretion by directing the trial court to reconsider Respondent’s counter-complaint on remand, given that final judgment was entered against Respondent on its counter-complaint, Respondent didn’t note any cross-appeal from the judgment, and Respondent did not assert any error regarding the trial court’s judgment in its brief to the ACM?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Rahq Deika Montana Usan – Case No. 6, September Term, 2023

Issue – Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that reasonable grounds existed under Md. Code § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article for a law enforcement officer to request a motorist to take a test for alcohol concentration, despite there being no odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and a preliminary breath test result reflecting 0.00 blood alcohol content, but where the motorist was driving erratically and with indicia of intoxication to include horizontal gaze nystagmus and lack of coordination and balance?