Big City Know-How. Small Town Service.
Showing posts with label Maryland Court of Appeals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maryland Court of Appeals. Show all posts
September 13, 2012
Federal Challenge Filed by Pit Bull Owner
From the Baltimore Sun: Maryland pit bull ruling is challenged in federal court
September 7, 2012
Strict Liability for Pit Bulls - Part Two
On August 21, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an Order relating to a Motion for Reconsideration (.pdf) filed in Tracey v. Solesky, the case decided earlier this year that held that strict liability exists for the owners of pit bulls and 'cross-bred pit bulls' and their landlords. Subsequently, Tracey filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to review their decision with regards to the inclusion of cross-bred pit bulls. The Court's order amends the earlier Opinion by deleting any reference to cross-breds, pit bull mix, or cross-bred pit bull mix.
The Humane Society has set up a helpline for Maryland families at 1-855-633-6471 (1-855-MDDOGS1). Additionally, they have included on their website an information sheet (.pdf) for landlords and property owners.
The Humane Society has set up a helpline for Maryland families at 1-855-633-6471 (1-855-MDDOGS1). Additionally, they have included on their website an information sheet (.pdf) for landlords and property owners.
May 14, 2012
Strict Liability for Pit Bulls
On April 26, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals held in Tracey v. Solesky that anyone with the ability to limit the presence on their property of a pit bull or mixed-breed pit bull is subject to strict liability in the event that the dog bites a human. This is a drastic departure from the previous common law, which had placed the burden on the plaintiff to proof that a dog that bites a person had a history of aggression. The new ruling is unique in that it singles out a specific breed, a stance adopted by some local municipalities and counties across the country but never by a state supreme court. The dissent in the case pointed out a few flaws with the courts reasoning, including that the opinion did not specify what defines a pit bull (the term actually has been used to describe a number of breeds) or the degree to which any individual dog is a pit bull (regarding the percentage of breed).
The case has implications for dog owners, business owners, and residential and commercial landlords. Dog owners may find themselves subject to additional lease terms if they possess lease terms, or may find themselves unable to obtain a lease while owning a pit bull. Some animal advocates have postulated that the ruling will lead to record numbers of bully breed dogs being surrendered to animal shelters, which in turn will be unable to adopt out the dogs because of stigma associated with the breeds. Additionally, concern has been raised that dogs of suspect breed - as there are many breeds which are confused with pit bulls - may be unfairly judged and surrendered.
Tracey v. Solesky placed strict liability on landlords as well as pit bull owners. Landlords have the ability to restrict what breeds of dogs are present on their property; as such, the court has held that landlords have a burden to determine what breed of dog is on their property. Landlords may want to pursue stringent intake for pet owners, including training employees to recognize pit bulls. Additionally, landlords who choose to allow pit bulls on their property may want to request additional insurance from tenants.
One group that the opinion neglects to consider is the small business owner who holds a commercial lease. Veterinarians, dog groomers, pet food stores, and other businesses that cater to dog owners and welcome dogs onto their property could be held to strict liability for the presence of pit bulls on their property. Small business owners have less liberty to limit who enters their business, but could possibly be held responsible for attacks that occur during ingress and egress from their property. Negotiation of commercial leases for these businesses may include provisions regarding pit bull liability.
The case has implications for dog owners, business owners, and residential and commercial landlords. Dog owners may find themselves subject to additional lease terms if they possess lease terms, or may find themselves unable to obtain a lease while owning a pit bull. Some animal advocates have postulated that the ruling will lead to record numbers of bully breed dogs being surrendered to animal shelters, which in turn will be unable to adopt out the dogs because of stigma associated with the breeds. Additionally, concern has been raised that dogs of suspect breed - as there are many breeds which are confused with pit bulls - may be unfairly judged and surrendered.
Tracey v. Solesky placed strict liability on landlords as well as pit bull owners. Landlords have the ability to restrict what breeds of dogs are present on their property; as such, the court has held that landlords have a burden to determine what breed of dog is on their property. Landlords may want to pursue stringent intake for pet owners, including training employees to recognize pit bulls. Additionally, landlords who choose to allow pit bulls on their property may want to request additional insurance from tenants.
One group that the opinion neglects to consider is the small business owner who holds a commercial lease. Veterinarians, dog groomers, pet food stores, and other businesses that cater to dog owners and welcome dogs onto their property could be held to strict liability for the presence of pit bulls on their property. Small business owners have less liberty to limit who enters their business, but could possibly be held responsible for attacks that occur during ingress and egress from their property. Negotiation of commercial leases for these businesses may include provisions regarding pit bull liability.
November 7, 2011
Zombie Ground Rents
Just when I thought Halloween was over, zombie ground rents seem to have risen from the dead.
The Baltimore Sun had a great article detailing the recent Maryland Court of Appeals ruling which overturned the method of extinguishing ground rents created by the Maryland Legislature in 2007. Ground rents are a tenure, created by a grant in fee simple, where the grantor reserves to himself and his heirs a rent, which is the interest of the money value of the land. Ground rents apply to the real estate, but not the structures attached to the land, such as a home or outbuilding. Zombie ground rents are those with no active - or in some cases known - ground rent owner.
Ground rents in Maryland are often vestiges of colonial America, with some dating back to the 1600s. The fees associated with the ground rent are often nominal. Some ground rent owners do not attempt to collect the fees, as the costs associated with the collection are deemed too high compared to the actual rent. Additionally, some ground rent owners do not know that they have the right to collect at all, as they received the right as an inheritance. Absentee ground rent owners can make selling property incredibly difficult for homeowners, especially those seeking a mortgage from an out-of-state bank unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Maryland's ground rent system. Additionally, in Maryland, the owner of the ground rent can place a lien against the buildings if the ground rent is not paid. This has led to many difficulties for homeowners who are looking to sell their home, only to discover that a lien was placed upon the building.
In 2007, the Maryland State legislature attempted to remedy these difficulties by passing a law requiring ground rent owners to register their right with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. If the ground rent was not registered, a homeowner whose property was encumbered could pay a fee and have the property released from the ground rent. On October 25, 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that this provision of the ground rent legislation was invalid. The case, Charles Muskin, Trustee v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation, No. 140, September Term, 2010, held that not registering a property did not eliminate the property rights held by the ground rent owner. The Court held that the legislation provided for a taking without just compensation of the property rights of the ground rent owner, and noted that the legislation provided no method for appeal once the rights were extinguished. The court also noted:
The Baltimore Sun had a great article detailing the recent Maryland Court of Appeals ruling which overturned the method of extinguishing ground rents created by the Maryland Legislature in 2007. Ground rents are a tenure, created by a grant in fee simple, where the grantor reserves to himself and his heirs a rent, which is the interest of the money value of the land. Ground rents apply to the real estate, but not the structures attached to the land, such as a home or outbuilding. Zombie ground rents are those with no active - or in some cases known - ground rent owner.
Ground rents in Maryland are often vestiges of colonial America, with some dating back to the 1600s. The fees associated with the ground rent are often nominal. Some ground rent owners do not attempt to collect the fees, as the costs associated with the collection are deemed too high compared to the actual rent. Additionally, some ground rent owners do not know that they have the right to collect at all, as they received the right as an inheritance. Absentee ground rent owners can make selling property incredibly difficult for homeowners, especially those seeking a mortgage from an out-of-state bank unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Maryland's ground rent system. Additionally, in Maryland, the owner of the ground rent can place a lien against the buildings if the ground rent is not paid. This has led to many difficulties for homeowners who are looking to sell their home, only to discover that a lien was placed upon the building.
In 2007, the Maryland State legislature attempted to remedy these difficulties by passing a law requiring ground rent owners to register their right with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. If the ground rent was not registered, a homeowner whose property was encumbered could pay a fee and have the property released from the ground rent. On October 25, 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that this provision of the ground rent legislation was invalid. The case, Charles Muskin, Trustee v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation, No. 140, September Term, 2010, held that not registering a property did not eliminate the property rights held by the ground rent owner. The Court held that the legislation provided for a taking without just compensation of the property rights of the ground rent owner, and noted that the legislation provided no method for appeal once the rights were extinguished. The court also noted:
Real property and contractual rights form the basis for economic stability, such as it is, has been, and will become again hopefully. Allowing the “mere will of the Legislature” to shift drastically the fee simple ownership of land or cancel contractualobligations will shake further the confidence of citizens in their constitutional protections from government interference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)