Maryland Accident Attorney Blog

Our Maryland plaintiff's attorneys are experienced in handling cases involving Marylanders who are injured by unscrupulous realtors. Often we prosecute malpractice claims against the realtor for claims such as fraud or conflict of interest. During the course of this representation, we are asked how to file a complaint with the Board against these realtors for sanctions against the public.

Below is our internal memo which outlines the process:

(1) File complaint with The Greater Baltimore Board of REALTORS (GBBR) for violating Code of Ethics
a. If found to be in violation of Code of Ethics – REALTOR may be subject to a fine, suspension of membership or expulsion from the association
i. Must cite which section of Code of Ethics they violated
b. Claim = per incident
i. CANNOT process claims for monetary damages
ii. If legal action has been filed with Courts, CANNOT consider any complaint filed with GBBR until legal action has been resolved
iii. Complaint must be filed 180 days after facts were known
iv. Individual complaint being filed against must be member of GBBR
c. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached

(2) File complaint with Maryland Real Estate Commission
a. Only accepts complaints against individuals with real estate licenses
b. Claims brought for violation of Title 17 of Business & Professions Article
i. Claim = per incident
ii. May recover compensation from Guaranty Fund for an actual loss
1. May not exceed $25,000 per claim
2. Claim must (1) be based on an act or omission of licensed real estate broker/sales person; (2) involve transaction that relates to real estate in MD; and (3) is based on an act or mission in which money or property is obtained by theft, embezzlement, false pretenses or forgery; or constitutes fraud or misrepresentation
c. If found to be in violation, sanctions include – license revoked, required to pay a fine, license suspended, reprimands
i. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached
ii. Examples of violations & penalties imposed; complaints which were denied; and complaints which were awarded funds from the Guaranty Fund are attached

Continue reading " Realtor Malpractice and Filing a Grievance with the Board of Realtors for Misconduct " »

The most recent Maryland Court of Appeals case discussing whether Maritime Law applies can be found in Matthews v. Howell, 359 Md. 152, 753 A.2d 69 (2000).

Facts: Four friends boarded a boat and traveled to a bar. After consuming a variety of alcoholic drinks, the friends returned to the boat and headed back to the marina. On the way back, the conditions worsened (wind increased, water was choppy, and it was dark). While traversing the Chesapeake Bay, the captain (one of the four friends), abruptly throttled back, thereby slowing the boat, but did not anchor. The captain announced that he wanted to take a swim, and dove into the Bay, jumping from the seat at the helm. Then, one of the four friends, Ms. Matthews, either fell or jumped into the water. Rescue attempts by the friends failed. The US Coast Guard and a helicopter could not locate Ms. Matthews. Two days later, Ms. Matthews’ fully clothed body was found. Cause of death was drowning.

Analysis:
• (1) Navigable waters of the US
-Parties do not, and cannot dispute, that the Chesapeake Bay is a navigable waterway of the US
• (2) Whether the incident caused a potential hazard to maritime commerce -
-Boat was stopped in the middle of a major shipping waterway
-Boat remained adrift during rescue efforts
-The parties remained adrift in the area while search parties arrived
-Search parties spent a great amount of time scouring the area of the navigable waterways for Ms. Matthews
-No evidence of disruption of maritime commerce, but travel by any other vessel through that portion of the Bay would have been restricted by the search effort
• Whether the actions surrounding the incident bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity -
-Does not matter that the parties were not engaged in commercial shipping at the time
-Under certain circumstances, the act of diving from a boat could bear a relationship to maritime activity
-Unclear whether Ms. Matthews actually dove from the boat or fell into the water
-Search effort by the Coast Guard is a traditional maritime activity
-Broader view of “traditional maritime activity” – captain’s actions are lack of proper navigation; failure to manage, direct, and position his vessel properly
+Captain navigated the boat by stopping it and leaving it adrift in a major navigable waterway prior to diving from the boat
+He abandoned the helm without taking the proper precautions that maritime law requires
+Failed to assist in the rescue of a woman overboard from his vessel

Holding: Maritime law applies to the facts and allegations of this case.

For more information on whether Maritime Law applies to a Maryland personal injury matter, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.

In many personal injury actions which happen on a boat or on the water, the value of the case and the way lawyers approach the case depends on whether maritime law applies. Originally, maritime or admiralty law was applicable when any claim arose upon the navigable waters of the United States. The Plymouth, 70 U.S. 30 (1866). However, several U.S. Supreme Court cases have changed this rule.

Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972): A plane taking off from a runway hit a flock of birds, lost engine power, and crashed into Lake Erie, sinking to its bottom. The plaintiffs sought damages under traditional maritime jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that, for maritime law to be applicable, a court must find, not only that the action accrued upon or in navigable waters, but that the incident alleged in the claim bears a “significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982): Two pleasure boats collided, resulting in the death of a passenger in one of the boats. The Supreme Court held that the collision was actionable under maritime jurisdiction because there is no requirement that maritime activity be an exclusively commercial one. All operations of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The Court held that “[b]ecause the ‘wrong’ here involves the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters . . . it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime activity to sustain admiralty jurisdiction.”

Continue reading " When is Maritime Law Applicable Under Federal Law? " »