good morning may it please the court the last appeal in this case established the g m violated important consumer protection rights of the plaintiffs granted by maryland's kleck statute and this appeal is about whether those important consumer rights carry any remedies or whether g m a she can violate them with impunity the last appeal determines that these violations occurred because the issue of whether a public of whether the repossession sale of their vehicles was public or private was certified to the maryland court of appeals as determinative because if indeed the sale was private the court found this court found  court of appeals decided that the sale was indeed private so therefore based on that decision the case was remanded however according to g m a c and the district court nothing changes result that decision even though the district court originally characterized the public vs private issue as the central and critical issue in the case upon remain and the first substantive thing that happened was the g m a c filed another motion for even though maryland's kleck statute says that and this court found that in the event that there is a private sale notice violation a deficiency judgment may not be obtained the district court  initially paid lip service to the idea that a deficiency judgment could not be collected acknowledging that that's what kleck provided however well those two different concepts of obtaining deficiency judgment it's clear that g mac can no longer do that but collecting the balance for some other means and still trying to figure out how that would happen it is an entirely different concept is not well i don't think it is entirely different or on these having the balance available as an offset should matters change them well and that's an important issue your honor because if that is characterized as an offset and and the district where did characterize it as an offset is one of the bases of the opinion if it's characterized as an offset and a basis for dismissing or granting summary judgment on point it's wines that is a judgement of the court that constitutes a deficiency judgment if the court decides the plaintiffs owed g m a c money because of this deficiency well that's a deficiency judgment and the reason that the offset comes into play i don't follow  which would include a private sale and that was the basis upon which the district court found that the k four deficiency bar applied to a private sale in the smith's were some person but when it looked great in order to eliminate and that i don't know what you would see a declaration about as well there are several things that that i think in addition to the deficiency judgment issues that there is a need for a declaration about but i just want you to try to make this point again that the if there is a set off if the plaintiffs are owed some money which is what we would contend that they are they are owed money  remedies and they wouldn't purport to do that under the efficiency well those are some of the remedies but again your honor under maryland case law under the gardener case this case decided by the maryland court of appeals under the patent case which was decided by the maryland court of appeals more recently under the green versus where motor credit cases i'll be decided by the maryland were the special appeals if a creditor violates the statute by not providing the required notice they are limited to the proceeds of the sale that's all that they can collect there is nothing more that they are zero so there is no set off that can be made so not only is there not a deficiency judgment they can't get anything more finding that they are owed something more for a court to find that would be a court determining that they are owed something i eat that they are owed a deficiency judgment why isn't your whole argument precluded by  relief on is a declaration that g m a see may not collect the interest costs fees and other charges that they are seeking to collect as part of the deficiency balance so they say that they're not going to collect a deficiency judgment they're not going to go after deficiency judgment but the deficiency balance that they say that they can collect includes explicitly interested don't you have to wait until they see to collect the deficiency balance know your honor under the maryland declaratory judgment act as long as there is there is actual controversy between the parties that's sufficient unrelated to the case you're saying just something that if the later be an issue if there is a dispute between the parties about their rights under the law or under contract for example as there is here they have the right to go to court and get a declaration on that and that's what we have here is th claims that's a deficiency judgment but your honor it is g m a c has not said it's not going after the deficiency balance it's said that the nominal damages the pointis aren't able to at the very least under breach  contract claim and this is the other thing that distinguishes it there is no nominal damages under breach of contract argument that was analyzed i don't know if that was argued or not but that is certainly not something that was presented in betty achromat something that was analyzed and there is black letter law that we are entitled to at the very least nominal damages for breach of contract well how can that be in a circumstance where the breach of contract and volves breach of a statute that's the only breach that is involved incorporated and the breach of the statute this accomplished only if there are damage no your honor the statute was violated that is something that has been determined not only by this work but by the maryland court of appeals and by the district court all have found by a wire damages to pursue a statutory crime no your honor like does not require damages like include statutory damages that they're one of the same so why don't they cancel each other out well because the why don't the i mean why isn't that a claim for nominal dab just assume within th well because the violation of clay constitutes a breach of contract and that was held by the maryland court of appeals in the patent case for thirty seven maryland one thirteenth for violation of kleck is a breach of contract and again under entitle you to well we would be entitled to breach of contract damages which would be quite damages and we're also if you know i'm talking about phenomenal tim what is that well nominal  deficiency judgment rendered if there's a set off if there is a set off and there is a deficiency if there is a deficiency judgment entered as a result of this case that would violate right so how do you get anywhere with your nominal damages claim what i'm asking this if your pursuit of nominal damages could only result in a deficiency judgment if we disagree with you on the issue of the principle again whether there i'm not sure that i'm understanding your question your honor there could be no deficiency judgment and that is one of the major points here is that the district court has found there could be no deficiency judg damages if there's a set off if there is some kind of a deficiency judgment that's exactly the point that i'm making that that can't happen there can't be a result in this case where there is a deficiency judgment and i just like to  she is unable to state a claim because she has suffered no actual damage that her compounds well i don't understand why that doesn't take your well your honor again because that was dealing with nominal damages under the  relates to the fees and interest there isn't and basically leaves open the print and so it's pretty clear that it's incorrect there is no damage if there's still an open ended principle well but that has to be writing contacts with well and twenty one which is the repossession section and that provides that there may not be any deficiency judgment if the repossession provisions are not complied with if we have the that circumstance you can't have nominal damage and then said the breach of contract poses no actual thing in other words well that's where nominal damages operate your honor when there's a breach of contract and can't show actual damages that's where nominal damages come up under the law this in the circuit court in the state circuit court rejected the same arguments that are being made here by g m a see that state court decision stands against the decision and betty akko in addition the commissioner of financial regulations decision in the entitled to a complete refund of all interest aid they can elect to have that as a refund or they can elect to have that applied to the balance of their loans and in that case there was no deficiency far there is no deficiency part of the maryland mortgage loan law so here the case is even stronger so that question should be certified to the maryland appeals to this to resolve the dispute between the state and federal courts and reserve the yeah you have small rebuttal time you know we'll see you mr bryce that is the inability to obtain a deficiency judgment is one in the same with satisfaction of the loan if you can't obtain it the fish and sea judgment they say in the loan has to be zero appeals or otherwise that supports that concept and in fact the decisions of the maryland court of appeals are to the contrary first in gardner the maryland court of appeals never dealt with that this issue it wasn't before it its decision in response to this court certified question was very narrow and that is was this a public or a private sale period and the court says it itself in its opinion the issue before us is limited to the a thousand admission fee and its impact on the characterization of sales of repossessed cars as public versus private period that's all the maryland court of appeals was dealing with it wasn't dealing with this court doing  patton thank you judge also had nothing to do with that hat in involved when simply the statute of limitations and whether the clock could be incorporated into a contract that's it it also didn't equate the deficiency judgment bar with satisfaction and in fact that the contrary there's a footnote in patent footnote twenty two where the court discusses a parade of horribles is ten nineteen of clock which says if you're going to sue for a clock violation you've got to do it with in six months of satisfaction and the argument that have been raised by the district and i argue passed on to the court of appeals and i made the same argument around a bit your argument had been made you know that's open ended you'll be able to sue to a lender twenty years later unless the loan is marked satisfied and in footnote twenty two the court of appeals muses about whether or not a deficiency judgment bar can be equated with satisfaction and expressly refuses to decide the issue the court simply didn't decide it now of course if you can't obtain a deficiency judgment and you can't obtain a deficiency judgment there's no reason to equate that with satisfaction and there's actually very good reasons not to again ten nineteen the statute of limitations if you're going to sue for a clock violation you've got to do it within six months of satisfaction if their argument is right that the deficiency judgment bar to the six months taht statute of limitations starts running today they don't want to go that far again there's nothing in clack that equates the patient see judgment ban with satisfaction and in fact doing so actually actively reads ten eighteen eight out of clack because it's then impossible for the creditor to collect the judgment or to use the judgment the judgment excuse me the balance or to use the balance as an offset if the loan has to be zeroed out solely by virtue of the deficiency judgment and that's clearly not with ten eighteen eight to provide it expressed by its playing languages judge ten eighteen simply means you can collect the the principal or or you can use it as an offset although you can't bring actual to fifty judgment and that's precisely what the district court did here recognized that we on the record both through counsel and briefs and an affidavit submitted by ally expressly stated we are not seeking we will not seek and concluded in math they've done can't challenge the patent repaid the principle therefore no damages it's really that simple and this court got it right  plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt it took everything that they pay as well as the price obtained when their cars were sold and applied them to principle and still came out with are to do with the amount of them  correct in one case thirty eight thousand subtracted the payments so attracted the sales price and ended up with the divisions exactly for gardner about eleven thousand five hundred and were scott's just twenty or so dollars shy of eleven thousand so way way over they're not even close to having paid off the principal and they don't they can't argue with that man what about the plaintiff separate claim or not i mean they seem to separate and apart from the clock violation it's entirely prime missed on the alleged violation of clock and there isn't that matter well it matters because as matter if if it is a common law for breach of contract why does it matter that the contract or crates lack in terms of whether they have a common law remedy as opposed to a statutory remedy clearly under the diet coke and the reasoning they have no statutory remedy but why don't they have a common law then if they were pointing to a separate violation of the contract they have to if there is a breach of contract and maybe there's something i simple under the common law there under the common law as opposed to not having a statutory remedy for actual damages under well two points judge keenan number one it effectively does and was your point or judge point the two do cancel each other out because again you still have the problem that these plaintiffs are well over if my question where are the argument would be that a breach of contract action you can have nominal damages that somehow the fact that it was they collect violation the cost of the contract will breach then transforms maryland law as to breach of contract damages under breach contract remedy for nominal damages when maryland law says you don't have to have actual that is our position but there is no maryland law that deals with this precise situation where those the legislature could do honor i mean it and it's our point you can't selectively incorporate claque in clacked the maryland legislature made a specific determination that a lender is entitled to collect every last penny of its principle and they're attempting to use the common law to do it and ron now granted only to the tune of a dollar but never the last to do an end run around the expressed language of clock and that wouldn't be a the interesting issues well it's exactly right we wouldn't be dealing with this if the breach of contract claim was premised on something other than claque or wasn't entirely premised on clack it is angry we really don't have any authority answering maryland there are utterly no contrary decisions were does not contrary the decision of the commissioner by any stretch the imagination were recognized and did precisely what the district courts  with satisfaction that is contrary to the language of class there's nothing in patent or garden or providing such and that would actually do violence to the to the language and in  sure the district court got it right here it followed better yako it followed the plain language of clack it did the math they can't contradict the math there's no contention here that accepted that we are not seeking and will know that's the point of the claim is moot and they say it really was no claim to dismiss it's not dismissed with prejudice but in fact remedy should be remained a portion of the claim that the one that was removed and declaratory judgment there's no need for that because of our representation and because by the way the statute of limitations for our seeking a deficiency judgment excuse me has plainly run that's a four year statute under the i don't see how we could bring action for deficiency judgment when we know the stacked limitations is run and when we've sat and we are not going to seek such that there's simply nothing to remain and to the state court what they would like and there's simply no with party for that in clack i mean utterly utterly none and it happens every day your honor where as a lender doesn't choose to bring a lawsuit whether it be for a deficiency judgment or otherwise and continues to carry that loan balance on its books for the potential offset if there's a suit attention for credit reporting purposes there's nothing in clec that says we can't do that and there's nothing in clack that says when they sue for a clock violation that we're not allowed to offset under ten eighty ten eight hundred eighty two which expressly recognize let me ask you something else i don't think you're addressing your brief that as miss carter separate claim that he suffered injury as a result of travel of the sale and that that is a claim for damages under the consumer protection act if you address that don't think you did we didn't then actually really doesn't appear in their complaint that matter or a request for nominal damages doesn't appear and her and either of the two complaints in this matter and i don't believe that was argued in opposition to summary judgment either for that matter and they certainly didn't put in any evidence below quantifying what that number might otherwise be were linked it i mean there needs unsubstantiated thank you thank you very much mr carn if they sign these papers generally yes clark has to be elected in the contract so if there is a violation of whack it's going to be a violation of breach of the contract and so why isn't it of necessity then that if you work with yet nominal damage award on the breach of contract claim you're actually circumventing the mandatory in other words you may only collect principle not all the other while you're on i believe it's actually phrased may collect only the principle balance at law but you're right it's mail in other words it's not you may go to the store so there's that separate violation that gives rise to a breach of contract claim that gives rise to nominal damages and there is no set off under under well there is no protection of the principle under quack twelve thousand eight hundred eighty two eighteen beat which says that in the event that there is a no one violation which has been alleged the consumer gets three times the amounts collected in excess of what's authorized under kleck which would necessarily eat into the prin so there's no way that that can be read as protecting the principle for the creditor it's just it's just not in addition claque does not require actual damages there is no part of like that requires actual damages and again the commission or financial regulation charged with also with the regulating under what charged with enforcing kleck in the ward case used the same language to find that people who hadn't paid the principal amount of their loan were entitled to a refund those in foreclosure those not in foreclosure there was no carve out for people in foreclosure it was simply additional relief that was authorized those foreclosure cases had to be dismissed and to gate so if the creditor violates like it doesn't have that right in the first place in addition g m a c is still trying to collect interest osprey's and other charges from the pointis in their deficiency this is deficiency of principle yes your honor is the amount they agreed to pay for the vehicle less the amounts they paid their getting full credit for the amounts they paid plus the sales price of the new will leave in eleven thousand four hundred seventy eight dollars well that that just by definition of a calculation is only prince your honor if you look at j sixty eight this is our we calculated your deficiency sent by g m a c i understand but that is not the way the court court took out all the greenies took out all the interest it made a simple calculation what you're going to pay for the bill not it's not that it was no calculation by the court your honor there's no numbers in the are it seems to me this woman agreed to pay thirty eight thousand three fifty six for the right i believe that's that's the race amount she agreed to pay she made payments on one thousand thousand one seventy eight is that before the litigation yes your honor well at this and now that's these are you know during the collection if they also thought it was a private sale you can't come back and say oh they've been maintaining that they had a legitimate argument that was a district court never said g m a c may not collect the repossession boss the transportation costs the thousand three hundred seventy one dollars in accrued finance charges that g m is seeking from my clients that is again ok thank you thank you will come down and greet counsel and take a short