Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140721_0000386.MD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 02:51:15
Document Index: 96740043

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 5']

| NVR Mortgage Finance Inc. v. Carlsen
NVR Mortgage Finance Inc. v. Carlsen
NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., ET AL.v.SOREN CARLSEN
Argued: June 4, 2014 United States District Court for the District of Maryland Civil No. WDQ-12-1524
Barbera, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts, JJ. OPINION
Watts, J. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland ("the federal court") certified to this Court the following question of law: "Is [an alleged violation of] the Maryland Finder's Fee Act [("the FFA"), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law (1975, 2013 Repl. Vol.) ("CL") §§ 12-801 to 12-809, ] a[n] '[other] specialty' . . . under [Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.) ("CJP")] § 5-102(a)(6)[, which is a twelve-year statute of limitations]?"
Because this case involves only CL § 12-805(d), we reformulate the certified question of law[1] as follows: "Is an alleged violation of Md. Code Ann., Com. Law (1975, 2013 Repl. Vol.) § 12-805(d) an 'other specialty' under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.) § 5-102(a)(6), which is a twelve-year statute of limitations?"
We answer the reformulated certified question of law "no" and hold that that an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d) is not an "other specialty" under CJP § 5-102(a)(6), and thus is subject to CJP § 5-101, which is the default three-year statute of limitations.
BACKGROUND In the certification order, the federal court stated the following facts, [2] which we summarize.
In 2004, Soren Carlsen ("Carlsen"), Appellee, and NVR, Inc., Appellant, entered into a contract under which NVR, Inc. would build a home for Carlsen, who would use NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. ("NVR Mortgage"), Appellant, [3] to obtain financing for the home. Carlsen applied for a mortgage from NVR Mortgage, but Carlsen and NVR Mortgage did not close on the mortgage. Afterward, Carlsen used NVR Mortgage to apply for a mortgage from C&F Mortgage Corporation. In 2005, Carlsen and C&F Mortgage Corporation closed on the mortgage, and Carlsen paid NVR Mortgage a broker fee.
More than three but fewer than twelve years later, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Carlsen sued NVR Mortgage and NVR, Inc. (together, "NVR"), for allegedly violating CL § 12-805(d) by failing to make certain disclosures to Carlsen and similarly situated homebuyers before collecting finder's fees for brokering mortgages.[4]NVR removed this case to the federal court, in which NVR moved to certify a question of law to this Court. The federal court granted the motion to certify and stayed proceedings in the federal court pending this Court's response.
NVR contends that an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d) is not an "other specialty" under CJP § 5-102(a)(6) because, in an action for an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d), the duty sought to be enforced exists as a matter of common law, rather than having been created solely by CL § 12-805(d). Alternatively, NVR argues that the General Assembly intended an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d) not to be an "other specialty" under CJP § 5-102(a)(6), as the General Assembly enacted CJP § 5-101 (which is the default three-year statute of limitations) in 1973, and enacted CL § 12-805(d) in 1979. Alternatively, NVR asserts that, here, the alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d) is not an "other specialty" under CJP § 5-102(a)(6) because Carlsen does not seek damages that are liquidated, fixed, or readily ascertainable by applying clear statutory criteria.
Carlsen responds that an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d) is an "other specialty" under CJP § 5-102(a)(6) because, in an action for an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d), the duty sought to be enforced is created solely by CL § 12-805(d), rather than existing as a matter of common law. Carlsen contends that the General Assembly intended an alleged violation of CL § 12-805(d) to be an "other specialty" under CJP § 5-102(a)(6), as, during the General Assembly's 2012 Regular Session, the House Economic Matters Committee gave an unfavorable report to House Bill 674, which would have added a three-year statute of limitations to the FFA. Carlsen argues that, here, the alleged violation of CL § ...