Opinion ID: 2447456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ba Law Suit and the Njosa Foreclosure Avoidance Scheme

Text: Ba's civil claim against Respondent arose out of a contract between Ba and Ivo Fotoh Njosa (a contract procured by Respondent) in which Ba sought to purchase certain real property from Njosa. The record shows that, in 2003, Respondent was engaged in representing Njosa in his then-ongoing divorce action. At some point during that representation, Njosa's sister, Ba's co-worker at Long & Foster Realtors, informed Ba that Njosa's home was in foreclosure; in response, Ba expressed interest in purchasing the property. On 17 July 2003, six days prior to the scheduled date of the foreclosure sale, Respondent sent a letter to Worthington H. Talcott, the attorney representing the foreclosing lender's interest, requesting that the foreclosure sale be postponed for fifteen days so that Ba could have an opportunity to purchase the property from Njosa and his soon-to-be ex-wife. Talcott denied the request, advising instead that the lender might reconsider pursuit of its foreclosure action upon receipt and review of an executed contract of sale. Judge Dugan found that, at some point prior to the scheduled foreclosure sale date of July 23, [1] Ba and Njosa met with Respondent, who agreed to find a lender to facilitate the removal of Njosa's property from foreclosure. Apparently, the Njosas were $14,500 in default on the secured loan. Ba agreed to purchase the property and repay the loan that Respondent was to secure; that agreement, however, was never reduced to writing. To facilitate Ba's purchase and remove Njosa's property from default, Respondent borrowed $14,500 from the funds in her attorney trust account, funds which belonged to Eke Onuma, an individual whom Respondent claimed to represent. [2] Respondent withdrew $14,500 from the trust account on July 22 and caused to be drawn a cashier's check in like amount, payable to Talcott's law firm. Respondent presented the check to Talcott's law office in person that day. On August 14, Ba gave Respondent a cashier's check for $14,500 and executed with Respondent, who purported to be acting on behalf of Njosa, a document entitled Offer to Sell Real Estate. Although Respondent did not have power of attorney authorization from Njosa, she executed nevertheless the contract as a holder of owner's/seller's Power of Attorney. The contract provided that Ba's $14,500 check was a deposit on the purchase price of the property. Judge Dugan found, however, that the contract did not depict the true agreement of the parties' prior dealings, because, in fact, the $14,500 represented the repayment of the loan made allegedly by Onuma. Respondent could not explain to Judge Dugan or Bar Counsel why she executed a contract that did not reflect the agreement of the parties. On August 15, Talcott mailed Respondent a refund check in the amount of $468.06 for overpayment of the amount in default required to remove Njosa's property from foreclosure. Respondent did not deposit that refund check into her attorney trust account. Talcott testified that the refund check never cleared his account, and stated that Respondent told him not to reissue the refund check to her. Ultimately, a problem with the appraisal of Njosa's property prevented Ba from settling on the contract to purchase the property. Ba requested that Respondent return his deposit of $14,500. Respondent refused, replying that Ba had agreed that the money would go to the bank to remove Njosa's property from foreclosure. Instead, in a letter dated 24 September 2003, Respondent referred Ba to the Judgment of Absolute Divorce in Njosa's divorce case, wherein Ba was granted the possibility of reimbursement of his $14,500 from the proceeds of the sale of the Njosa property (assuming adequate net proceeds resulted), if he would submit proof, within 14 days after the divorce judgment, that he had removed the property from foreclosure. The letter made no mention that Ba's funds were used to repay a loan that Respondent borrowed from an alleged client to cure the foreclosure. As a consequence of these dealings, Ba filed a civil claim against Respondent in the Circuit Court for misappropriation of funds, which resulted in a judgment against Respondent in the amount of $14,500. [3] Although the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals in 2008, it remains unsatisfied.