Opinion ID: 2557276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The General Releases and the CPA

Text: The final question we consider is whether Bayly and the Passyns, under the circumstances, violated the CPA by requiring buyers to grant a general release. Section 13-301(13) of the CPA provides that no seller ... of consumer realty [may use] ... a clause limiting or precluding the buyer's right to obtain consequential damages as a result of the seller's breach or cancellation of the contract. Com. Law § 13-301(13). The contracts in this case provided that, in exchange for a limited warranty, buyers were to grant a general release to Bayly Crossing, LLC ([the Passyns]) Landowners and their heirs, successors and assigns and forever discharge the said Bayly Crossing, LLC ([the Passyns]) from any and all actions or causes of action relating to the construction of the house on Lot ___ Phase ___ located at Bayly Crossing which Buyers have or may have against the said Bayly Crossing, LLC ([the Passyns]) now or in the future and also release the Builder from any and all items not covered either by said Limited Warranty or the Punch List.... The Division argues that general releases, which preclude a buyer from obtaining any kind of resultant damages, necessarily preclude a buyer from obtaining consequential damages, in violation of the CPA. The Passyns retort that the general releases sa[id] nothing about consequential damages, meaning they did not preclude or limit, in any way, a buyer's right to consequential damages. Although the phrase any and all actions or causes of action is broad in scope, they rely upon the qualifying phrase relating to the construction of the house[s] to suggest that buyers waived only causes of action arising after contract-performance. As the CPA concerns only those causes of action arising during contract-performance, or so Petitioners claim, the post-performance general releases did not violate it. Unlike the HBRA issue, we perceive that the dispute here focuses on the meaning and coverage of the statute. Stated another way, the nature of our inquiry (and its ultimate resolution) are not fact-dependent, and, therefore, we are presented with a question of law. See Vann, 382 Md. at 299, 855 A.2d at 321 (describing mixed question as fact-dependent ... inquiries, which cannot be adjudicated without considering the law in view of the applicable facts). Sometimes, even with regard to resolving legal questions, as we noted supra, agencies are accorded a degree of deference. Due to the clarity and specificity of this statutory provision, however, we conclude that the Legislature did not entrust much to the Division's expertise and decision-making respecting general releases. See Triangle Gen. Contrs., Inc., 366 Md. at 417, 784 A.2d at 539-40. On the basis of the plain meaning of the CPA, the Legislature intended to proscribe the use of general releases, by a seller of consumer realty, which do not preserve specially a buyer's right to obtain consequential damages. A seller of consumer realty need not address expressly in its waiver consequential damages; that all claims for damages were precluded, however, is violative of the CPA. Thus, we do not consider persuasive Petitioners' argument that its general releases did not offend the CPA because they sa[id] nothing about consequential damages and were targeted at only post-construction claims. We find the language of the releases sufficiently expansive to fall within the clear and unambiguous regulatory prohibition of the CPA. [13] Consequently, we affirm the Court of Special Appeals's holding that the Division's subsequent determination regarding Petitioners' general release violated CPA § 13-301(13). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS IS REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART; CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AND REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER REMAND TO RESPONDENT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE SHARED EQUALLY BY PETITIONERS (50%) AND RESPONDENT (50%).