Court Opinion

ID: 9649481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:55:29.396714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:24.256106
License: Public Domain

*115CATHELL, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority, in my view, as did the Court of Special Appeals, has substituted its assessment of the evidence and the witnesses for that of the trial court.
The trial court had before it at least the following Turner v. Brocato1 evidence. The parcel at issue was given a lot number, No. 7,2 and shown on the plats of the property, which evidences that it was intended in some fashion to be part of the subdivision. (Otherwise, why give it a number—why not indicate it as “other lands of the owner,” “land reserved by the owner,” or a similar designation?) Moreover, numbering that lot was necessary in order for there to be twenty-five lots in the subdivision as the plat indicated. If the developer had not wanted the land to be part of the subdivision, he could have done so by merely leaving the parcel unnumbered and not including it in the subdivision.
Additionally, Lot 7 was situated so as to be considered a logical part of the subdivision, having, as I recall, similar road frontage as the other lots. It was owned by the common developer of the property. There was evidence that neither the developer nor his agent ever expressly informed the purchasers that the lot shown on the plat as Lot 7 in the subdivision was excluded from the development, or that it would be further subdivided. Instead, there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to the contrary.
Prior to purchasing her land, Ms. Schovee was shown an unrecorded plat by the developer’s agent that showed a development of twenty-five lots. In order for there to have been twenty-five lots, Lot 7, by necessity, would had to have been included. She further testified that the agent told her that the developer was going to build his own home on Lot 7, that it would be part of the development, and that all twenty-five lots were included in the common scheme of development. *116Mr. Schovee confirmed the testimony of Ms. Schovee, and was himself told by the agent that he should not worry about Lot 7 because there would be no further development of the lot.
Dr. Shah testified that she was told by the developer’s agent that Lot 7 was to remain owned by the developer and that he would build “something” for himself on it. She was led to understand that Lot 7 was part of the development. Mr. Kramer stated that he expressed interest in buying Lot 7 to the developer’s agent. Instead of being told that it was not part of the development, Mr. Kramer was told that the developer was going to use it for his “estate lot.” The agent expressly told Mr. Kramer that the lot was part of the community to be retained by the developer for his “dream house.” Dr. Hagon testified that he recalled being told by the agent that the developer was going to build his house on Lot 7. Dr. Moran recalled being told by the developer’s agent that Lot 7 would not be further developed.3
Every witness for the plaintiffs testified as to the representations made by the developer’s agents, which were entirely consistent with a developmental scheme including all of the twenty-five lots. That evidence, if believed by the trier of fact, as apparently it was, was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision.
What occurred in the case sub judice is a real estate developer’s version of tactics similar to “bait and switch,” which we ought to condemn. The developer’s agent showed prospective buyers an initial plat that displayed twenty-five lots under circumstances that can lead to no other conclusion but that it is a twenty-five lot subdivision. Then by a subsequent document, in this case a declaration, the developer uses the omission of textual language to delete, by nondescription, one or more of the lots from the limitations of the development, knowing the tendency of purchasers to focus on maps and plats, rather than the omissions in the text of a subsequent document.
*117It is interesting that rather than including prominent language on the initial plats indicating to purchasers that Lot 7 was omitted or making an express statement in the declaration that Lot 7 was to be omitted or putting a prominent notation on “Exhibit A” that Lot 7 was omitted, the developer elected to use a tactic that had a high probability of not being noticed. He just left Lot 7 out: “Lots Nos. 1 through 5 (inclusive) and 8 through 25 (inclusive) as shown on [the recorded] plat....” New purchasers and their title attorneys would be examining the documents looking for the inclusion of their lots in the subdivision, not for what was excluded by mere omission.
The trial court considered that the evidence before it met the Turner v. Brocato standard for representing to purchasers that there was a common scheme of development that included Lot 7. In my view, although there was evidence to the contrary, the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision was sufficient. The trial court, not this Court, is the weigher of fact and credibility. The lower court should be affirmed and the Court of Special Appeals reversed.
Moreover, the holding of the majority may encourage unscrupulous developers to use deceptive tactics in the sale of lots in their subdivisions. All a developer has to do now is use the services of an agent to offer something in the sales process, and then take it away by purposely omitting it in the extensive postsales period documentation.
I believe that the majority, and the Court of Special Appeals, have improperly usurped the function of the trial court as a trier of fact, that the Turner v. Brocato evidence in the case sub judice is stronger than it was in Turner v. Brocato, that the holding of the majority is incorrect in light of Turner v. Brocato, and that the Court’s opinion will encourage questionable practices in the real estate development field. I would reverse the Court of Special Appeals.

. 206 Md. 336, 111 A.2d 855 (1955).

. There were actually two lots, numbers six and seven, omitted from the Declaration. This dissent focuses on Lot 7.

. At this point, this case walks and quacks like a duck.