Law Offices of Fredric G. Antenberg - 410-730-4404

Recent Maryland Decisions – 5/18

Fredric Antenberg — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:39:06 +0000

COURT OF APPEALS

Administrative Law, Appeal of public employee’s termination: Petitioner’s appeal of her termination was properly dismissed because she failed to file the appeal in a timely manner pursuant to SP §11-110(a)(1). Fisher v. Eastern Correctional Institution, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, No. 90, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0426-21

Administrative Law, Discovery under Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights: The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights does not provide for compelling production of records and documents by subpoena in advance of a disciplinary hearing. Popkin v. Gindlesperger, No. 104, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0426-22

Constitutional Law, DNA collection: The Maryland DNA Collection Act — which allows DNA collection from persons arrested, but not yet convicted, for crimes of violence — was unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who was arrested for assault in 2009; therefore, his conviction for a 2003 rape, based on that DNA sample, could not stand. King v. State, No. 68, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0424-22

Environmental Law, License to fill and dredge state wetlands: In denying plaintiff’s application for a license to fill and dredge on certain State wetlands, the Board of Public Works committed legal error by basing its decision on factors outside the scope of its authority and discretion. Maryland Board of Public Works v. Hovnanian Kent Island, LLC, No. 67, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0423-20

Family Law, Collateral estoppel effect of CINA determination: Child in Need of Assistance determinations preclude the re-litigation of issues presented in contested case hearings where the elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied. Cosby v. Department of Human Resources, Allegany County Department of Social Services, No. 74, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0425-22

Insurance Law, First named insured: The waiver of enhanced uninsured motorist coverage signed by plaintiff was effective since plaintiff was the “first named insured” with respect to her car insurance policy at the time she executed the waiver, even though her husband’s name was listed first in the policy. Swartzbaugh v. Encompass Insurance Company of America, No. 100 Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0425-23

Professional Responsibility, Indefinite suspension: Where attorney negotiated a settlement and suggested to the court that the settlement had his client’s approval even though attorney had not, in fact, consulted with his client on the matter, indefinite suspension was the appropriate sanction. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. McGlade, No. 6, Sept. Term 2010. RecordFax No. 12-0424-23

Professional Responsibility, Reinstatement: Attorney was reinstated to the Bar of Maryland because the criminal convictions pursuant to which he was disbarred were reversed on appeal, the underlying charges dismissed on remand and not further pursued, and attorney has, since his disbarment, demonstrated that he has been rehabilitated and is legally competent. In the Matter of Ira C. Cooke for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland, No. 82 Sept. Term, 2007. RecordFax No. 12-0425-20

Torts, Dog attacks: Upon a plaintiff’s sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull, and that the owner knows that the dog is a pit bull, that person is strictly liable for the damages caused to one who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner’s. Tracey v. Solesky, No. 53, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0426-20

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

Criminal Procedure, Inculpatory custodial statements: Inculpatory statements given to police by suspect in custody after he had invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed from evidence at trial because the State did not satisfy its burden to rebut the presumption that such statements were involuntary. Henry v. State, No. 952, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 12-0425-02

Criminal Procedure, Mistake of law: Police officer’s detention of defendant, which was based on officer’s mistaken belief that defendant’s act of parking so that his car took up two spots in a private lot constituted a traffic violation, was an unreasonable use of police authority; therefore, items seized during a subsequent search of defendant were inadmissible at defendant’s trial for drug crimes. Gilmore v. State, No. 2744, Sept. Term, 2009. RecordFax No. 12-0425-01

Criminal Procedure, Voir dire questions: Court’s voir dire question to potential jurors, which used neutral language, advised potential jurors that shows like CSI are fiction and use exaggerated or non-existent scientific methods and that jurors must base decisions solely on evidence presented in court, and did not suggest that finding defendant guilty was a foregone conclusion, was a permissible inquiry and was not grounds for reversal. Morris v. State, No. 1705, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 12-0425-03

Environmental Law, Critical Area Act: Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays acted in a quasi-legislative capacity when it decided that certain provisions of Wicomico County’s Critical Area program did not conform to state law, and Commission did not exceed its statutory authority in so doing. Lewis v. Gansler, No. 2174, Sept. Term, 2009. RecordFax No. 12-0425-00

CONTACT our MARYLAND LAWYER located in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland for your FREE CONSULTATION at 410-730-4404.

EBB is a service of the Maryland State Bar Association and The Daily Record.

To order a full text opinion for only $.90 per page, call RECORDFAX – Instant Opinions at (866) 213-2381.

The Daily Record — Providing essential legal knowledge for more than 120 years, featuring the latest law, government and business news. Visit www.TheDailyRecord.com for breaking news, the On the Record and Generation J.D. blogs, exclusive law coverage, special sections and a networking calendar. Sign up to be a TDR Insider to receive free daily breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox or text DailyRecord to 444888 to receive breaking news sent to your cell phone.

The Lay of the Landlord Lease

Fredric Antenberg — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:12:22 +0000

LANDLORDS WHO ARE OWNERS OF ONE OR MORE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

Many landlords will establish a landlord-tenant relationship through the use of a form lease that is purchased at an office supply store or over the Internet. To do so is a major mistake!

Under the Annotated Code of Maryland, Real Property Article, there are numerous requirements made of a landlord with which these “form” leases often do not comply.

During my 30 years in the practice of law, the biggest error I have seen made by a landlord is not properly stating in the lease the language regarding security deposits.

Landlords who do not have leases that conform to Maryland’s requirements regarding security deposits are ineligible to keep the security deposit even if the landlord has incurred damages solely caused by the tenant. If the landlord wrongfully keeps the security deposit, the Real Property Article permits the Court to force the landlord to pay to the tenant up to three times the security deposit amount plus reasonable attorney’s fees.

There are ways, however, for a landlord to sue the tenant through a separate suit and potentially recover monies for the damages caused by the tenant.

Additionally, if a tenant has not paid rent when it’s due, the landlord has remedies to recover the lost rents. However many landlords are unfamiliar with the details as to how to effectively protect themselves when seeking court remedies. Many landlords will file papers with the courts and not realize the significance of obtaining personal service on the tenant in lieu of service by “posting”.

Retaining an attorney who is familiar with the landlord/tenant legal process will often help the landlord obtain the best results and at the least cost.

Fred Antenberg is a Maryland Attorney who is familiar with landlord representation and who can file the required court papers properly and seek to obtain the relief you need..

CONTACT Fred Antenberg at 410 730 4404 and schedule an appointment to meet with us at our Columbia, Md. Office. We will discuss your case and hopefully represent you in landlord-tenant court.

A Speedy Divorce – We Can Help

Fredric Antenberg — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:40:23 +0000

When two people in a marriage decide that it is time to separate, reaching a mutual separation can be tedious, emotional, and stressful. Divorce is often a complicated process filled with many emotions, complications, and necessary compromises between the two spouses. A Maryland Divorce Attorney can help with the many steps of this process, and attempt to help relieve some of the stress and emotion that the client may be experiencing. At our Firm, our Family Law Attorney not only takes an interest in the successful completion of the divorce, but also the personal well being of the client. He makes his best effort to ensure the best possible outcome for his client, as well as doing what he can to help the client start their new life on a strong, positive foot.

As you would expect, the most important aspect of divorce for couples is division of money and assets when they do not have children or have adult children. Matters such as alimony and support will be a key focus in the discussions between parties. Because of the differences that may have led to the divorce, it is often easier for couples to communicate through their lawyers rather than person-to-person. An attorney will be able to articulate their client’s terms without involving the emotion that a face-to-face encounter would possibly include. Obviously, the attorney can also assist in all the necessary paperwork that must be filed as well as when and where to file it.

As one can imagine, if there is children involved in the family, custody can be a strongly contested issue that only will add to the emotion and opinions of the parties. Both parents usually believe themselves to be acting in the best interests of the children, naturally having the opinion that they are the better party to have custody. A Maryland Family Lawyer can help with the custody issues of where the children will live, how visitation will work and the particulars of child support. In most cases, the entire process certainly will all be resolved more quickly than if the spouses were attempting to go through the separation and divorce process by themselves.

Our Columbia Divorce Attorney at the Law Office of Fredric G. Antenberg is the attorney that can help you through this difficult time. He is interested in you as a client and as a person, doing what he can to reach an amicable result and assure that you have a strong foundation moving forward after the divroce. He will go over your marriage with you, and explain how your possessions are seen in the eyes of the law, and how the marital assets can be divided and what you are legally entitled to under Maryland law. If you have children, he will help assess your situation, and build a case with you to show the court what makes a good custodial parent and why you are that parent. He will go over your custody options, explain how child custody and visitation work through the Maryland legal system, and discuss the best possible situation for you and your family.

If you are approaching this very difficult time in your life, CONTACT our office as soon as possible. We can go over the possible next steps, and figure out which direction your next step should be. This process can be a long and grueling one, but with our help we can speed it up as much as possible so that this difficult time can be in the past. Call our Columbia, Howard County, Maryland Office at 410-730-4404 for your free consultation.

RECENT MARYLAND DECISIONS – 5/10

Fredric Antenberg — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:31:29 +0000

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

Criminal Procedure, Voir dire objection: An overruled objection to a “CSI effect” voir dire question, where the nature of the objection was directed to the composition of the jury, was waived when the defense thereafter accepted the jury without qualification. State v. Stringfellow, No. 62, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0423-22

Professional Responsibility, Disbarment: Under the totality of the circumstances, given the gravity and pervasiveness of attorney’s misconduct, disbarment was the appropriate sanction. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brown, Misc. Docket AG No. 1, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0423-24

Professional Responsibility, Disbarment: Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, including the misuse of trust funds and misconduct involving fraud, deceit and dishonesty.: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Camus, Misc. Docket AG No. 15, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0423-21

Zoning, Conflict with Master Plan: Approval of plaintiff’s amended development plan was properly denied because the plan conflicted with the Baltimore County Master Plan. HNS Development, LLC v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, No. 85, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0423-23

U.S. 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Civil Procedure, Collateral Order Doctrine: The U.S. District Court’s order resolving which evidentiary standard an ERISA claims administrator should apply in assessing a disability benefits claim, and remanding the claim to restore long-term disability benefits, could not be appealed under the collateral order doctrine because the order did not resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action and was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Dickens v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 11-1434. RecordFax No. 12-0420-61

Constitutional Law, Animal Welfare Act: A statute that prohibits sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal-fighting venture was a constitutional exercise of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause, and the statute’s additional evidentiary burden requiring the government to prove actual knowledge of interstate transportation of birds if the fighting occurred in a “state” where animal fighting remains legal did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. United States v. Lawson, No. 10-4831. RecordFax No. 12-0420-60

Criminal Procedure, Collateral consequence of guilty plea: The defendant’s loss of benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act was merely a collateral consequence, not a direct consequence, of his guilty plea to charges of using false statements to obtain federal employees’ compensation; therefore, the court was not required to advise the defendant of that consequence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. United States v. Nicholson, No. 11-4531. RecordFax No. 12-0418-60

Evidence, Prior Bad Acts: In defendant’s trial for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and knowingly using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, the trial court erred in admitting prior “bad act” evidence of defendant’s statements showing his knowledge of crack cocaine and his willingness to manufacture and distribute it, and this error was not harmless. United States v. McBride, No. 10-5162. RecordFax No. 12-0423-60

CONTACT our MARYLAND LAWYER located in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland for your FREE CONSULTATION at 410-730-4404.

EBB is a service of the Maryland State Bar Association and The Daily Record.

To order a full text opinion for only $.90 per page, call RECORDFAX – Instant Opinions at (866) 213-2381.

Location, Location, Location – Venue Matters

Fredric Antenberg — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:54:23 +0000

Even in the legal world, location can play a big part in a successful recovery for a persons lawsuit. One area that an experienced attorney can assist their client in is the selection of the venue in which to file a personal injury lawsuit against someone. The importance of venue can be seen through the daily battles that occur between parties in court over venue, or specific clauses in contractual matters that specifies which venue certain lawsuits can be brought in. There are plenty of reasons why the forum matters so much to the outcome of a case. The law that applies, The amount of money that you could possibly sue for, the statute of limitations, are just a few of the potential considerations that depend on the venue. In personal injury suits, there is one particular reason why the venue is so important to the outcome of your lawsuit: You want to have a jury that will be the most likely to reach the verdict you want.

In Maryland, the law often allows the plaintiff several options as venue for the plaintiff to select. And this decision by the Plaintiff can not be changed without great consideration from the court. The Maryland Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that if the defendant believes the venue should be change, their motions must show that “the interests of justice would be best served by transferring the action…and a motion to transfer should be granted only when the balance weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.” In the end, the the trial court has a lot of discretion on venue. A trial judge can look at the interests of all parties and make a decision as the judge see fit.

In choosing the a court there are two types of forumselection that occur. The first is what is known as vertical forum selection. This occurs when as an attorney attempts to move a case to or from federal court. For personal injury, this is less likely to be an option in areas such as malpractice or car accidents. However, product liability cases can often bring this specific venue matter into question. Most Maryland personal injury lawyers involved in cases such as car accidents and medical malpractice lawyers deal more with what is known as “horizontal” forum selection. This sort of selection involves choosing the specific county (or Baltimore City) the attorney believes will give the client the best possible chance of receiving a verdict and large judgement. The specific issues of the case are taken into consideration when deciding which judges and local juries will be more sympathetic and empathetic to what a plaintiff has gone through, and in turn more likely to rule in their favor.

In Maryland, Baltimore City and Prince George’s County are often the best jurisdictions in Maryland to try personal injury cases. Still, it is important to let a Maryland Personal Injury Attorney assess the situation and assist in making the appropriate and smart decision in filing your action. Our Columbia Personal Injury Attorney will listen to you story take a look at all the facts involved. He will use his knowledge of the Maryland court system to decide where you will have the best chance of successfully receiving damages for the accident you have been involved in.
If you have been injured in a car accident, or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact our Office. Fred will go over the situation with, explain your options, and help you moving forward so we can possibly maximize your potential recovery by choosing the best venue for your case. CONTACT our Columbia, Howard County, MD Office for your FREE Consultation.