Anderson v. The Gables

• Decision Date: 15 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. 99, September Term, 2007.,99, September Term, 2007.
• Citation: 948 A.2d 11,404 Md. 560
• Parties: Dianne ANDERSON, et al. v. COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS OF the GABLES ON TUCKERMAN CONDOMINIUM, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

948 A.2d 11

404 Md. 560

Dianne ANDERSON, et al. v. COUNCIL OF UNIT OWNERS OF the GABLES ON TUCKERMAN CONDOMINIUM, et al.

No. 99, September Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 15, 2008.

Reconsideration Denied June 10, 2008.

Matthew S. Tidball (McCarthy Wilson, LLP, Rockville), on brief, for appellants.

Thomas C. Mugavero (Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Washington, DC), on brief, for appellees.

Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY and DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

BATTAGLIA, J.

In the present case, we are presented with the question of whether a condominium council of owners under the Maryland Condominium Act, Section 11-101, et seq., of the Real Property Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2003 Repl.Vol.) ("the Act"), is required to repair or replace property of an owner in an individual condominium unit after a casualty loss. We shall answer in the negative.

I. Introduction

This appeal consists of two separate underlying cases that were consolidated by the Court of Special Appeals, which we have followed. Although the facts of the underlying cases are different, they present the same legal issue.

Dianne Anderson, Individually, et al. v. Council of Unit Owners of The Gables on Tuckerman Condominium, No. 271904, Circuit Court for Montgomery County

The Gables on Tuckerman Condominium, located at 5800 Tuckerman Lane in Rockville, Maryland, was established by declaration, bylaws and plats recorded among the land records of Montgomery County in August of 1987. The Council of Owners of The Gables on Tuckerman ("Council of Gables") is the unincorporated association of all owners that was established by its Bylaws.¹

Dianne Anderson owned a two-level town home in The Gables.² At all times relevant, the Council of Gables carried a master condominium insurance policy on the property with a deductible of $10,000 per occurrence; Ms. Anderson was insured by a condominium owners "Condocover" policy issued by Erie Insurance Exchange ("Erie").³

In July of 2004, the water heater on the upper level of Ms. Anderson's home began leaking and water flowed through the ceiling into the kitchen, "causing severe water damage to the carpet and walls of the unit," amounting to $6,358.23. No other condominium town home was affected, nor was any other part of the structure damaged. Ms. Anderson requested that the Council of Gables repair or provide proceeds to repair the damage. The Council of Gables declined, and subsequently, after Ms. Anderson paid the $250.00 deductible, Erie paid for the repairs.

Dianne Anderson, individually, and Erie filed a two count complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, seeking to recover $6,358.23, the amount expended to repair her home. In Count I, they alleged that the Council of Gables breached its duty under Section 11-114 of the Maryland Condominium Act⁴ to purchase property insurance on all common elements and units, and in case there was a deductible, apportion that deductible as a common expense, when the Council of Gables refused Ms. Anderson's request to pay for the remediation, repair or replacement of the damaged portion of her home. Count II alleged that the Council of Gables breached its fiduciary duty by refusing to repair the damage. Ms. Anderson and Erie later amended their complaint by adding that the Council of Gables "negligently" breached its duty under the Condominium Act in Count I and also filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, to which the Council of Gables responded. The Circuit Court treated the Council of Gables' response as a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The court conducted a hearing on January 22, 2007, and thereafter, Judge William J. Rowan, III granted the Council of Gables' motion, denied Ms. Anderson's and Erie's motion, and entered judgment in favor of the Council of Gables. Ms. Anderson and Erie appealed to the Court of Special Appeals on January 26, 2007.

Erie Insurance Exchange, et al. v. The Council of Unit Owners of Bridgeport Condominium, No. 03724, Circuit Court for Prince George's County

The Bridgeport Condominium, located at 809 9 Cherry Lane in Laurel, Maryland, was established by declaration, bylaws and plats recorded among the land records of Price George's County in January of 1988. The Council of Owners of Bridgeport Condominium ("Council of Bridgeport")⁵ is the unincorporated association of all owners that was established by the Bylaws that govern The Bridgeport Condominium.⁶

Charles and Cindy O'Carroll ("the O'Carrolls") owned a home in The Bridgeport Condominium, which they rented to Velma Kiawu.⁷ The O'Carrolls also were insured by a condominium owners "Condocover" policy issued by Erie; the Council of Bridgeport carried a master insurance policy with a deductible of $25,000 per occurrence.⁸

On an evening in March of 2003, a grease fire erupted, which caused the ceiling sprinkler system to engage. Smoke, fire and water damage resulted; carpet, walls, blinds, cabinetry and a microwave in the O'Carrolls' home were damaged in the total amount of $12,157.14; the damage was confined to the O'Carrolls' home and the structure of the condominium was not affected. The O'Carrolls asked the Council of Bridgeport to repair or replace the damage, which the Council of Bridgeport declined to do; subsequently, after the O'Carrolls paid their $250.00 insurance policy deductible, Erie paid for the repair or replacement.

Erie, to its own use and to the use of the O'Carrolls, filed a three count complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's Court, seeking to recover $12,257.14,⁹ the funds expended to repair the condominium. Counts I and II contained the same allegations as that filed in the Anderson case, while Count III alleged negligence against Ms. Kiawu. Erie and the O'Carrolls subsequently amended their complaint by adding an allegation that the Council of Bridgeport "negligently" breached its duty under the Act in Count I,¹⁰ and also filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Council of Bridgeport filed a motion in opposition, which was treated by the Circuit Court as a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The court conducted a hearing on March 30, 2007, and thereafter, Judge Sherrie L. Krauser of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denied Erie's and the O'Carrolls' motion, granted the Council of Bridgeport's motion and entered judgment in its favor. Erie and the O'Carrolls appealed to the Court of Special Appeals on April 27, 2007.

The Consolidated Appeal

The intermediate appellate court granted the parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate Appeals on September 19, 2007, and subsequently, this Court issued, on its initiative, a writ of certiorari prior to any proceedings in the intermediate appellate court. Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of The Gables on Tuckerman Condo.; Erie Ins. Exch. v. Council of Unit Owners of Bridgeport Condo., 402 Md. 352, 936 A.2d 850 (2007). The Appellants, Ms. Anderson, the O'Carrolls and Erie ("the Owners") presented the following issue:

Does the Maryland Condominium Act, Md.Code Real Property, § 11-101 et. seq., in particular, § 11-114, require a condominium association to repair or replace the damaged portions of an individual condominium unit following a casualty loss?

We hold that the Maryland Condominium Act does not require a condominium association to repair or replace property of an owner in an individual condominium unit after a casualty loss.

II. Standard of Review

In considering a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bednar v. Provident Bank of Maryland, Inc., 402 Md. 532, 542, 937 A.2d 210, 215 (2007); Rhoads v. Sommer, 401 Md. 131, 148, 931 A.2d 508, 518 (2007) ("We review the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and construe any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts against the moving party"); Harford County v. Saks Fifth Ave. Distribution Co., 399 Md. 73, 82, 923 A.2d 1, 6 (2007) (In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment, "we seek to determine whether any material facts are in dispute and, if they are, we resolve them in favor of the non-moving party"); Serio v. Baltimore County, 384 Md. 373, 388-89, 863 A.2d 952, 961 (2004); Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 695, 785 A.2d 726, 728 (2001) (In reviewing a grant of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, "we must review the facts, and all inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs"). If no material facts are placed in genuine dispute, this Court must determine whether the Circuit Court correctly entered summary judgment as a matter of law. See Maryland Rule 2-501(f);¹¹ Bednar, 402 Md. at 532, 937 A.2d at 216; Saks, 399 Md. at 82, 923 A.2d at 6; Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp. v. Yanni, 397 Md. 474, 480, 919 A.2d 1, 5 (2007); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439, 451, 910 A.2d 1072, 1079 (2006); Ross v. State Bd. of Elections, 387 Md. 649, 659, 876 A.2d 692, 698 (2005). In the present case, there is no genuine dispute of material fact.

In statutory interpretation, our primary goal is always "to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by a particular provision, be it statutory, constitutional or part of the Rules." Barbre v, Pope, 402 Md. 157, 172, 935 A.2d 699, 708 (2007); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Seay, 388 Md. 341, 352, 879 A.2d 1049, 1055 (2005). See also Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Kelly, 397 Md. 399, 419-20, 918 A.2d 470, 482 (2007). We begin our analysis by first looking to the normal, plain meaning of the language of the statute, reading the statute as a whole to ensure that "`no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.'" Barbre, 402 Md. at 172, 935 A.2d at 708; Kelly, 397 Md. at 420, 918 A.2d at 482. See also Kane v. Bd. of Appeals...