Jewell v. Md. Real Estate Comm'n, 2603
Decision Date | 02 April 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 2603,2603 |
Parties | JERRY JEWELL v. MARYLAND REAL ESTATE COMMISSION |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 465771V
UNREPORTED
Graeff, Arthur, Shaw Geter, JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
In August 2017, Christopher and Nkese Miller (the "Millers") filed a Complaint and Guaranty Fund Claim with the Maryland Real Estate Commission (the "Commission"), appellee, against appellant, Jerry Jewell, the listing agent for their recently purchased home. The Millers alleged that the listing stated that the house was "newly renovated," but the house was "falling apart," and Mr. Jewell did not fix items on "the inspection list." The Commission issued an order for a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"), stating that the Millers had the burden to show that any loss was sustained as a result of, among other things, fraud or misrepresentation by Mr. Jewell. After the hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") submitted a proposed order recommending a compensation award of $27,636 to the Millers. The Commission agreed, and the circuit court subsequently affirmed.
On appeal, appellant presents the following question for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
Did the circuit court err in upholding the ruling of the Commission finding Mr. Jewell liable for actual loss sustained by the Millers as a result of an act or omission that constitutes fraud or misrepresentation in the provision of real estate sales services?
For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
In 2017, Mr. Jewell, a licensed real estate agent working for RealtyForce, Inc., listed for sale a "newly renovated" property in Capitol Heights, Maryland (the "Property"). The Millers, represented by another real estate agent, made an offer to purchase the Property and began the process of securing financing and closing on the home.
At the time of the listing, the Property was owned by RedShift, LLC, a real estate company that purchases homes for the purpose of renovating and reselling them. Mr. Jewell held a minority interest in RedShift, LLC, and in addition to his role as the listing agent, he also had a partial equity interest in the Property. Mr. Jewell introduced himself to the Millers as the owner, seller, and listing agent of the Property.
The Millers received a Federal Housing Administration ("FHA") loan, which required an inspection and an appraisal. Mrs. Miller stated that she was unclear how the house passed the FHA inspection given the outstanding issues, but she knew that it did because they could not have received the loan otherwise. The Millers never received the signed FHA inspection report.1 They ultimately received a loan following the appraisal. The Millers also retained a third-party inspection company to conduct an independent inspection of the home.
The third-party inspection report, which was admitted into evidence, listed numerous items to replace or repair. An addendum to the contract was drafted, and it contained a list of items to be repaired by the seller, as follows:
The copy of the addendum introduced into evidence did not include a response from the seller, and it was unsigned.
The Millers testified that Mr. Jewell told them that he would complete all of the repairs listed in the addendum prior to closing. Mrs. Miller testified that Mr. Jewell told them over the phone that he would fix all the items on the list, including the roof. Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Jewell said that he would sign the document and send it to the Millers' agent, but they never received a signed copy.
Prior to closing, the Millers conducted a walk-through of the Property with their real estate agent. They checked whether the repairs listed on the inspection report and addendum had been completed, but some of the key items were not visible or accessible at that time. Their agent did not raise any concerns about moving to closing after the walk-through.
On June 26, 2017, the Millers closed on the Property. Immediately after moving in, they discovered that many of the promised repairs had not been done, and there were numerous outstanding issues with the house. On July 3, 2017, Mr. Miller sent an e-mail to their realtor stating that the sump pump, dishwasher, HVAC, duct system, and certain light switches did not work.
The Millers subsequently identified additional problems, including kitchen tiling that cracked, plumbing issues and clogged sewer lines, an improperly sealed toilet that leaked and caused water damage to the ceiling below, numerous electrical problems and unsecured lighting fixtures, broken windows and doors, loose railings, a leaky roof, and an improperly installed built-in microwave that fell and revealed exposed wiring. There also was severe flooding in the basement, including one time that the basement flooded with human waste.
The Millers were told that most of these problems were not covered by their home warranty. The warranty did, however, cover the costs to fix the HVAC and the dishwasher and to clear the basement water line. They paid a $100 deductible on July 12, 2017, to fix the HVAC and the dishwasher, and another $100 on August 3, 2017, to clear out the "main line" from the basement. On July 6, 2018, the Millers signed a contract with Long Roofing to replace the roof for $27,936.2
On August 13, 2017, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial