Posted on December 16, 2013 in Civil Tax

Governments in recent years have developed some ingenious ways of financing huge real estate projects without having to front the money for it. One such method is so-called “ground lease financing” arrangements, in which private companies pay for the construction and then lease the improvements back to the government for some period of time. It’s a great way for governments to get new digs and spread out the cost, but it can lead to sticky questions when the taxman comes to collect.

Such issues were recently tackled by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in Townsend Balt. Garage, LLC v. Supervisor of Assessments of Balt. City, No. 2922, November 19, 2013. The wheels of the case were set in motion when the State of Maryland decided to build that big “BioPark” research complex in downtown Baltimore. As what typically happens in these ground lease financing deals, there was a mountain of leasing and subleasing arrangements in play, so try to bear with us here as we work through them…

To get the project off the ground, the State acquired some land from the City of Baltimore and leased it to UMB Health Sciences Research Park Corporation (“RPC”) – a tax-exempt non-profit organization created by the University System of Maryland – under a ground lease. RPC then subleased a parcel of the property Baltimore LSRP One Business Trust (“BLSRP”), a for-profit entity that agreed to finance and construct an office building and laboratory that would be leased back to the State of Maryland to house the University of Maryland, Baltimore, School of Medicine. Another parcel was subleased to Townsend Baltimore Garage, LLC (“Townsend”), another for-profit entity that agreed to finance and construct a parking garage.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 16, 2013 in Internet Law

Would you like to be identified by name in a federal court case that alleges you illegally downloaded, watched and shared pornography? Probably not.

Would it affect your job, your career, your reputation? Probably so.

Suing Marylanders by the hundreds, Malibu Media is using strong-arm litigation tactics to intimidate unsuspecting Marylanders to pay money to settle alleged copyright violations they may not have even committed. Malibu Media, LLC, is a California company that produces and/or owns the copyright to adult “soft-porn” movies and video content. Much of this content is available for viewing on the Internet.

Hundreds of Marylanders have received or will receive a letter from their Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Verizon, telling them that they’re being sued for copyright infringement by Malibu Media. Attached to the letter you receive from your ISP is a subpoena that requires the ISP to give Malibu Media your name, address and account information unless you “move to quash” the subpoena by a certain date. Also attached is a Complaint suing the “John Doe” account holder of a certain IP address. That “John Doe” IP address is linked to your Internet account with your ISP. The Complaint alleges that the “John Doe” has downloaded Malibu Media-owned porn films and seeks hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Once the ISP turns over the account information and your name, your name ends up on the pleadings as the named defendant.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 13, 2013 in Sex Offenses

As an Aggressive Baltimore Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney I have represented hundreds of people charged with Sex Offenses. Many of these case deal with adults (typically men) having sexual contact with underage victims (typically girls) – so call Statutory Rape Cases – although Maryland Law does not use that specific terminology. The basic rule is that if a child is under the age of 16 – which is the age of consent in Maryland – it is illegal for an adult who is at least 4 years older than the child to have an form of sexual contact with the child. These crimes are prosecuted very aggressively throughout Maryland and typically result in jail time as well as requirement to register as a sexual offender for 15 to 25 years or even for life.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 10, 2013 in Contracts

On December 9, 2013, STSW lawyers Bill Sinclair and Ned Parent obtained a half million dollar judgment in a complex construction arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. After pre- and post-arbitration briefing and a four-day hearing before Arbitrator J. Snowden Stanley, which included a comprehensive site visit and fact and expert witness testimony, Sinclair and Parent convinced Mr. Stanley that their client, the Edgewood American Legion Service Post 17, should receive money and credits from the architect and general contractor who failed to complete a re-build of the Legion’s hall in Edgewood, Harford County, Maryland.

This case began during the “Snowmageddon” of February 2010, when record Maryland snows caused the roof of the Edgewood American Legion hall (“Hall”) to collapse. The Legion obtained bids from several local contractors to re-build the Hall and ultimately went with Burton Pfund, Inc. to design and rebuild the Hall. Burton Pfund agreed to do this work through two trade names — Burton Pfund Architecture would design the re-build, while MasterPlan Design Build (collectively, “Burton Respondents”) would perform the reconstruction services. The parties signed a guaranteed maximum price contract for the Burton Respondents to perform the necessary work for $840,000.00, plus selective demolition services for a GMP of $50,000.00. Work began in the Fall of 2010 and continued through Spring 2011.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 27, 2013 in Self-Defense

As a Former Assistant State’s Attorney and Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney for almost 20 years, I have prosecuted and defended thousands of people charged with Second Degree Assault and/or First Degree Assault. For reasons that I cannot understand, there is a very common misperception in the general population and even with some in law enforcement, that Maryland does not recognize the concept of Self-Defense. This is simply not the law. The State of Maryland and every other State for that matter, absolutely does recognize the legal doctrines known to every first grader as Self-Defense and Defense of Others.

The right of people to defend themselves against violent attack goes back at least to English common law and probably as long as people have gathered together in organized societies. It is an obvious fundamental human right so it is difficult to understand how how widespread this misunderstanding has become in Maryland. The only theory I can come up with is that people are confusing the concept of a Mutual Affray which Maryland does not technically recognize with the universally recognized theory of Self-Defense. I had a client come in and meet with me this week that I think illustrates this misunderstanding of Maryland Law on this subject well. Here are the facts:

My client is a 35 year old woman who has been involved in a relationship with her current boyfriend for about 3 years. They moved in together within a few months of the beginning of the relationship and have been living together ever since. The relationship started out very well (as most do) but has been deteriorating over the last year, and has recently started to become physical. As is typical in domestic violence cases, once verbal arguments become physical, the violence tends to escalate. My client advised me that although she had not previously called the police, her boyfriend had shoved her several times during arguments and in the argument immediately preceding the one that cause her to be in my office, he had held her down on the bed and choked her. Needless to say this was a frightening experience for her that caused her legitimate concern for her safety.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 25, 2013 in Gun Laws

As an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorneyshttps://criminal.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1741744.html we often witness people make the big mistake of representing themselves in criminal court. The old adage is, “he who represents himself, has a fool for a client”. Truer words have never been spoken, particularly when dealing with criminal charges

The typical scenario is that someone is arrested and charged in a case that that they view as minor or at least something that they can handle themselves. Sometimes it actually works out and the person gets away with the mistake. Sometimes it blows up in their face immediately and they know it. But sometimes the mistake is latent and the person doesn’t realize how badly he messed up his life until years later. I had a case last week in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in which my client was charged with Illegal Handgun Possession that fell into this last category. Fortunately, I was able to successfully resolve the current case but not before it cost the defendant far more than it would have cost to resolve the original matter had he contacted me then. And I was unable to undue the original conviction which will continue to cause collateral consequences for my client for many years to come and perhaps for the rest of his life. Here are the facts:

My client is a 49 year former Marine with no prior criminal record. He is an electrician by trade and is an avid outdoorsman and hunter. In 2006, he was involved in a relatively minor domestic incident with his wife of 25 years. An argument between the two allegedly became physical causing only minor injury to his wife. He decided that he would handle the matter himself both for financial reasons and because he believed that since it was his first offense, he would be treated with leniency. He plead guilty and was sentenced to a suspended jail term and probation with domestic violence counseling.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 22, 2013 in Contracts

Is intending to settle a case the same thing as actually settling? As the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently confirmed, it can be. In its decision earlier this month in Falls Garden Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Falls Homeowners Ass’n, No. 0443, September Term 2012, the Court applied state contract interpretation principles to a “letter of intent” memorializing a settlement agreement, construing the document as a valid “executory accord” that precluded the Appellants’ ability to pursue its claims. The ruling is a reminder that, when a party doesn’t want to be bound by a recording of an agreement, it better make sure the agreement says so.

In Falls Garden Condo. Ass’n, condominium complex Falls Garden used 65 adjacent parking spaces for 23 years before finding out that they actually belonged to a neighboring residential community, The Falls. Falls Garden sought a declaratory judgment that it owned the spaces by adverse possession or, alternatively, by obtaining an easement. As trial neared, the parties negotiated a possible settlement, and eventually executed a letter of intent “meant to memorialize certain aspects of a formal Settlement Agreement and separate Lease to be entered into” between the parties. The letter provided that The Falls would lease the spots to Falls Garden at $20 a month for each spot, provided that The Falls’ homeowners’ association approved. After the association accepted the plan, its attorneys drafted a proposed 99-year lease and submitted it to Falls Garden.

By this point, however, Falls Garden had a change of heart, and hired new counsel that sought to undo the negotiations. Not happy with the reversed course, The Falls took the letter into the circuit court, moving to have it enforced as a settlement agreement. Falls Garden protested that it didn’t intend to be bound by the letter, as evidenced by the fact that it didn’t drop its lawsuit as soon as the letter was executed. The circuit court reviewed the letter, concluding that it revealed an enforceable agreement that had actually been reached. The parties were ordered to execute a settlement agreement and lease, but, before that could happen, Falls Garden went to the appellate court for review.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 21, 2013 in Obstetrician Malpractice

Patients place incredible trust in their physicians and medical professionals when they visit hospitals for identifying or treating a medical problem. That trust comes with a responsibility on the part of the medical team, from doctors to nurses and nurse’s assistants, to conduct themselves in a reasonably careful manner under the circumstances. Patients cannot always expect perfection or treatment free of risk, but they do have the right to expect reasonable and safe care from the medical staff. When a physician or any medical staffer fails to provide that level of care, victims should consider a medical malpractice lawsuit so that they can have the financial ability to pay for extensive medical care that medical negligence can cost.

That is exactly what happened about a year and a half ago in Los Angeles, California. The case, filed on behalf of the 18-month-old boy by his mother, Dyrene Loftis, alleged that due to poor medical care, she suffered a ruptured uterus that caused a lack of oxygen to the child during his delivery. Loftis was 39 weeks pregnant and living at a downtown homeless shelter in Los Angeles with her other two children. In April 2012, she complained of severe abdominal pains and was rushed to the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center for treatment. She spent 14 hours in the labor and delivery unit before being discharged and sent back to the homeless shelter. Surprisingly, Loftis was never seen by an obstetrician during her hospital stay. Less than twelve hours later, she returned to the hospital with a ruptured uterus and underwent an emergency C-section to deliver the baby. The uterine rupture caused a lack of oxygen to the baby during his delivery. The baby, now eighteen months old, suffers from severe brain damage and requires assistance to breathe and eat. He is in a 24-hour long-term care facility and Loftis travels on a two-hour bus ride to visit him several times a week. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 18, 2013 in Handgun Offenses

https://criminal.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1709297.htmlAggressive Maryland Criminal Attorneys represent hundreds of individuals in the District and Circuit Courts each year. Perhaps the most important skill that a criminal defense attorney must possess is the ability to evaluate the strength of the State’s case against the defendant. Too often I witness attorneys pleading people guilty in cases where there are strong defenses. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true and all too often I see attorneys taking cases to trial where there is no hope of an acquittal. When this happens defendants are almost invariably sentenced more harshly than they otherwise would have been had their attorney negotiated a plea bargain. This is why it is critically important for any criminal defendant to make sure that the attorney that represents him is a criminal specialist with sufficient experience to know whether to pursue a trial strategy or a plea.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 11, 2013 in Contracts

A Vice President at Microsoft has been credited with saying that “litigation is the basic legal right which guarantees every corporation its decade in court.” While the Microsoft executive was clearly speaking with tongue planted firmly in his cheek, years-long litigation is not only time-consuming, it is extraordinarily expensive. That is why the Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC Business Litigation Group subscribes to the guiding principle, borrowed from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” When companies are named in frivolous lawsuits, they turn to STSW to aggressively turn the tables. A company that has been harassed with a frivolous lawsuit is not without options.

One option is to countersue to recover attorneys’ fees spent on the frivolous litigation. Maryland Rule 1-341 states that “[i]n any civil action, if the court finds that the conduct of any party in maintaining or defending any proceeding was in bad faith or without substantial justification” the court may order that the offending party pay the expenses and attorneys’ fees “incurred by the adverse party in opposing it.” For a target of such legal harassment who pays out of pocket, the Rule is clear enough. There are, however, nuances in its application when an insurance company pays to defend the target company from the baseless suit.

Last month, the state Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether an insurance policyholder has actually “incurred” expenses and fees, thus triggering application of the Rule, when the insurance company actually foots the bill. In Worsham v. Greenfield, No. 139, Sept. Term 2009, Maryland’s highest court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that for the purposes of Rule 1-341, reimbursement of attorneys’ fees is available regardless of whether a the party defending a lawsuit, or his or her insurance company, pays them.

Continue Reading ››