RCIA v Riverbea
Aug 18, 2011OUTCOME: Successful motion declaring property subject to easement in favor of members of community.
Case contesting attempted sale of community property in a waterfront community
Annapolis, MD
Real estate Lawyer at Annapolis, MD
Practice Areas: Real Estate, Lawsuits & Disputes ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Successful motion declaring property subject to easement in favor of members of community.
Case contesting attempted sale of community property in a waterfront community
OUTCOME: Significant jury verdict in favor of my client. Verdict survived post judgment motions and an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.
Dispute between members of Vessel Repossession and Sales business. The Defendant, Harrison, used his superior financial position to squeeze my client out of the business.
OUTCOME: Judgment obtained.
Obtained significant judgment against yacht brokerage for failure to pay back partnership interest and earned broker's fee. Trial court awarded treble damages and attorneys' fees.
OUTCOME: Reversal and remand on appeal
White v. Pines was a case involving adverse possession and prescriptive use of community property in the Pines on the Severn Neighborhood. The homeowners association successfully argued that it was th ... e owner of a strip of waterfront land surrounding the community, and therefore also the owner of the piers in the community. It lost, however, on the question of whether it had the power to assign slips at those piers to members of the HOA. Our client successfully argued that the individual issues pertaining to their case were not properly addressed by the Circuit Court in its trial decision.
OUTCOME: Unanimous win in the Court of Appeals
This case challenged Maryland's right to collect vessel tax on a boat that was not purchased with the intent that it be used in Maryland. In winning the case, we overturned longstanding policy of the ... Department of Natural Resources and overturned several previous adverse decisions in lower courts.
OUTCOME: Case stayed on Bankruptcy
Plaintiffs won default against Defendant for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On morning of damages hearing, defendant filed a Chapter 13 proceeding in Baltimore wi ... th intent of denying Plaintiff ability to collect. Plaintiff had case thrown out in Baltimore. Plaintiff then learned that Defendant had filed a Chapter 7 previously without giving plaintiff notice. Plaintiff is in process of having Chapter 7 reopened and case allowed to go forward.