WPC1 PG8fdb!}г}PÃV8zP<^ CH$tCj#KL/E B8]`]i֐*Ch}˞Α5qԟHW~Aˣ~q$!OyE|\)AU2Q S ǡ݉^HloRS:彙m;Vԧ<o1o\&%(KCy6 P'/C%{^_4 4SO5Eq m e,_` kQB ͝(\[Y9CI.gҦ5#&:i3qNE^Xt7ďx+zf>+ӷ]>h'}F1="s}J2 +{Lg=ȫO1 {fJW5pw3دcV$cc}P :I9@lxB#o"MhT4f=~k2Ə_: K1בգ% LL#(UN %7 0:= 0Uw 0 0 0 0l 0F 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0r 0= 0 0 0 0K 0@ 0E 0 0 0 0k 0- 0 0 0<_ 0 0:A 0U{U>N^ w4 4C mE 0&\ 0\ U*!.! 72C"C" 0 4u"b" 06" 0-# 0*% 0'8& 0$_' 0!( 0) 0* 0+ 1e, 7Z- h- 1u~- 72--"%.G. 0~. 0*X0U@1b1110(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para0;;.footer   !XXX   !:8page number(-2$ !USUS.,  \  `&Times New Romanr6s SZ3hared3|x U6n4Body Text    &&&?/%2A`Arial?  S$\  `&Times New RomanS  .,Title     &&&?/%2A`Arial?  S$\  `&Times New RomanS    #)USUS.,  _  Page  10  ڀof  12  @@+ %2A`Arial04GIOU[cksy???????????1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)0i).,term1 <f.f :Outline001_1 p  /%  <DL/ 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 p <`+f :Outline001_2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <]+f :Outline001_3 j  ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <Z+f :Outline001_4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <W+f :Outline001_5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <T+f :Outline001_6 j   DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <Q+f :Outline001_7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <N+f :Outline001_8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <K+f :Outline001_9 j   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j 56789:;< 35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.>=i.clsccl193#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ai)      #)USUS.,  _  Page  2  ڀof  12  6 4heading 1     &&&?/%2A`Arial?     S$\  `&Times New RomanS   :n8Body Text 2    &&&?/%2A`Arial?  S$\  `&Times New RomanS  (9 Z(Times New Roman Page of &  X   !USUS.,  _HX{XXX  X  8{XXdd84DcJ/VFEBRUARY2007BAREXAMINATION  BOARDSANALYSIS  QUESTION1     ̀  TodeterminewhetherAmyBrownhasliabilityunderthecontractswithJewelsandTeapots,an   analysisofthefactsasappliedtotheprinciplesofagencylawmustoccur.       PriortoAmyleavingonanextendedvacation,sheexpresslyauthorizesConnietoactasher z   agentto managethestoreandsignanyrequiredpaperwork.Amyconfirmsherexpressauthorization t  bysendingwrittennoticetohersuppliers.However,Amyfailstoincludeinthenoticetheorallimitation n  onConniesauthoritythatshemaynotorder anynewlinesofmerchandisefromsuppliersorfromany h  othersellerofmerchandise.ThefailuretoconveythelimitationisfataltoAmysdefenseofliability b  underthecontractwithJewels. \    Connieactedoutsidethescopeofheractualauthoritywhenshepurchasedtheeyeglasscases. P However,AmyheldoutandcloakedConniewithapparentauthority,ashermanager,withitsattendant J customarydutiesandresponsibilities,tobeabletocontractwithJewelsonbehalfofWinsomeWays. D Consequently,JewelshadareasonablebasistoconcludethatConniewasauthorizedtoorderthe > eyeglasscases.Althoughshedidnotratifythecontract,Amy,asadisclosedprincipal,willbe 8 personallyliableforbreachofthecontractbecauseAmyisoperatingherbusinessasasole 2 proprietorship.Tooffsetherlosses,AmymayseekindemnificationfromConnieforthedamagesshe ,| sustains. &v   WithrespecttotheTeapotscontract,thetrieroffactwilldeterminewhetherTeapotshad j noticeofConniesauthorizationtoactasmanagerinAmysabsence,andinthepast,whetherJackhas d beenpermittedtosigncontractsformerchandiseaspartofhiscustomaryduties. ^ Ѐ  Basedonthefacts,AmydidnotgrantJackactualauthoritytoordermerchandisenordidAmy !R holdhimoutashavingtheapparentauthoritytodoso.Consequently,thereisnoreasonablebasis !L describeduponwhichTeapotscouldrelyassupportthatJackhadanyauthoritytosignthecontract. "F Instead,itwouldbereasonableforthesalesmantoinquireabouttheauthorityofasalesclerktosignan #@  orderforexpensivemerchandise.Finally,Amydidnotratifythecontractonreturnfromhervacation. $: ! ̀AmyshouldnotbeliableundertheTeapotscontract,andJackshouldindemnifyAmyforanylosses &."# shemayhavesustained. '(#$    *&' ЇE    QUESTION2   J MarylandCurrencyAct        ArticleISection8statesCongresshasthepowertocoinmoney,regulatethe  valuethereof,andofforeigncoin,andfixthestandardofweightsandmeasures.Thepower tocoin   moneyand regulatethevaluethereofhasbeenbroadlyconstruedtoauthorizeregulationofeveryphase   ofthesubjectofcurrency.McCullochv.Maryland,17US.(4Wheat.)316(1819).Congressmay   restrainthecirculationofnotesnotissuedunderitsownauthorityVeazieBankv.Fenno,75U.S.(8   Wall.)533(1869).Congressmayalsoabrogatetheclausesinprivatecontractscallingforpaymentingold z   coin,eventhoughsuchcontractswereexecutedbeforethelegislationwaspassed.Normanv.Baltimore t  &O.R.Co.,294U.S.240(1935).Thus,thestatuteisclearlypreemptedbyfederallawastheFederal n  Governmenthassolepowertoregulatecurrency. h  TheOilResidenceAct \  0  SectionIoftheFourteenthAmendmentprovidesinpart: NoStateshall...denytoanyperson P withinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws.J(#(#      Whenagovernmentalclassificationisattackedonequalprotectiongrounds,theclassificationis > reviewedunderthe rationalbasistest.Generallyunderthattest,acourtwillnotoverturntheclassification 8 unlessthevaryingtreatmentofdifferentgroupsorpersonsissounrelatedtotheachievementofany 2 combinationoflegitimatepurposesthatthecourtcanonlyconcludethatthegovernmentalactionswere ,| irrational.Astatutoryclassificationreviewedundertherationalbasisstandardenjoysastrongpresumption &v ofconstitutionalityandwillbeinvalidatedonlyiftheclassificationisclearlyarbitrary.  p N    Where,however,astatutoryclassificationburdensasuspectclassorimpingesuponafundamental d right,theclassificationissubjecttostrictscrutiny.Suchstatuteswillbeupheldundertheequalprotection ^ guaranteesonlyifitisshownthattheyaresuitablytailoredtoserveacompellingstateinterest.  X z      Finally,thereareclassificationswhichhavebeensubjectedtoahigherdegreeofscrutinythanthe !L traditionalrationalbasistest,butwhichhavenotbeendeemedtoinvolvesuspectclassesorfundamental "F rightsandthushavenotbeensubjectedtothestrictscrutinytest.Includedamongthesehavebeen #@  classificationsbasedongender,discriminationagainstillegalalienswithregardtoafreepubliceducation, $: ! andaclassificationunderwhichcertainpersonsweredeniedtherighttopracticeforcompensationthe %4!" professionforwhichtheywerequalifiedandlicensed. &."#     Thisstatuteislikelyunconstitutionalundertheequalprotectionclause.Becausethecountiescould ("$% notissuelicensestononresidents,oildrillersandexplorerscouldnotcrosscountylinestopursuetheir )%& trade,andresidentsofthenonoilcountiesinMarylandwereeffectivelyforeclosedfromallcommercial *&' oilactivitiesinthestate;     4 InMayorandCityCouncilofHavredeGracev.Johnson,143Md.601,123A.65  (1923),thecityofHavredeGraceenactedalocalordinancewhichrequiredanindividualtoestablish  cityresidencyforaminimumofsixmonthsbeforeheorshecouldoperateacarforhirewithinthecity  limits.Thecityclaimedthattheordinancewasenactedtoremovecongestionfromthestreetsandto   reducethelargenumberof irresponsibledriversofcarsforhire.TheCourtfoundnotruerelationship   betweenthestatedobjectofthelegislationandthedistinctionbetweenresidentdriversandnonresident   drivers,andwedeclaredtheordinanceinvalid.Therewassolittlerelationbetweentheclassification   anditsprofferedjustification,infact,thattheclassificationraisedquestionsaboutthetruegoalofthe z   ordinance.Byeffectivelyconferringamonopolyuponresidentsofthecity,HavredeGrace t  unconstitutionallyinfringedontherightofnonresidentstoplytheirtradewithinthecitylimits. n   4  4 Althoughadistinctionbetweenresidentsofdifferentcountiesmaybevalidforsomepurposes, b  anotherwiselegitimateclassificationofresidentsthatmaybemadeformanypurposescannotbemade \  ifitaffectsarightwhich,ascitizensofthisState,theyenjoyequally.Brucev.Director,Chesapeake V BayAffairs,261Md.585,276A.2d200(1971). P  " 4  4 Here,theterritoriallicensingrestrictionsunconstitutionallydiscriminatedamongtheresidents D ofthecountiesoftheState,withandwithoutoil.Thelawhasnorealandsubstantialrelationtothe > objectofthelegislation,andunconstitutionallyinfringedontherightofcommercialoildrillersand 8 explorerstoplytheirtradethroughoutthestate.HavredeGracev.Johnson,supra,andBruce, 2 supra,concernedterritorialrestrictionsoneconomicactivitythattendedtofavorresidentsofone ,| countyoveranother.Bothweredeterminedtoviolateequalprotectionguarantees. &v $ 4  4 Inareasofeconomicregulation,MarylandCourtshavebeenparticularlydistrustfulof j classificationswhicharebasedsolelyongeography,i.e.,treatingresidentsofonecountyorcity d differentlyfromresidentsoftheremainderoftheState.AlthoughtheCourthasnotexpresslystatedso, ^ itisevidentthatelementsofArticle24equalprotectionjurisprudenceareanalogoustothosefoundin  X theCommerceClauseandthePrivilegesandImmunitiesClauseofArticleIV,Section2oftheUnited !R StatesConstitution.Thetwofederalclausesaresimilar:bothoriginatedinthesocalled states !L relationsarticleoftheArticlesofConfederation,andbothareconcernedwithalimitationonstates "F abilitiestogiveeconomicpreferencestotheirowncitizens.SeeLaurenceH.Tribe,American #@  ConstitutionalLaw,635,at536(2ded.1988).Article24sguaranteeofequalprotectionofthe $: ! lawsisconcerned,interalia,withlimitingcountiesabilitiestogiveeconomicpreferencestotheirown %4!" citizens.See,e.g.,HavredeGracev.Johnson,supra.JustasthePrivilegesandImmunitiesClause &."# frownsonarbitrarydistinctionsamongcitizensofdifferentstates,particularlyintheareaofeconomic '(#$ regulation,theconceptofequalprotectionofthelawsfoundinArticle24frownsonarbitrary ("$% distinctionsamongcitizensofdifferentcountieswithinMaryland. )%&  4  *&'  4 Thereisnorationaldistinctionbetweenoildrillersfromdifferentcounties.Thepowerofthe  legislaturetorestricttheapplicationofstatutestolocalitiescannotbeusedtodeprivethecitizensofone  partofthestateoftherightsandprivilegesthattheyenjoyincommonwiththecitizensofallotherparts  ofthestate,unlessthereissomedifferencebetweentheconditionsintheterritoryselectedandthe  conditionsintheterritorynotaffectedbythestatutesufficienttoaffordsomebasis,howeverslight,for  classification.Verziv.BaltimoreCounty333Md.411;635A.2d967,(1994).   ' 4  4 3. Delawareiscorrect.UnderArticleIII,Section2oftheU.S.Constitution,theSupreme   Courthasoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoverdisputesbetweenstates.Typically,thedisputes   betweenstatescomingtotheCourtinvolveconflictingpropertyclaims.Tworecentexamplesinclude z   Louisianav.Mississippi(decidedinOctober1995)andNebraskav.Wyoming(decidedinMay t  1995). n  0 d  d     *+z&' Ї 3    -     H&w%XHX{/&;%%H&w  /X/`X%/&;HX{XX/X/`- 4    QUESTION3- 44݌  Ќ  HX{XXHX{HX{XXHX{     3   ,    H&w%XHX{/&;%%H&w  /X/`X%/&;HX{XX/X/`,6   4 BarnescanrescindtheContract.A.U.admittedthatitdidnotprovidetheformrequiredby !q Section10702,RealPropertyArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland.Thiscodeprovisionclearly k requiresa vendortoprovideabuyerwiththestandardizedDisclosureorDisclaimerform.The  e disclaimerusedbyA.U.didnotcomplywiththestatutorylanguage,norwasitontherequiredform.  _ A.U.sargumentthatitwasnotthe vendoriswithoutmeritbecauseitundertooktheobligationto  Y sellthepropertyinitscontractwithAndrea.BecauseA.U.didnotprovidetherequireddisclosure  S form,Barneshadthestatutoryrighttorescindthecontract.WileAndreas,assellerwasobligated  M  underthestatutetoprovidethestandardizedform,A.U.assumedAndreasobligationwhenit  G  specificallycontractedtoprovideallnecessaryformandprovideaqualitysale.,66݌ A  Ќ  HX{XXHX{HX{XXHX{    4 ThecourtshouldalsofindthatAndreaactedproperlyinacceptingareducedpurchaseprice 5  asshewasmitigatingherdamages.WhileA.U.hadtheexclusiverighttoselltheproperty,the /  contractprovisiondoesnotprecludethepropertyownerfromactinginhisorherownbehalf.Itsimply ) meansthatAndreacouldnotengageanyotheragenttoselltheproperty. #    4 Thecontractinquestionspecifiedthetermsofeachpartysobligation.AndreagrantedA.U.  theexclusiverighttosellthepropertyandA.U.agreedtoprovideallnecessaryformstoproducea   highqualitysale,which,ataminimum,wouldobligateA.U.tocomplywiththerequirementsofCode   Section10702.   4 ByenteringintothecontractwithAndrea,A.U.becameheragentandassumedthevendors  responsibilitiesunderthestatute.         C+&( Ї  QUESTION4     #X{XXHX{=#$X{XXX{ 4 Adefendantmustbeadvisedofhis Mirandarightspriortocustodialinterrogation.When  Alphonsevoluntarilycametothepolicestation,hewasnotincustody.WhenGastontoldAlphonse  thathewasnot goinganywhere,areasonablepersonwouldconcludethathisfreedomofmovement  hadbeenrestrained,andanyfurtherquestionwouldbecustodialinterrogation.    4 Whetherastatementisvoluntaryorcoercedisamattertobeultimatelydeterminedbythetrier   offact.However,thecourtmustmakeaninitialdeterminationthatthestatementisnotinadmissible   asamatteroflaw,eitherbecausethedefendantwasnotadvisedofhis Mirandarightsorbecause z   thestatementwasinvoluntaryasamatteroflaw.Here,afailuretoadvisethedefendantofhis t   Mirandarights,evenintheabsenceofcoercion,wouldrenderthestatementinadmissible. n   4 TheStatewasobligatedtodisclose,withoutrequest,anyrelevantinformationregardingthe b  acquisitionofAlphonsesstatement.Rule4263(a).TheStatemayhavebeenrequiredtoprovide \  moredetailedinformationthanwascontainedinGastonsreportregardingthemannerinwhichthe V statementwasobtained.TheStatecertainlyfailedtomeetitsobligationwhenitdidnotprovide P Douwrightsreport. J  4 Mehsonnemighthavefiledarequestfordiscovery ofallreportsofeachoralstatementand, > ifnecessary,amotiontocompeldiscovery.Rule4263(c,f). 8  4 Mehsonne,onbehalfofAlphonse,wasrequiredtofileamandatorymotiontoraisethematter ,| of anunlawfullyobtainedadmission,statementorconfessionwithin30daysafterAlphonsesfirst &v appearancebeforetheCircuitCourtorMehsonnesentryofanappearanceintheCircuitCourt,  p whicheverfirstoccurred,orwithin5daysofreceiptofdiscoveryfurnishingthebasisofthemotion. j Anysuchobjections, ifnotsoraisedarewaivedunlessthecourt,forgoodcauseshown,orders d otherwise.Rule4252(a).MehsonnemayhavecausedawaiverofAlphonsesrighttoobjecttothe ^ admissibilityofthestatement.  X  4 Ontheotherhand,theStatesdutyofdisclosureisacontinuingone.Rule4263(h). Ifatany !L timeduringtheproceedingsthecourtfindsthatapartyhasfailedtocomplywith[theRulegoverning "F discovery],thecourtmay...prohibitthepartyfromintroducinginevidencethematternotdisclosed #@  ...orenteranyotherorderappropriateunderthecircumstances.Rule4263(i).SinceMehsonne $: ! knewaboutthefailuretoadviseAlphonseofhis Mirandarightsandrefrainedfromexercising %4!" Alphonsesproceduralrightsasamatteroftrialstrategy,itisdoubtfulthatthejudgewillsustain &."# MehsonnesobjectionorgrantAlphonseanyotherrelief. '(#$ #X{XX$X{j@#HX{XXX{   *&' J/V JX J  @  Ӏ QUESTION5   N XAttheoutsetoftheproposedrepresentation,itwasincumbentuponCounseltoidentifyher  clientorclients,thescopeoftherepresentationandthemannerofcommunicationamongtheclients  duringtheproposedrepresentation.SeeMarylandLawyersRulesofProfessionalConduct  ( Rulesorindividually, Rule)Rules1.2and1.4.Counselshouldhaverecognizedthatshewas   askedtorepresentfourclients;namely,(i)Mrs.Williams(ii)thepersonalrepresentativeofthe   estate(iii)Janeand(iv)Sarah.      ЀCounselshouldhavedisclosedtoMrs.WilliamsandSarahthatshehadpreviously z   representedandwascurrentlyrepresentingJaneinmattersthatwerenotrelatedtothe t  administrationoftheestateofMr.Williams.Rule1.7mandatesthatCounselmaynotundertaketo n  representaclientorclientsiftherepresentationinvolvesaconflictofinterest.SinceCounsel h  representsJane,CounselmustobtaininformedconsentfromMrs.Williams,SarahandJaneprior b  toundertakingtorepresentthemconcurrentlyintheirinterestintheestateofMr.Williams.Any \  informedconsentfromthethreeprospectiveclientsmustaddresswhetherrepresentationby V CounselofSarahandMrs.WilliamsmaybemateriallylimitedbyCounselsrepresentationofJane P orwhethertheproposedrepresentationofanyoneofthemisdirectlyadversetoanyoftheotherof J them.Theinformedconsentmustbeinwritingandcontainadequateinformationandexplanation D aboutthematerialrisksofandreasonablyavailablealternativestotheproposedcourseofconduct. > Inaddition,itispreferablethatanyfeearrangementwiththeclientsalsobeinwriting. 8  2 Inundertakingtherepresentation,CounselactedinviolationofRule7.4inthatsheheld ,| herselfoutasaspecialistinestatesandtrustlaw.Alawyermaycommunicatethatheorshedoes &v ordoesnotpracticeinaparticularfieldoflaw,subjecttotherequirementsofRule7.1,buta  p lawyermaynotpubliclycommunicatethatheorsheisaspecialist. j  d Withregardtothepaymentof$1,000toJaneforherreferral,CounselviolatedRule7.2 ^ (c).Itisprohibitedthatalawyershallnotgiveanythingofvaluetoapersonforrecommendingthe  X lawyersservicesexceptincertainverylimitedcircumstancesthatdonotapplytothefacts !R containedinthequestion. !L  "F Finally,CounselbreachedherobligationstoMrs.Williamsregardingthehandlingofthe #@  confidentialinformationunderRule1.6andimproperlyagreedthatshewouldnotdiscloseany $: ! confidentialinformation toanyone.ItwasincumbentonCounseltoproperlydescribethe %4!" limitationsonconfidentialityundertheRulesandtoadviseherclients,Mrs.Williams,Janeand &."# Sarah,thatinformationrevealedbyanyofthemwouldbedisclosedtotheotheroftheminthe '(#$ proposedconcurrentrepresentation,unlesseachgavetheirrespectiveinformedconsentto ("$% nondisclosure.AtthetimethatCounselwaspresentedwiththeconflictofinterestregardingthe )%& entitlementsofSarahandJaneundertheWillofMr.Williams,Counselshouldhaveadvisedeach *&' partytoseektheadviceofindependentcounselandwithdrawnfromtherepresentation.  +'(  >56789:;<=(03A  QUESTION6    ,<( 4 <DLX<  "5" pX ,<%  <DL4X<     5_2  1  .3      ThetestimonyregardingFredsconfidentialcommunicationsduringtheirmarriageaboutthe  accountisnotadmissible.Confidentialcommunicationsduringmarriageareprivilegedunder  CJP9105,andbothpartiesholdthatprivilege.I_5_`݌  Ќ ,$ 4X X$ Xp  "5" pX ,<%  <DL4X<   5b2  2  .3      Anywitnesscanbecrossexaminedregardingtheirpriorbadactswhichbearontheir   credibilitypursuanttoRule508(b).SeeOgburnv.State,71Md.App.496,526A.2d   614,cert.denied,311Md.145,532A.2d1372(1987).Rule3   5608(b)3dЇ  ݀representsan   exceptiontothegeneralprohibition,embodiedinRule5404,againstusingevidenceof z   charactertoshowpropensity.SeeP.W.Grimm,ImpeachmentandRehabilitationUnder t  theMarylandRulesofEvidence:AnAttorney'sGuide,24U.Balt.L.Rev.95,117 n  (1994).Rule3   5608(b)3fЇ  ,byitsplainlanguage,permitsanywitnesstobecrossexamined h  abouthisorherprioractsnotevidencedbyacriminalconvictionthatareprobativeof b  untruthfulness.SeeMd.Rule3   5608(b)3gЇ  ;seealsoA.D.Hornstein,TheNewMarylandRules \  ofEvidence:Survey,AnalysisandCritique,54Md.L.Rev.1032,105758(1995).% @ %@hUpon V objection,however,theproponentoftheinquirymustestablisha"reasonablefactualbasis" P thattheallegedconductoccurred.Evenevidencethatfallswithintheguidelinesof3   5608(b)3iЇ   J maybeexcludedpursuanttoRule5403ifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedby D thedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orby > considerationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulativeevidence. 5boc݌ 8 Ќ ,$ 4X X$ Xp   2 "5" pX ,<%  <DL4X<   5)l2  3  .3      TherecordingisanillegalwiretapofFredsstatements,andthus,rendersthe ,| communicationsinadmissibleeitherthroughthetapeorthroughtestimony.CJP10101,10 &v 102and10105. 5)ll݌  p Ќ ,$ 4X X$ Xp   j  "5" pX ,<%  <DL4X<   5n2  4  .3      Barneystestimonyabouthisbrothersstatementsishearsaywithoutanexceptionandis d inadmissible. 5no݌ ^ Ќ ,$ 4X X$ Xp    X  "5" pX ,<%  <DL4X<  5(q2  5  .3      BarneysbrothermaynotbecompelledtotestifyagainstFred.CJP9111.5(qq݌ !R Ќ ,$ 4X X$ Xp   !L "5" pX ,<%  <DL4X<  59s2  6  .3      WilmascounselisboundbyFredsresponseregardinghisPBJbecause,according "F toRule3  5608(b)3t   ,theconductmaynotbeprovedbyextrinsicevidence.SeePantazes #@  v.State,376Md.661(2003);seealsoRule3  5608(b).3u    Thislimitationisasafeguard $: ! intendedtoavoiddangerssuchasundueconsumptionoftrialtime,confusionoftheissues, %4!" andunfairsurprise.SeePantazesv.State,376Md.661 .59ss݌  &."# Dc  DX D  ь ,$ 4X X$ Xp    QUESTION7        (A) Husbandhascommittedadultery;hehasadmittedittoWife.However,she  cannotobtainanabsolutedivorcesolelyonheruncorroboratedtestimonyoradmissionofher  Husband.(Md.Code,FamilyLawSection7101(b))Corroborationisnecessarytoprevent  collusion.ShehassomecorroborationofherHusbandsadmissionbasedontheCARD.Shecan   legitimatelymaintainacomplaintforabsolutedivorcebaseduponHusbandsadultery.Shehas   noothergroundsforanabsolutedivorceundertherecitedfactsatthistime.       (B) (1) < WifehascondonedHusbandsadulterybyresumingmaritalrelations z   withHusbandandcontinuingcohabitation.Condonationisbasicallyanaffirmativedefense.Itis t  however,notanabsolutebar,toadecreeofabsolutedivorceonthegroundofadultery,butisa n  factortobeconsideredbytheCourtindeterminingwhetheradivorceshouldbegranted(Md. h  Code,FamilyLaw7103(d)). b   \    (2) < Underthelegaldoctrineofrecriminationonespouseisnotentitledto V adivorcefromtheotherwhenthespouseseekingadivorcehasbeenguiltyofconductwhich P wouldentitleaspousetoadivorce.UnderMarylandlawrecriminationisnotabartoeitherparty J obtaininganabsolutedivorceonthegroundofadultery,butitisafactortobeconsideredbythe D Courtinacaseinvolvingthegroundofadultery(Md.Code,FamilyLawSection7103(b)).The > Husbandcouldraisebothcondonationandrecriminationbutthefactssuggestheisnotopposed 8 tothedivorce. 2  ,|  (C) WifetoldBobshewassexuallyinvolvedwithheroldboyfriendandhasnow &v denieditinresponsetoaquestiononcrossexamination.Sincerecriminationisafactortobe  p consideredbytheCourtinacaseinvolvingthegroundofadultery,hertestimonyisknowntoBob j tobefalseastoapotentiallymaterialfact.Rule3.3oftheMarylandRulesofProfessionalConduct d requiresthatBobtakereasonableremedialmeasuresincludingremonstratingwithhisclientto ^ correctthetestimonyanduponfailureoftheclienttocorrectthefalsetestimony,topossibly  X withdrawfromthecaseorlastly,tonotifytheCourtofthesituation.SeeMarylandLawyerRules !R ofProfessionalConduct,Rule3.3(ConductTowardtheTribunal(3.3(a)(4)(Comment#12)) !L (HerdenialofsexualrelationswithherHusbandsubsequenttoJanuary1,2007isconsistentwith "F whatshetoldBobeventhoughitisalsoafalsehoodbutitisnotknownbyBobtobefalse). #@   $: !  %4!"  &."#  '(#$  ("$%  )%&    <      D      L   _ *&' .E  QUESTION8            The1999deedconveyed_Astaland_ԀtoNickandNoraas jointtenants.While  jointtenanciesareviewedwithdisfavorandthereisapresumptionagainstjointtenanciesin  Maryland,theyarenonethelesspermittedinMaryland.MD.Code.Ann.,RealProp.2117.  Alexanderv.Boyer,253Md.511,253A.2d359(1969).Whetherthetenancycreatedisa   jointtenancydependsontheclearmanifestationoftheparties,theintentionofthegrantormust   besoclearlyexpressedastoleavenodoubtoftheintentiontocreateajointtenancy.The   Courtneedlooknofurtherthanthedeed,andthewords asjointtenantswithoutreferenceto   rightsofsurvivorshipcansuffice.Downingv.Downing,326Md.468,606A.2d208(1992). z      t   Here,thedeedspecifies asjointtenantsandthefourunitiesoftime,title,interest n  andpossessionexist,sowecanassumethereisavalidjointtenancy.Assuch,Nickcanfilesuit h  againstNoraforhisproportionateshareofthe$30,000inrentthatshereceivedfromthe b  _Thinmans_Ԁoverthethreeyearperiod.Ajointtenantwhoreceivesrentfromathirdpartyforthe \  useandenjoymentofthepropertyisaccountabletoanycotenantforthatportionoftherent V overandabovehisproportionateshare.Md.CodeAnn.,RealProp.14106.Moreover,Nick P hasanactionagainst_Thinman_ԀandBunyanforWaste.Theywillbeliableforactualdamageto J theproperty.Norawillbeliable,aswell,forpermittingthewaste._R.P._Ԁ14102.Thiswill D includeNicksshareofthe$50,000Bunyancollectedforthesaleoflumberwhichwasnothis > tosell.NickcouldalsobringanactionforconversionagainstBunyanforhiswrongfultakingof 8 thetrees. 2  ,|    Also,Norasleaseofpropertytothe_Thinmans_Ԁdestroystheunityofinterest, &v therebyeffectingaseverance.Alexanderv.Boyer,253Md.517(1929).Onceseverance  p occursthe_joint_Ԁtenantsthenbecometenantsincommon. j      d  ^   X  !R  !L  "F  #@   $: !  %4!"  &."#  '(#$  ("$%  )%&  *&' _ԇ  -     H&w%XHX{/&;%%H&w  /X/`X%/&;HX{XX/X/`-   & q QUESTION9- ݌  Ќ  HX{XXHX{HX{XXHX{     'q 'w   ,    H&w%XHX{/&;%%H&w  /X/`X%/&;HX{XX/X/`,   BecauseDavewasindefaultforfailuretoappear,heisnotentitledtoserviceofany !q  pleadingorotherpaperafterserviceoftheoriginalpleading(Complaint).Rule1.321(b).,݌ k Ќ  HX{XXHX{HX{XXHX{     e G    H&w%XHX{/&;%%H&w  /X/`X%/&;HX{XX/X/`G`   HisinitialanswerormotionwasduenotlaterthanMay8,2006.Hewasindefault  _ asofthatdate.Thus,therequestforajudgmentbydefaultneednotbe served.However,under  Y Rule2613(DefaultJudgment),theClerkofCourtisdirectedtomailanoticetoadefaultingparty  S advisinghim/herthattheorderofdefaulthasbeenenteredandoftherighttomovetovacatethe  M  orderwithin30daysofitsentry.TheorderofdefaultwasenteredonMay20,2006.Davefailed  G  tofileamotiononorbeforeJune21,2006.G`݌ A  Ќ  HX{XXHX{HX{XXHX{    ;   ThecourtcouldstillconsideramotiontovacatetheorderofdefaultafterJune21, 5  2006underRule2602(a)becauseanorderofdefaultisaninterlocutoryorderandsubjectto /  revisionatanytimebeforeentryofjudgment.ThisavenuewasclosedtoDaveonJune30,2006 ) whenjudgmentwasentered. #        Rule2534providesthat  inanactiondecided    Ԁbythecourt,onmotionfiledwithin10  daysafterentryofjudgment,thecourtmayopenthejudgmenttoalteroramenditto    interalia    Ԁenter  anewjudgment.Thismotionmaybejoinedwithamotionforanewtrial.        ThisreliefisnotavailabletoDavebecausetheactionwasnotdecidedbythecourtbut  bydefault.     Rule2535authorizesthecourtwithin30daysafterentryofjudgment(onmotion)to  exerciserevisorypowersandcontroloverthejudgment.ItincorporatesRule2534innonjury  cases.However,Rule2613,whichdealsspecificallywithdefaultjudgments,precludesreopening  theissueofliability.      UnderRule2613(g),DavesattorneycanutilizeRule2535(a)tocontesttheamount ! ofthejudgmentagainstDaveifamotionisfiledwithin30daysafterentryofjudgment.Onthese y" facts,themotionmustbefiledonorbeforeJuly30,2006. s#    #X{XXHX{3N# m$!  g% "  a&!#  ['"$  U(#%  O)$&  I*%'  C+&(     $X{XXX{ QUESTION10    ,?(r 4 <DL4X?      <( 4 <DLrX<ApplicantShouldDiscuss:  Ӏ ThepossibleNegligenceofMaria.Defensesoflackofnoticeandcausation.Negligenceof   Elmo.DefensesofContributorynegligenceandassumptionofrisk,andcounterdefenseofLastClear   Chance.DirectnegligenceagainstSesameCompanybasedonnegligententrustment.Defensesoflack   ofcausationandanynegligenceonentrustmentofvehicle.VicariousnegligenceofSesameCompany.   DefensethatElmowasnotinscopeofemployment,assumptionofrisksandcontributorynegligence. z      t  Acceptableadditionresponsemayinclude:PossiblenegligenceofOwingsMillsorCounty. n  Defensesoflackofnoticeandcausation,contributorynegligenceandassumptionofrisk.  h   #X{XX$X{g#