WPC (20M+hN{Bq(YCz8ov}W:#>[1Ypꆰ[fh&'fvzqJJjR)E]_ֽS.msr(axkB_+ gc{73><[JrC=6+.cZ5d_,b!ݥ}F* ++$[i~.q'+ER+Q9x:T@>설ziN2+uҺ0,, A'n"v\,=NQi? 2NtPpŭ6,I\@Y\~Y YV %zF&ɚ":鯰/͉ZnK` B]wǙ82'Z 򬸯cvW$p6mڽn=z{}'+1 2o%X Xy5#U8N % 0:U=>5^ sw4 mU*U@ 1u) 72 0#g 0g7 0g U4 N9 0;  0V} }  0@ 0 0& 0$ 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0j 0S 1e9 0g 0g 0gl 0g 0g: 0g0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,\  `&Times New RomanV8s *>8hared3|xU%2A`Arial(9 Z(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)<+ :Outline002_123  ..<+ :Outline002_223  ..<+ :Outline002_323  ..\  `Calisto MT0;;.header    XXX    XXX )USUS.,  _  AnalysisPage  1  ڀof  15  (.3$ !USUS.,   6{ 4heading 1    XXX? %2A`Arial?     XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  6 4heading 2  X 2( ` hp x 2XXX? %2A`Arial?   XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  5+ ` hp x 5  6n4Body Text    XXX? %2A`Arial?  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  .q,Title    XXX? %2A`Arial?  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS   :8Body Text 2  X   2( ` hp x 2XXX? %2A`Arial?  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  5+ ` hp x 5  <J+M :Outline001_1   2(D D` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline001_2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline001_3 j  ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline001_4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline001_5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline001_6 j  #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline001_7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline001_8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline001_9 j   x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j %&'()*+, 35;AGMSY_1A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.<+ :Outline002_423  ..<+ :Outline002_523  ..<+ :Outline002_623  ..<+ :Outline002_723  ..<+ :Outline002_823  ..<+ :Outline002_923  .. !USUS.,  _X  XvXXXFEBRUARY2008MARYLANDBAR_EXAMINATION_  BOARDSANALYSIS  #XvXXXvZ#"XXv""QUESTION1   X #XvX"4##XvXXXvS#  XvXXXvpBurglaryatcommonlawwasthebreakingandenteringofthedwellinghouseofanotheratnighttime   withtheintenttocommitafelonytherein.Anactualbreakingmaybemadebyanunloosening,removing   ordisplacinganycoveringorfasteningofthepremises.#XvXXXv#XvXXXvJenningsv.State#XvXXXvz#XvXXXv,8Md.App.312,259A.2d   543(1969).Aconstructivebreakingoccurswheneveranentranceisobtainedbyartifice.#XvXXXv#XvXXXvReaganv. w  State#XvXXXvݟ#XvXXXv,2Md.App.262,234A.2d278(1967).DiamondsAreForeverisnotadwellinghouse,butAce n   did breakandenterbyopeningthecloseddoorleftunlockedbyanaccomplice.Acedidcommita e  burglaryintheseconddegreeunderCriminalLawArticle,sec.6203.Acealsocommittedatheft. \  #XvXXXv#XvXXXv S  Murderisthekillingofanotherwithoutjustification,mitigationorexcuse.Thecommonlawfelony J  murderruleprovidesthatthekillingofanotherduringthecommissionofafelonyismurder.InMaryland A  ifthatkillingoccursduringcertainenumeratedfelonies,theoffenseisraisedtomurderinthefirstdegree 8 bystatute. /  &v Aquestioniswhetherthefelonycommittedwascompletedpriortothekilling.Merecoincidence m betweentheunderlyingfelonyandthekillingisnotenoughtoestablishliabilityforfelonymurder,since d conductcausingdeathmustbeinfurtheranceofthedesigntocommitthefelony.#XvXXXvݲ#XvXXXvWatkinsv.State#XvXXXv #XvXXXv,357  [ Md.258,744A.2d1(2000)."XXv R   #XvX" ##XvXXXv[ #   I Here,Acedidnottakethehandgunintothestore.Thecarryinganduseofahandgunwasnot @ partoftheschemeoftheburglary.Moreover,thecarwasparkedanappreciabledistancefromthe 7 siteoftheburglaryandAcehadcompletedconcealmentofthestolengoodsbeforearminghimself. . Acewasnotintheprocessofrunningfromthecrimescenetoeludepursuers,nordothefactsindicate % thatthesecurityguardwasawareoftheburglary.However,Acestillplannedtoreturnandretrieve  thecarandstolengoodsatalatertime.Therefore,thecriminalenterprisewasnotcomplete.     XvXXXvSelfdefenseisnotavailableasadefensetofelonymurder.#XvXXXv8#XvXXXvStreetv.Warden,Md. ! Penitentiary#XvXXXvݻ#XvXXXv,423_F.Supp_.611(Md.1976),_affd_,549F.2d799(4#XvXXXv6#XvXhXvth#XvXXXv#XvXXXvԀCir.1976),#XvXXXv9#XvXXXvcert.den.#XvXXXv݋#XvXXXv,431U.S. " 906,97_S.Ct_.1700(1977). #  #XvXXXv#XvXXXv $! IfAcesdefensetothechargeoffelonymurderduringthecommissionofaburglaryis % " successful,Acecanavoidaconvictionofmurderinthefirstdegreesincethereisnoevidenceof &!# premeditationorlyinginwait,andtheftisnotacrimeenumeratedin#XvXXXv݊#XvXXXvCriminalLawArticle#XvXXXv#XvXXXv,sec.2201 {'"$ ofthe#XvXXXvi#XvXXXvAnnotatedCodeofMaryland. r(#%  i)$& Then,ifthetrieroffactfindsthatthekillingwasnotinfurtheranceoftheburglary,Acemay `*%' raisethedefensesofselfdefenseandimperfectselfdefense.Ifthetrieroffactconcludesthatthekilling W+&( wasmitigatedbyamistakenbeliefofanimminentthreatofseriousbodilyharm,Acemaybeguiltyof N,') involuntarymanslaughter,butnotmurder.IfthetrieroffactconcludesthatAcehadareasonablebelief E-(* ofanimminentthreatofseriousbodilyharmandactedinselfdefense,Acecouldbeacquitted.  <.)+ _p@((" BOARDSANALYSIS    @nn$QUESTION2      .%&'()*+,-(03"%" X   %2  A  .3   D   Equitableconversionbycontract%3݌  Ќ  X       &  Thebasictheoryofequitableconversionisthatequitytreatsasdonethatwhichshouldbedone.   Inavalidcontractforthesaleandpurchaseofrealproperty,thebuyerbecomestheownerofthelandand   thesellerbecomestheownerofthepurchasemoney.   ' $ z   "%" X   %2  B  .3   D   Testators(Seller)intentiondetermineswhetherornotequitableconversionoccurs.%݌ t  Ќ ?+ ` hp x X? X  < n  AmosintenttoconveyawayCloverwoodpriortohisdeathisclearlyestablishedbythefactthat h  hemadeabindingcontractwithJohnwithfullknowledgeoftheprovisioninhiswilldevisingtheproperty b  toBettyandDale,andbyhisfailuretoamendhiswilltoaddressthischangeincircumstance. \   <XXv V #XvX#XXv "%" X   %I2  C  .3   D   #XvX#Contractmustbebindingandfreefromequitableimperfectionsandenforceableagainstan o unwillingpurchaser.%I݌ i Ќ  X   c  XThefactsdonotsuggesttheexistenceofanyimperfectionsinthecontractthatwouldhave  ] preventedAmosfromseekingspecificperformancebyJohn. W  X Q "%" X   % 2  D  .3   D   Sellermustbeabletoconveygoodandmarketabletitletobuyerwithinareasonabletime,must K beabletospecificallyenforcethecontractagainstthebuyerifbuyerrenouncesthecontract.The E banks  proforma    Ԁrequirementofasurveyofpropertyhavingarecordeddescriptionmorethan ? 60yearsolddoesnotraiseavalidissueastomarketabilityoftitleand,inanycase,itconfirmed 9 marketabilityoftitle.ThepropertyclosingoccurredwithintheextensionperioddespiteAmos 3 death.% 8!݌ - Ќ ?+ ` hp x X? X   ' 0 ` Equitableconversionmustoccurpriortosellersdeath.Ifthecontractcannotbe  ! specificallyenforcedagainstthebuyer,noequitableconversioncanoccur.!` (#` (#  " 0 ` TherearenofactsthatwouldsupportanargumentthatJohnsobligationtopurchasewas #  notenforceableinanactionforspecificperformance.$ !` (#` (#  %!" 0 ` MarketabletitlecouldhavebeenconveyedonthedateofAmosdeath.Therefore, &!# equitableconversionoccurred.'"$` (#` (#  (#% 0 ` The$10,000downpaymentandthebalanceofthepurchasepricemustbedistributedto )$& AliceinaccordancewithAmoswill.AliceactedproperlyaspersonalRepresentativein *%' administeringtheestatebydistributingtheproceedsfromthesaleofCloverwoodto +&( herself.,')` (#` (#   #XvXXXv#  -(* X   X4XXXvBOARDSANALYSIS#XvXX X4O)#XvXXXv      QUESTION3         #XvXXXvݤ)#1.EndingtheMarriage: z     t  RhondaisnotyetentitledtoanabsolutedivorcegiventherequirementssetforthinMaryland n  FamilyLawAnnotated,Section7103.However,alimiteddivorcemaybedecreedforalimitedor h  indefiniteperiod.Itallowsaspousetoliveapartfromthespouseatfaultbutdoesnotseverthemarital b   bonds.Althoughthetwohaveremainedinthemaritalhome,Rhondamayhavegroundsforalimited \  divorceunderMarylandFamilyLawCodeAnnotatedSection7102ifshecanshowanyofthe V  followinggrounds: P  Ё  X9%4 4 <DLX9Crueltyoftreatmentofherselfortheirminorchild D  Excessivelyviciousconducttowardherselfortheirminorchild >   Desertion 8 Voluntaryseparationifthetwoarelivingseparateandapartwithoutcohabitationand 2 thereisnoreasonableexpectationofreconciliation. ,|   X<( 4 <DL44X<X XXXv &v #XvX XXU/#Rhondamaysuccessfullyarguethatadesertionoccurredeventhoughthetworemainedinthe d samehousesincePhilmovedtoaseparatebedroomandceasedmaritalrelations.Rickettsv.Ricketts, ^ 393Md.479(2006) X    R  L 2.SupportandCustody: F Ё  сTheCourtmaydetermineissuesofcustodyandsupportevenifRhondaandPhilcontinueto : residetogether.Rickettsv.Ricketts,supra;Scheininv.Scheinin,200Md.282(1952);Barnardv. 4 Godfrey,157Md.264(1929).Generally,thecourtmayawardcustodyofArlentoeitherparentor  . mayawardjointcustody.Neitherispresumedtohaveasuperiorrighttocustody.Rhondashould !( arguethatPhilisnotfitduetohisviolenttendencies(shovingherinfrontoftheirson)totipmattersin "" herfavor. #     $ ! Childsupportisawardedtoensurethebestinterestsofthechildanddoesnothingeupon %!" whethertherearegroundsfordivorce.Accordingly,Rhondamayrequestchildsupportandthecourt & "# willconsiderbothparentsactualincome(asdefinedinFL12201),adjustedincomeandpotential '#$ income,andthechildsupportguidelinesifapplicable(assetforthinFL12202,et.seq.) (#%  )$&  *%' 3.EntitlementtoLotteryWinnings: +&(  ,') Onceactualdivorceproceedingsareinitiated,thecourtwillbecalledontodetermineeach -(* spousespropertyinterestsinthemaritalproperty.Maritalpropertyisdefinedasproperty acquiredby  1orbothpartiesduringthemarriage.MarylandFamilyLawCodeAnnotated,Section8201.  ЁWhilethelotteryearningswereacquiredduringthemarriage,Philmaynotbeautomatically  entitledtothem.Thecourtmustfirstdeterminethevalueoftheproperty,andconsiderthefollowing  factorsbeforestructuringamonetaryawardtoPhil:       ./01234(00.%&'()*+,-""  X  X9%4 4 <DLX9c92.3      thecontributions,monetaryandnonmonetary,ofeachpartytothewellbeingofthefamily;c99݌   Ќ  XvXXXv""  9%4 4 <DL44X9:2.3      #XvXXXv:#thevalueofallpropertyinterestofeachparty;:O;݌   Ќ    ""  -<2.3      XvXXXvtheeconomiccircumstancesofeachpartyatthetimetheawardistobemade;-<Z<݌ z   Ќ  ""  D=2.3      #XvXXXvݞ<#XvXXXvthecircumstancesthatcontributedtotheestrangementoftheparties;D=q=݌ t  Ќ  ""  w>2.3      #XvXXXv=#XvXXXvthedurationofthemarriage;w>>݌ n  Ќ  ""  ?2.3      #XvXXXv ?#XvXXXvtheageofeachparty;??݌ h  Ќ  ""  @2.3      #XvXXXv@#XvXXXvthephysicalandmentalconditionofeachparty;@@݌ b  Ќ  ""  A2.3      #XvXXXvA#XvXXXvhowandwhenspecificmaritalpropertyorinterestinproperty8wasacquired,includingthe \  effortexpendedbyeachpartyinaccumulatingthemaritalpropertyortheinterestinproperty V 8;AA݌ P Ќ  ""  zC2.3      #XvXXXv5B#XvXXXvthecontributionbyeitherpartyofproperty8totheacquisitionofrealpropertyheldbythe J partiesastenantsbytheentirety;zCC݌ D Ќ  " "  E2.3      #XvXXXvD#XvXXXvanyawardofalimonyandanyawardorotherprovisionthatthecourthasmadewithrespectto > familyusepersonalpropertyorthefamilyhome;andE-E݌ 8 Ќ  " "  F2.3      #XvXXXvݔE#XvXXXvanyotherfactorthatthecourtconsidersnecessaryorappropriateinordertoarriveatafairand 2 equitablemonetaryaward8.FF݌ ,| Ќ    #XvXXXv'G#XvXXXv X<( 4 <DL44X<Ӂ#XvXXXvSH#X XXXv &v #XvX XXH#MarylandFamilyLawCodeAnnotated,Section8205.RhondamayarguethatPhilcausedthe  p estrangementinthemarriage,thatPhilwasemployedandshewasnot,andthatsheexpendedtheeffort j (andmoney)topurchasethelotteryticket.Thislastpointmaytiptheissue,asnotedbytheCourtin d Alstonv.Alston,331Md496,508509(1993): ^   с9%4 4 <DLX90  Whilenohardandfastrulecanbelaiddown,andwhileeachcasemustdependuponitsown !R circumstancestoinsurethatequitybeaccomplished,generallyinacasesuchasthistheeighth !L factorshouldbegivengreaterweightthantheothers8.Mr.Alston,usinghisownfunds, "F purchasedtheticketandwontheLotto.Thiseventwasnotdependentinanywayonthe #@  partiesjointeffortsorsharedlife,pastorpresent8Atthetime,themarriagewas,forall $: ! practicalpurposes,over.....Inlightofthepeculiarcircumstancesofthiscase,however,the %4!" trialjudgeerredinawardinghalfoftheLottoannuitytoMrs.Alston.Moreover,therecord &."# beforeuscontainsnoevidencewhichwouldjustifyawardinganyportionoftheannuitytoMrs. '(#$ Alston.("$%(#(#   X4XXXv  )%&   BOARDSANALYSIS #XvXX X4N#   QUESTION4   'O  DefendantshouldfilemotiontostayenforcementofjudgmentpursuanttoCourtsandJud.Pro.  Article11-804andamotiontorevisethejudgmentunderMarylandRule2-535. z   XDefendantshouldraisethefollowingarguments:(1)thattheWestoverCourtlackedpersonal n  jurisdictionoverhimonaconstitutionalbasisand(2)insufficiencyofprocess.Ifeitherorbothofthese h  groundsareupheld,thejudgmentisnotone"entitledtofullfaithandcredit."CourtsandJud.Pro. b   Article'11-801.Marylandcourtshavetheauthoritytoreviewjurisdictionalissuestodetermineifdue \  processstandardsaremet.Miserandinov.ResortProperties,Inc.,345Md.43,691A.2d208 V  (1997);ImperialHotel,Inc.v.BellAtlanticTriconLeasingCorp.91Md.App.266,603A.2d P  1371(1992). J   X XAstothefirstissue,DefendantshouldarguethathehadinsufficientcontactswithWestoverto > warrantthatstate'sexercisingjurisdictionoverhiminthiscase.Heresidesanddoesbusinessin 8 Maryland.TheactionsgivingrisetotheactionoccurredinMaryland,notWestover.TheSupreme 2 Courthasmadeitclearthattheremustbeatleast"minimumcontacts"betweentheforumstateandthe ,| defendant."Dueprocessrequiresonlythat...[thedefendant]havecertainminimumcontactswith[the &v forumstate]suchthatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffend'traditionalnotionsoffairplayand  p substantialjustice.'"InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310,316,66S.Ct.154,90L. j Ed.95(1945)."Thequalityandquantityofcontactsrequiredtosupporttheexerciseofpersonal d jurisdiction"dependuponthefactsofeachparticularcase.CamelbackSkiCorp.v.Behning,312 ^ Md.330,338,539A.2d1107(1988),cert.denied,488U.S.849,102L.Ed.2d103,109S.Ct. X 130(1988). R  X XOrdinarily,casesinvolveeither"generaljurisdiction"wherethecauseofactionisunrelatedto F thedefendant'scontactwiththeforumstate,or"specificjurisdiction"wherethecauseofactionarises @ outofthedefendant'scontactswiththeforumstate.Id.Generallyspeaking,whenthecauseofaction  : doesnotariseoutof,orisnotdirectlyrelatedto,theconductofthedefendantwithintheforum, !4 contactsreflectingcontinuousorsystematic...conductwillberequiredtosustainjurisdiction.Onthe ". otherhand,whenthecauseofactionarisesoutofthecontactsthatthedefendanthadwiththeforum,it #(  maybeentirelyfairtopermittheexerciseofjurisdictionastothatclaim.CamelbackSkiCorp.v. $" ! Behning,312Md.at338-39. %!"  X XInthepresentcase,sinceDefendanttreatedOldYellerinMaryland,thereisnobasisfor '#$ assertingspecificjurisdiction.Instead,theMarylandcourtmustdeterminewhetherDefendant's ( $% contactswithWestoveraresufficienttopermitjurisdictionbythatstate'scourtoveramatterunrelated )%& totheDefendant'scontactswithWestover.Hehastwocontacts:first,hevisitshisparentsregularly, *%' anactivityunrelatedtohisprofessionalactivities,andsecond,headvertisesinpublicationsdistributedin +&( thatstate.Whiledeterminationsofminimumcontactsarefactspecific,theCourtofSpecialAppeals ,') hasheldthataMarylandcourtdoesnothavejurisdictionoveranout-of-statephysician,licensedin -(* Marylandandadvertisinginthisstate,wherethemedicalproceduregivingrisetothecauseofaction  wasperformedinanotherstate.Jafarzadehv.Feisee,139Md.App.333,776A.2d1(2001),cert.  den.366Md.275.   X XAstothesecondissue,theserviceofprocessbySamdoesnotcomplywithMarylandRule  2-121.Thatruleallowsaprocessservertoleaveasummonsatthedefendant'sresidencewitha   personofsuitableageanddiscretion.Here,Samsimplyleftthesummonsatdefendant'soffice.The   serviceofprocesswasinvalid.Defendant'sfailuretotakeanystepstodefendhimselfintheWestover   actiondoesnotconstituteawaiverofhisabilitytoraisetheseissuesinMaryland.Oxendinev.SLM,   172Md.App.478,491,492,915A.2d1030(2007). z    X XInthiscase,thereturnoftheprocessserverindicatedthatservicewasimproper.Maryland n  Rule2-121permitspersonaldeliverytoadefendantorleavingthesummonsatadefendant'sresidence h  "withapersonofsuitableageanddiscretion"orbycertifiedmail.Simplyleavingthesummonsata b  placeofbusiness,asSamdid,satisfiesnoneofthese.Thus,theentryofjudgmentbytheWestover \  Courtwasimproper. V  X XInsummary,DefendantlackedtheminimumcontactsnecessarywithWestovertojustifythe J WestoverCourt'sexercisingjurisdictionoverhim,evenifhehadbeenproperlyserved.Inlightof D thesefactors,theentryofjudgmentagainstDefendantbytheCircuitCourtforWestover,isanexample > of"fraud,mistakeorirregularity"warrantingtheexerciseoftherevisorypoweroftheCircuitCourtat 8 anytime.TheCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCountyshouldstrikethejudgmentfiledagainstDefendantin 2 theBaltimoreCountyCircuitCourt. ,|  X  &v  X4XXXv  BOARDSANALYSIS   h   & w #XvXX X4h#QUESTION5 'wt6i t       NegligenceofBigBox!Withpriorknowledgeoftheoverwhelmingnationaldemandforthe 5 GamePod,thefactthatitssupplyoftheitemwaslimitedandthatBigBox anticipatedalarge  / crowed,itspreparationsforthesalewerewhollyinadequate.Itshouldhaveanticipatedthatitsposted  ) signswouldbeignoredbyitsprospectivecustomersaswouldtheadmonitionto walk,donotrun.  # Mostegregiouswasitsfailuretodeployasufficientnumberofhostemployeestomanagethecrowd    anditsplantoadmitcustomersingroupsof20throughasingleentrywhich,withoutanyapparent    methodofrestrainingthosewaitingtoenter,itkneworshouldhaveknownitwouldnotwork.The   companysplanwaspoorlyconceivedandexecutedandconstitutednegligence.       NegligenceofSam!AsanemployeeofBigBox,Samsconductwouldbeattributabletohis   employeriftheconductfellwithinthescopeofhisemployment.Samsactionsviolatedspecific   instructions.Undergeneralagencyprinciples,hisconduct,ifnegligent,wouldnotbeattributabletoBigBox  iftheconductwastheproximatecauseofSamsinjuries.Itisunlikelythatopeningthedoor15minutes  earlierthandirectedbyhissuperiorwasaproximatecontributingcauseoftheresultinginjurytoPam.The  precautionarymeasurestakenbyBigBoxwereinadequateandthesameresultswereforeseeablewhether  thedoorwasopened15minutesearlyor15minuteslate.    PamsNegligence!ThefactsdonotsupportnorsuggestthatPamwascontributorilynegligentor  assumedtheriskofbeinginjuredwhileshoppingatBigBox.Asaninvitee,Pamreasonablycouldassume y thatBigBoxwouldadequatelyprovideforthesafetyofitscustomersunderthesecircumstances.Her s rejectionofadditionalsurgerycouldnegativelyaffectanyawardofdamagestotheextentthattheadditional m surgeryreasonablycouldreducetheextentofanypermanentinjury. g   Thefactsarenotintendedtoraiseissuesofnegligenceonthepartofthephysiciansrelatingtoher [ medicaltreatment. U    O!   BOARDANALYSIS   QUESTION6     IwouldadvisetheGeneralAssemblythatthefollowingconstitutionalchallengescouldberaisedagainst   theanticrabbinglaw.     SubstantiveDueProcess :   TheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendment,madeapplicabletothestatesbytheFourteenth t  Amendment,mandatesthatanylawenactedbytheGeneralAssemblyberationallyrelatedtoa n  legitimategovernmentalpurpose.TheDueProcessClausefurtherrequiresthatlawsnotbe h  unconstitutionallyvagueoroverbroad.Theanticrabbinglawissubjecttochallengesinceitmaynotbe b  rationallyrelatedtothelegitimatepurposeofprotectingthecrabpopulation!thefactsindicatethe \  crabshaverebounded,buteveniftherewasashortage,thelawbroadlyallowsanunlimitedand V unascertainablenumberof familiestocrabeachweekendforanunlimitedamountofhours.Thelaw P isvagueandoverbroadbecausethepenaltyimposedinvolvesthe forfeitureofanyinstrumentality! J thetermisunclearandistoobroadasaresultthereof. D  EqualProtection:  8 ThelawmayalsobechallengedasaviolationoftheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenth ,| Amendmentsincethelawisdiscriminatoryonitsface(prohibitsfamiliesresidingoutsideofMaryland, &v andprohibitsindividualsorbusinessentitiesregardlessofresidence,fromobtainingacrabbinglicense).  p Thelawdoesnotappeartoaffectanysuspectorquasisuspectclassification(suchasrace,national j origin,alienage,orgender)soitwouldbereviewedundertherationalbasistest.Thelawmaynot d withstandeventhislowlevelofscrutinysince(a)thefactsindicatethatthereisnolongeranythreatto ^ thecrabpopulation,and(b)itisunreasonabletoassumethatgrantinganunlimitednumberoflicenses  X to familiesandallowingthemtocrabuntiltheirheartscontentontheweekendisrationallyrelatedto !R thegoalofstabilizingthecrabpopulation. !L  EighthAmendment(ExcessivePenalty): #@     Thelawincludesapenaltyofa$2,500fine,lossofcrabbinglicenseandtheforfeitureofany %4!" instrumentalityusedtoassistincrabbing.ThispenaltymaybechallengedasviolativeoftheEighth &."# Amendmentsprohibitionagainstexcessivefines,whichhasbeeninterpretedtoincludeexcessive '(#$ forfeitures.UnitedStatesv.Bajakajian,524U.S.321(1998)Indeterminingwhetherapenaltyis ("$% excessive,courtswillreviewtheproportionalityoftheforfeituretothegravityoftheoffenseandifthe )%& forfeitureis grosslydisproportionalitisunconstitutional.Bajakajian,at336337.Thelawincludesa *&' largefineandtheforfeitureofanyinstrumentalityusedinthecrabbing.Thiscouldrangefromapottoa +'( boat,giventhevaguenessoftheterm.Thus,thepenaltywilllikelybeheldexcessiveundertheEighth , () Amendment.(#(#K(# -)*   CommerceClause:     TheCommerceClauseallowstheStatetoenactlawsthatmayaffectinterstatecommerceifin   furtheranceofasubstantialinterest.However,theSupremeCourthasconsistentlyheldthatthe   CommerceClausewouldprecludeaStatefromgivingitsownresidentspreferentialaccesstoitsnatural   resourcesortoproductsderivedfromitsnaturalresources.See,CampsNewfound/Owatonnav.   TownofHarrison,520U.S.564(1997);NewEnglandPowerCo.v.NewHampshire,455U.S.331 z   (1982).ThecrabberscouldarguethatthelawclearlyfavorsMarylands familiesandhurts t  professionalcrabbersbasedwithinandwithouttheStateinviolationoftheCommerceClause. n     h      BOARDSANALYSIS  QUESTION7      X   Whileacatastrophiceventoccurredwhichhadsignificantimpactontheentirelegalcommunity,  Louiswasrequired,nonetheless,tofulfillhisethicalobligationsprimarilyinvolvingtheprotectionof   Donaldspropertyandhislegalinterests.LouismayhavefailedtofulfillhisobligationsundertheMaryland   LawyersRulesofProfessionalConduct(collectively, Rules,orsingularly, Rule)asfollows:       .%&'()*+,-(00 ./01234"%" X x9%( ( hp x 44X9  %2  1  .3   (   LouisdidnotactinaccordancewiththemandateofRule1.15tosafeguardDonalds z   property.Infact,Louisneithertookreasonablestepstosegregateandinventorythe t  mapandtheappraisalthathereceivedfromDonaldnordidheplacethoseitemsina n  secureplaceforprotection.%z݌ h  Ќ x! 44X( ( X! X  X X<( ` hp x 44X< X?+ ` hp x X?"%"  x9%( ( hp x X9  %J2  2  .3   (   Louis,bothasDonaldsattorneyandasthemanagerorsupervisorfortheadministration \  ofthelawfirm,shouldhaveundertakentosupervisethereasonablepreparationsforthe V oncomingstormsothat(i)allclientrecordswouldbeaccessibleand(ii)allclient P propertyforwhichheandotherlawyersinhisfirmwereresponsiblewouldbesecure. J Heshouldhavecreatedasystemthatwouldallowhimtoobtainaccesstohisfilesand D recordssubsequenttothestormsothathecouldcommunicatewithclients,checkfor > conflictsofinterestanddiligentlyandcompetentlycontinuewiththerepresentationof 8 hisclientsintheaftermathofthestorm.Rules1.1,1.2and1.7wereviolated.%J̌݌ 2 Ќ x! X( ( X!   ?+ ` hp x X?"%"  x9%( ( hp x X9  %2  3  .3   (   LouisfailedtocommunicateeffectivelywithDonald.HefailedtonotifyDonaldpromptly &v afterthestormandpriortoclosingthathisofficerecordsweredestroyedandthatthe  p mapandappraisalweremissing.HisfailuretocommunicatewithDonaldregardingthe j progressoftherepresentationandthelossoftheclientspropertywereviolationsof d Rule1.4(Communication)andRule1.3(Diligence).%݌ ^ Ќ x! X( ( X!   ?+ ` hp x X?"%"  x9%( ( hp x X9  %2  4  .3   (   Sincetheofficerecordsweremissing,Louisfailedtotakeadequateprecautionsto !R maintaintheconfidentialityoftheinformationimpartedtohimbyhisclient.Hisfailure !L constitutedaviolationofRule1.6.%݌ "F Ќ x! X( ( X!   ?+ ` hp x X?"%"  x9%( ( hp x X9  %!2  5  .3   (   Asmanagingpartnerofthelawfirm,Louiswasrequiredtoensurethatthefirmcomplied $: ! withtheRules.SeeRule5.1(a).%!݌ %4!" Ќ x! X( ( X!   ?+ ` hp x X?"%"  x9%( ( hp x X9  %@2  6  .3   (   LouisviolationoftheRulesandhisfailuretoperformhisdutieswithinthescopeofthe '(#$ representationofDonaldcallintoquestionwhetherLouisfailedtoprovidecompetent ("$% representationtoDonaldunderRule1.1.%@™݌ )%& Ќ x! X( ( X!   ?+ ` hp x X?  *&'   BOARDSANALYSIS  QUESTION8      X   Julieheldherselfoutasapartner,signedtheleaseinanindividualcapacityanddidnotinformthe  landlordthatshewasalimitedpartnerinabusinessoperatingasalimitedpartnership.Therefore,Juliewill   bepersonallyresponsibleforthefuturerent.Shecansueforcontributionandindemnificationfromthe   SalonandMistybecauseMisty,asgeneralpartner,hasunlimitedpersonalliability.      Misty,asgeneralpartner,andtheSalonwouldbeliableforAnnesactionstakeninthenormal z   courseofheremployment.However,ifAnneeitherwasnegligentorintentionallyharmedthecustomer,she t  ispersonallyresponsibleforhertortactions.Ifthecustomerhassuccessfulclaimsagainstoneormoreof n  theSalon,Misty,Julie,andAnne,sheisentitledtoonlyonesatisfactionforherdamages.GrindervByrans h  RoadBuildingandSupplyCo.,Inc.,290Md.687,432,A2d453(1981).Eachoftheinnocentdefendants b  willhavearightofcontributionandindemnificationfromthedefendantsdeterminedtobeliable. \     V Juliesattempttolimitherliabilitybywithdrawingasalimitedpartnerfromthelimitedpartnership P isineffectivebecausethesignedagreementdidnotprovideforawithdrawalprocedure.Shemaynot J withdrawbeforethedissolutionandwindingupofthelimitedpartnership.(Md.CodeAnn.,Corps& D Assns10603(a)(2007rep.vol.)).Julieisnotentitledtoreceiveanypartofhercontributionorexcess > propertyofthelimitedpartnershipuntilallliabilitiesofthelimitedpartnershipeitherhavebeenpaidor 8 propertyreservedsufficienttopaythem. 2   X  ,|    BOARDSANALYSIS  QUESTION9   k?+ ` hp x X? X Summary :ThefailuretoproperlyacknowledgeMary'ssignaturerenderstheDeedofTrust  defective.ThedefectisnotcuredbyMarylandAnnotatedCodeRealPropertyArticleSection4109   becausethedefectwaschallengedbyJonesinatimelyfashion.However,theBankwillclaimsuccessfully   thatithasan"equitablelien"andthusithastherighttoenforcethedeedoftrustagainstMary.TheBank's   equitablelienhaspriorityoverJones'judgmentlieneventhoughthejudgmentlienwasrecordedfirst   becauseitisa"purchasemoney"deedoftrustlien.AfterMary'sdebttotheBankissatisfied,Jonesis z   entitledtothebalanceoftheforeclosuresaleproceedsupto$45,000pursuanttohisstatusasaholderof t  ajudgmentlien. n   X XTheDeedofTrustwasnotproperlyacknowledgedbecausethenotarypublicdidnotsignthe b  acknowledgment,asrequiredbysection4-204oftheRealPropertyArticle.Persection4-101oftheReal \  PropertyArticle,thefailuretoproperlyacknowledgetheinstrumentcausesthetransfertobeinvalid. V Section4-109oftheRealPropertyArticledoesnotcurethedefectbecausetheDeedofTrust'svalidity P waschallengedinajudicialproceedingcommencedwithinsixmonthsafteritsrecordation. J  X XHoweverMarylandrecognizesequitablelienswhenitappearsthattherewas"aspecificintentto > createalienbuttheinstrumentisimperfectinsomeregard,suchasonewithadefectiveacknowledgment." 8 EquitableTrustCompanyv.Imbesi,287Md.249(1980).Seealso,Pencev.NorwestBank 2 Minnesota,N.A.,363Md.267(2000).TheDeedofTrustmeetsalloftheformalrequisitesofagrantof ,| realpropertyrequiredbylawexceptforthesignatureofthenotarypublic.TheDeedofTrust,therefore, &v clearlyevidencestheintentofthepartiestocreatealien.  p  X XTheBank'sequitablelienhaspriorityoverJones'judgmentlienbecausetheproceedsoftheloan d wereusedbyMarytopurchasetheHomeandthedeedoftrustrecitesthatfact.TheBank's"purchase ^ moneydeedoftrust"lienhaspriorityoverallotherlienspursuanttosection7-104oftheRealProperty  X Article. !R   !L   XvXXXv      XvXXXvBOARDSANALYSIS)݌  Ќ  XvXXXv  #XvXXXvW#XvXXXv  QUESTION10      #XvXXXv#  XvXXXv ` #XvXXXvݴ#XvXXXv(A) ArgumentsofAlsattorneyinoppositiontotheprofferedtestimony.  #XvXXXv#XvXXXv `   `  (1)  The1990convictionforSecondDegreeSexOffenseunderMarylandRule   5609(b)isnotadmissibleforpurposesofimpeachmentofAlscredibilitybecauseitismorethenfifteen   (15)yearsold.Iftheconvictionisnotadmissiblethentheevidenceoftheallegedunderlyingcriminalactivity   shouldnotbeadmissible. z      `   `  (2)  ThatCarolstestimonyisbeingofferedsimplytoshowAlspropensityto n  commitcrimeorhischaracterasacriminalwhichisimproper. h   `   `  (3)  Thatthis othercrimeevidence,tobeadmissibletodisprove consent, \  willhavetoqualifyasasignatureormimicoffenseandtheprofferedevidencedoesnotmeetthisstandard. V  `   `  (4)  ThatAlspriorcriminalactsmaynotbeintroducedtoproveguiltofthe J offenseforwhichheisontrial(SeeAyervs.St.335Md602,630(1994))whichistheeffectofallowing D thetestimony. >  `   `  (5)  Thatevidenceofthepriorcriminalactshouldbeexcludedtoavoid 2 confusingthejurors,prejudicingtheirmindsagainstAlandpredisposingthemtoabeliefthatAlisguilty ,| (SeeTerryvs.St.332Md329,334(1993)). &v #XvXXXvݲ#  XvXXXv  p #XvXXXvݛ#XvXXXv `  (6)Thattheruleexcludingevidenceofothercrimesreflectsalegitimatefear j thatjurorswillconcludefromevidenceofotherbadactsthatAlisabadpersonandshouldtherefore d beconvictedordeservespunishmentforotherbadconductandsomaybeconvictedeventhoughthe ^ evidenceinthiscaseislacking.(SeeHarrisvs.St.324Md490,496(1991)).  X  `  ` (B) ProsecutorsResponse: !L  `   `  1.  Thattheprofferedtestimonyofothercrimesisadmissibleunder #@  MarylandRule5404andthatRuledoesnotcontainatimelimitforadmissionofthatevidence. $: !  `  2.  Evidenceoftheothercrimemaybeadmittedifitissubstantially %4!" relevanttoacontestedissueinthependingcase(e.g.consent)andifitisnotofferedtoproveAlsguilt &."# basedonapropensitytocommitcrimeorhischaracterasacriminal(SeeSt.vs.Faulkner314Md '(#$ 630,634(1985)). ("$%   #XvXXXv#XvXXXv `   `  3.  MarylandRule5404(b)providesthatothercrimesevidencemaybe *&' admissibletorebutthedefenseofconsent. +'( #XvXXXv # `   `  4.  TheprioractionsbyAltowardsCarolwerequitesimilar,althoughnot -)* identicaltothosecommittedonBeth.InbothsituationsAlapproachedthewoman,seeking    XvXXXvdirections;thevictimsweretransportedbycar;hetoldbothvictimshehadaknife;that  everythingwouldbealrightiftheycooperated;bothwererequiredtoengageinsimilarsexualacts;Al  allowedthemtogofreeattheendoftheincident.Thesesimilaritiesjustifyadmission.   `  ` (C) JudgesRuling:       `  Before othercrimesevidenceisadmittedtheJudgehastomakeathree(3)   partdetermination.    `   `  (a)  DoestheevidencefitoneoftheexceptionsinMarylandRule5 t  404(b)?Thisisalegaldetermination.Theevidencearguablyisadmissibleontheissueofintentand n  commonschemetorebutthedefenseofconsentallegedbyAl. h   `   `  (b)  Iftheevidencefitsanexception,isAlsinvolvementintheothercrimes \  establishedbyclearandconvincingevidence?TheCourtcouldconcludeCarolstestimonyandthe V convictionofAlestablishedbyclearandconvincingevidenceAlsinvolvementinthecriminalactivity P withCarol. J   #XvXXXv8#XvXXXv `   `  (c)  Ifstepsaandbaresatisfiedthenthetrialjudgemustcarefullybalance > thenecessityforandprobativevalueofany othercrimeevidenceagainstany#XvXXXv#XvXXXvundueprejudicelikely 8 toresultfromitsadmission.ThisisadiscretionarydeterminationbytheCourt.Theremotenessofthe 2 offenseistroublingbutthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwooffensesweighsinfavorofadmittingthe other ,| crimeevidence.(SeegenerallyHurstvs.St.! &v #XvXXXv:#XvXXXv  p  j #XvXXXv#XvXXXvCourtofSpecialAppeals#1951,SeptemberTerm2004!FiledOctober26,2006.  d    `  ^  `  (d)  Theevidenceoftheconvictionitselfisnotadmissibleforimpeachment  X asmorethan15yearshaspassed(Md.Rule5609(b).#XvXXXv\#XvXXXv p #XvXXXv#XvXXXv !R ѯ#XvXXXvC#