WPCh ]W|^E8ݧ9)GBtYg3Ɋӳz}`<0z3,JIR㣕J!$z84sܳokn(SSKÁ%up8y]FY6d w_,lfrOB uP Rt=B[:eY^W5?t?ELO:#.o`aGuZ-R %wj&=o6 K?,ISV;dZpneW\u= ȕml;Eg!r%.)V" 4>I VJE9ꉊlQIeB(Ng[Gj3Fa{@ICl'~ #r-8` ϗd/xC0WMŭtiidO@.ĵqY{ţ⪜mF/#U:NS % 0:U7>U8^ Wwc4g{ mN 0UU*U@$dUB? ?  UN 0  0 , , 0l 0<6 0 ~r 0 0:{ { 0[  & < RHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL$,,,,$0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,\  `&Times New Roman\  ` Book Antiqua$3s SzZ3hared3|xU(-2$ !USUS.,  %2A`Arial(O Z(Times New Roman  )USUS.,  _@ Page  1  ڀof  18  *jp`*Bookman Old Style w )USUS.,  _Page  1  ڀof  18   6Times New Roman Regular6p c4Heading 1XXX?%2A`Arial?      ?%2A`Arial?64 '4Heading 3XXX        6 4Heading 5       < :Envelope Ret6$$ 4Body TextXXX    0A .Footer (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number86Hyperlink6 3   clsccl13clsccl17clsccl18clsccl19 !USUS.,  _@ XMXXXJULY2005BAREXAMINATION  #XXXXMR#XMXXX@"BOARDSANALYSIS   #XXXXM#XMXXX#XXXXMY# XMXXX@%QUESTION1 #XXXXM#XMXXXԈ ` #XXXXM#  XMXXX#XXXXMy#XMXXX  Thestandardofreviewforviolationoffirstamendmentissuesmustpaststrictscrutiny 8  analysis.RockerssupportershavetheclearrighttoexpresstheirsupportforRockerbygathering $ t athisreturnhome.TheFirstAmendmentalsoprotectsRockersrighttospeaktothecrowd.#XXXXM#XMXXXSee  ` Buckleyv.Valeo#XXXXMS#XMXXX,424U.S.1(1976).Theextenttowhichthestatemaylimitpublicaccesstoits  L  propertydependsonwhetherthepropertyisapublicforum.#XXXXM#XMXXXCorneliusv.NAACPLegalDefenseand  8  Educ.Fund#XXXXM#XMXXX,473U.S.788(1985).AlthoughtheterminalsinlargeregionalairportslikeBaltimore $  airportaregenerallyconsideredtobenonpublicforua,thereisaquestionastowhetherother   locationssuchasthegrassyknollswouldbeconsideredpublic.#XXXXM1#XMXXXU.S.Southwestv.U.S#XXXXM#XMXXX.,708F.2d   760,76466(D.C.Cir.1983).     Inapublicforum,theStatemaynotbanactivityprotectedbytheFirstAmendment,butmay p imposereasonabletime,place,andmannerrestrictionsonsuchactivity.Atime,place,andmanner \ restrictiononspeechinapublicforumisreasonableonlyif(1)itiscontentneutral,(2)isnarrowly H tailoredtomeetsignificantgovernmentinterests,and(3)leavesopenamplealternativechannelsof 4 communication.Here,Reg.Bisprobablynotareasonabletime,place,andmannerrestriction  p althoughitiscontentneutral.AlthoughtheStatehasasignificantinterestinthesmoothoperation  \ oftheairport,theregulationisnotnarrowlytailoredtothatpurpose.Itprohibitsallgatheringsof H morethan30peopleregardlessoftheimpactonthesmoothoperationoftheairportthatsucha 4 gatheringmayormaynothave.Theprohibitionalsoappliestotheentireairportwithoutrespectto   whetherornotanycongestionproblemmayormaynotbepresentinagivenareaoratagiventime,   suchasonthegrassyknollswhichmaybeawayfromtheflowoftraffic.    RegBmaybesubjecttoafacialattackaswellasattackedasappliedundertheFirst  Amendmentsoverbreadthdoctrineifitalsothreatensothersnotaffectedinthisparticularinstance l becausethoseothersmayrefrainfromexpressingthemselvesratherthanfaceprosecution.Astatute X  maybeinvalidatedonitsface,however,onlyiftheoverbreadthis substantial. D!   #XXXXM#X{XXX    #XXXX{#     `   r+&*   XMXXXQUESTION#XXXXM@#XMXXX2   #XXXXM#4  XMXXX#XXXXM#XMXXX  BadmenscounselwillarguethattheStateviolatedBadmensFourthandFifthAmendment  rightsbytakinghisDNAsamplewithouthisconsent.TheState,however,wasnotactually t searchingforevidenceofacrime.RequiringindividualizedsuspiciontoobtainDNAforfutureuse ` wouldnegatetheverypurposeoftheActitself,consideringthattheActdoesnotseektoobtain L  evidence,buttomerelyidentifypersons.TheActdoesnotconstitutethegatheringofdirectevidence 8  ofacrime.TheDNAevidenceofthecrimealreadyexistspriortothematchofanyDNAprofilein $ t thedatabank.TheActdoesnotcreatedirectevidence;thedirectevidenceisthesemenacquiredby  ` avaginalswabofthevictim.TheActmerelyservestoidentifytheperpetratorsimilartotheway  L  investigatorshaveusedfingerprintsformanyyears.Balancingthesefactorsillustratesthe  8  reasonablenessoftheminimalintrusionofaDNAswabinlightof% + %+theprofoundpublicinterestin $  identifyingtheperpetratorsofcrimes.     TheonlyinformationobtainedfromtheDNAlinkedtotheindividualpursuanttotheActis   theDNAidentityofthepersonbeingtested.TheDNAprofilethusservesthepurposeofincreasing   theefficiencyandaccuracyinidentifyingindividualswithinacertainclassofconvictedcriminals. p Thepurposeisakintothatofafingerprint.Assuch,Badmensandotherincarceratedindividuals \ havelittle,ifany,expectationofprivacyintheiridentity.Therefore,asearchliketheoneauthorized H bytheActinthiscase,whoseprimarypurposeistoidentifyindividualswithlessenedexpectations 4 ofprivacy,istotallydistinguishablefromsearchofordinaryindividualsforthepurposeofgathering  p evidenceagainsttheminordertoprosecutethemfortheverycrimesthatthesearchreveals,andis  \ notviolativeoftheFourthorFifthAmendments. H   #XXXXME#  XMXXX#XXXXM#  XMXXX  BadmenscounselwillprobablyalsoarguethatthecollectionofDNAsamplesfromall   personsconvictedofaqualifyingcrime,whenthequalifyingcrimewascommittedpriortothe   effectivedateoftheAct,violatestherelevant#XXXXM#XMXXXexpostfacto#XXXXMe#XMXXXԀclausesbecausetheprimarypurposeof  theMarylandDNACollectionActispunitiveinnature,makingthestatuteretributive.  #XXXXM#XMXXX#XXXXM#*3  XMXXX  ArticleI,10,clause1oftheUnitedStatesConstitution3*  #XXXXM#XMXXX)YXXMԀ#XMX)Y##XXXXM#XMXXX% , %,prohibitstheStatesfrompassing l any#XXXXMh#XMXXXexpostfacto#XXXXM #XMXXXԀlaw,stating,% - %- "NoStateshall...passany...#XXXXMW #XMXXXexpostfacto#XXXXM #XMXXXԀLaw."TheMaryland X  DeclarationofRights,Article17,providessimilarprotections,asitstates"that% . %.!retrospectiveLaws, D! punishingactscommittedbeforetheexistenceofsuchLaws,andbythemonlydeclaredcriminal, 0"  areoppressive,unjustandincompatiblewithliberty;wherefore,no#XXXXM@!#XMXXXexpostfacto#XXXXM##XMXXXԀLawoughttobe #l! made;noranyretrospectiveoathorrestrictionbeimposed,orrequired." $X" #XXXXMR##XMXXX#XXXXM$#XMXXX  TheprovisionsoftheDNAActdonotmakeapriornoncriminalactcriminal.Theydonot %0!$ makeapriorcriminalactamoreseriouscrime.Theydonotchangethepunishmentforanycrime. &"%   Theydonotaltertherulesofevidenceorrequirelessevidenceinordertosupporta (#' conviction,thanthelevelofevidencerequiredbeforetheAct.ThetakingofDNAdatadoesnot )$( increasethepunishmentforanycrime.Itmerelyprovidesinformation.Ifnocrimesexisttowhich |*%) thedataismatched,nothinghappens.Byitself,theDNAdataisdataandnothingmore.TheAct h+&* wasintendednottoelicitapunishmentforactsalreadycommitted,buttocreateasensibleregulative  schemeinordertoprotectthepublicbyidentifyingindividualsinvolvedwithcrimes.  #XXXXMZ$#XMXXX    BadmenscounselwillprobablyarguethatNurseRatchetunlawfullyinterrogatedhim t withoutadvisinghimofhis#XXXXMO(#XMXXXMiranda#XXXXM4)#XMXXXԀwarningsandinviolationofhisFifthandSixthAmendment ` rights.ThereisanissueastowhetherNurseRatchetwasactingasaStatelawenforcementofficial L  whenshequestionedBadmens.Underthefactshere,however,itisunlikelythatNurseRatchet 8  wouldbeviewedasalawenforcementofficialoractingpursuanttoone.#XXXXM)#XMXXXSee,#XXXXML+#XMXXXStatev.Raines#XXXXM+#XMXXX,383 $ t Md.1(2004).#XXXXM+#XMXXX  ` #XXXXMP,# h+&*      $XMXXX& N "      "\-  QUESTION3"\--  {-Ԍ  Ќ   'N>-&XMXXXM    &=.    Agreementtosettlealawsuitisacontractandgovernedbyordinarycontractprinciples.&=..݌ N Ќ  XMXXXM  XUnilateralmistake!Mistakeofonlyoneofthepartiestoacontractastothesubject & matterdoesnotaffectitsbindingforceandordinarilyaffordsnogroundsforitsavoidance.    X  ReliablesignoranceofthestatusofPaulsnegligencecaseagainstDave!aunilateral   mistakeoffact!doesnotjustifyrecissionofthesettlementcontractwithPaulunderthe    underinsuredprovisionoftheinsurancepolicy. r     ReliablehadactualknowledgeofPaulssuitagainstDavewhenitreceivedacopyofthe J  amendedcomplaint.Itsfailuretodeterminethestatusoftheunderlyingtortcasedemonstrateda 6  lackofduediligence. "r    Intheabsenceoffraud,ormisrepresentation,apartyspostsettlementdiscoveryofa J meritoriousclaimordefense,suchasapresettlementbreachofcontract,doesnotexcusepartys 6 performanceunderasettlementagreement.Aunilateralmistakeisordinarilynotagroundfor " relieffromacontract.    Underthecircumstanceshere,theinsuredsfailuretodiscloseorvolunteerinformation  doesnotconstitutemisrepresentationorfraud.   XMXXXM      &   5   5}5  Y5Ԍ̌  XMXXXM   XMXXXM       6   6X6  @6Ԍ̌  XMXXXM   XMXXXM       6   637  7Ԍ̌  XMXXXM    )YXXM'nq5   `     h      p %    %j8  #XMX)Y7# %j88݌̌   ,4(0 Ї%  %#9  QUESTION4%#9>9݌  Ќ  8&XMXXXM    X&9  Asto GreenAcreinAnneArundelCountyBankhaspriorityoverbothHenriettaand N Leasingbyvirtueofjudgmentobtainedandrecordedintheamountof$100,000inbothAnne : ArundelCountyandPrinceGeorgesCountyasofDecember18,2004.&9:݌ & Ќ  XMXXXM  X   LeasinghaspriorityoverHenriettabyvirtueofitsDecember27,2004judgmentinAnne   ArundelCircuitCourtfor$50,000.Henriettadidnotfilea NoticeofLienineitherAnne   ArundelCountyorPrinceGeorge'sCountyCircuitCourtuntilJanuary15,2005asrequiredby    Rule2621(c). r     Asto BlueAcreinPrinceGeorgesCounty,Banksjudgmenthaspriorityoverthoseof J  HenriettaandLeasingbyvirtueoftheDecember18,2004judgmentfor$100,000intheCircuit 6  CourtforPrinceGeorgesCounty(assumesClerksignedandenteredjudgmentperRule2601on "r  thatdate). ^    HenriettahaspriorityoverLeasingbecauseshefiledherDistrictCourt(AnneArundel 6 County) NoticeofLieninPrinceGeorgesCountyonJanuary15,2005.Leasingdidnotfileits " AnneArundelCountyjudgmentinPrinceGeorgesCountyatall.    Astothe constructionequipmentinPrinceGeorgesCounty,Henriettahaspriorityover  bothBankandLeasingbecauseshehadaWritofExecutionissuedagainsttheequipmenton  January17,2005andtheSherifflevieduponandtookpossessionoftheequipmentonJanuary n 18,2005. Z   NeitherBanknorLeasingexecutedagainsttheequipmentandtheirjudgmentsareliens 2 onlyontherealproperty!notpersonalproperty.Alienattachestopersonalpropertyonlyafter n actuallevyper11403.  Z   BillsfailuretofilesupersedesbondorothersecurityperRule8422permitsBankand 2 LeasingtoenforcetheirjudgmentsbyWritofExecutionuntilBillfilestherequiredsecurity.   Henriettasjudgmentwasnotappealedandisnotsubjecttothestayofenforcementprovisionsof !   8422.  "!  #XXXXM-#3}3@  EXTRACTSECTIONSFORQUESTION4  ~$#  AnnotatedCodeofMaryland,CourtsandJudicialProceedings V&!% TITLE11.JUDGMENTS:11401,11402,AND11403 .(~#' AnnotatedCodeofMaryland,MarylandRules *V%) TITLE2.CIVILPROCEDURE!CIRCUITCOURT:Rules2601,2621.2622.2623.2 +.'+ 641,and2642 ,(,  -)- TITLE8.APPELLATEREVIEWINTHECOURTO0FAPPEALSANDTHECOURT  OFSPECIALAPPEALS:Rule8422      `     h      p      x     XMXXX    QUESTION5#XXXXMG#XPXXX       #XXXXPG#XMXXX(A) ` DefendantsattorneyshouldhaveobjectedtoGuestsanswerrelatingwhata  tenanttoldhim.Thisishearsay.Theobjectionshouldbesustained,andamotiontostrikethe t responseshouldbesustained. `     DefendantsattorneycouldalsoobjecttoPlaintiffslawyerssecondquestiononthe 8  groundthatitisaleadingquestion.Defendantsattorneywouldcontendthatthequestion $ t suggeststhatGuestsvisionwasimpaired.Plaintiffslawyermightcounterthatthisfacthas  ` alreadybeenestablishedorsuggestedinGuestsresponsetotheprecedingquestion.Whetheror  L  notaquestionisleadingdependsverymuchonthecontext.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthe  8  allowanceofleadingquestionsisdiscretionarywiththetrialcourt.Rule5611(c) $        (B) ` OnepossibleobjectionwillbeahearsayobjectiontoLandlordsresponseas   relatedbyMr.Smith.However,itwouldappearthatthisobjectionshouldnotbesustained,since   Landlordsresponsewouldprobablybeclassifiedasanadmissionbyaparty,admissibleas   substantiveevidence,withoutthefoundationofapriorexaminationoftheparty.Rule5803 p (a)(1).Suchstatementsareusuallyadmissiblebecausethepartywillhaveafullopportunityfor \ explanation. H     AsecondobjectiontothisexcerptcouldberaisedtoMr.Smithsgratuitouscomments  p aboutLandlordsneverfixinganythingandtakingaweekortwotoreplacelightbulbsonprior  \ occasions.Thesecommentsarenonresponsiveandprejudicial.Theinformationimpartedabout H priordelayinreplacingthelightdoesnotrelatetoasimilarhappeningwhichshowsthatthe 4 situationasofthetimeoftheaccidentwasdangerousorthatDefendantknewofthedangeratthe   timeoftheaccident.       Finally,objectionmightbemadetoPlaintiffslawyerssolicitationofopinionevidence  fromanonexpertwitness.Thisquestioniscertainlyinartfullyphrased.Generally,laywitnesses  shouldbecalledontogivethefactsandnottheirinferences,conclusionsoropinions.The l answer,however,wouldappeartobeunobjectionablesinceitrelatesthewitnesspersonal X  perceptionsandishelpfultoaclearunderstandingofSmithstestimony.Rule5701. D! BH        (C) ` Theproblemarisinginthisexcerptisthewitnesstestifieswithnopresent #l! recollection.Itispermissibletorefreshtherecollectionofsuchawitnessfromwritten $X" memoranda.Whenthewitnessrecollectionisthusrefreshed,histestimonyiswhathesays,not $D # thewriting.Intheinstantcase,however,itdoesnotappearthatthewitnessistestifyingfromhis %0!$ recollectionrefreshedbutratherissummarizingthenotes.Ifsuchisthecase,anobjection &"% shouldprobablybesustainedonthebasisthattheanswerisnotresponsiveandthattheanswer '#& shouldbestricken.Insuchacase,PlaintiffslawyercouldprobablythenhaveDr.Jonesreadhis (#' notesintoevidence,sinceitisestablishedthatthenotesweremadeattheeventwhenthe )$( witnessmemorywasclearandthewitnessnowhasdemonstratednopresentrecollection.Rule |*%) 5802.1(e);ortherecordsthemselvesmaybeintroduced.Rule5803(b)(4)&(6). h+&* #XXXXMH#  3~D3 @-(, ЇXMXXX    QUESTION6        ӀThetrialcourterredincontinuingtobasesupportandalimonyonHarrys2003income  of$200,000ratherthanhiscurrentincome. t     Withrespecttochildsupport,acourtmay,uponashowingofsubstantialchangein L  circumstances,modifyanawardofchildsupport.Alegitimatedecreaseinincomeofthepayor 8  mayconstituteamaterialchangeincircumstances.Sczudcov.Berry,129Md.529,743A.2d $ t 268(1999);Riverav.Zysk,136Md.App.607,766A.2d1049(2001).Ontheotherhand,  ` FL.Art.12201(j)instructsthataparentspotentialincomeistobeconsiderediftheparentis  L   voluntarilyimpoverished.  8      Todeterminewhetheraspouseorparentisvoluntarilyimpoverished,acourtmust   inquireintohismotivationsandintentions.TherewasnoevidencethatHarrysoldhislucrative   clubtoavoidhisdutyofspousalorparentalsupport.Tothecontrary,Harrysdecisiontosellhis   barwasbasedonalegitimatereason,groundedinhisreligiousbeliefsandtheteachingsofhis   church. Achildsupportobligationshouldnotbeusedtoshackletheparentbypreventinghim p orherfrommakinganeededlifestylechange,basedonvalidreasons,particularlywhen,ashere, \ theparentisabletoprovidereasonablechildsupportexpenses.Malinv.Mininberg,153Md H App.358,837A.2d178,204(2003).Harryhasnocollegedegreeandisworkingfulltimeina 4 managerialposition.  p  X  \ Sinceafindingof voluntaryimpoverishmentisnotjustified,thechildsupport H obligationsshouldberecalculatedinaccordancewiththeguidelines. 4  X Note:Ananalysisreachingtheoppositeconclusionmaybegivensubstantialcreditwhere   itisrecognizedthatthetrialcourtmayconsiderapartys potentialincomeaswellas  actualincome,aswellasotherrelevantconsiderations.SeeFLArt.,12201(j).         Analysesmayreachdifferingconclusionswhetherthetrialcourterredinincluding l Harrysinheritedhomeasanassetforbasinganawardofalimonyorsupport.Withrespectto X  alimony,FLArt.11106(b)setsforthspecificfactorsthatmustbeconsideredbyacourtin D! determiningwhetheranawardormodificationofalimonyisappropriate.Thesefactorsinclude 0"   (ii)thefinancialneedsandfinancialresourcesofeachparty,including(i)allincomeandassets, #l! includingpropertywhichdoesnotproduceincome.TheCourtofAppealshasstatedthatoncea $X" partyhasestablishednewfactorswhichsupportanextensionofalimony, thecurrentfinancial $D # situationofthepartiesareappropriatelyconsideredpursuantto11106(b)(q)and(u).Blainev. %0!$ Blaine,336Md.49,646A.2d413,425(1994).Similarly,ifabasisexistsformodifying &"% alimonyunderFlArt.,11107,thefinancialsituationoftheparties,includingnonincome '#& producingassets,areappropriatelyconsidered.Absentavalidfindingofvoluntary (#' impoverishmentordecreasedstandardoflivingofthedependentchild,themereownershipof )$( nonincomeproducingassetsalonedoesnotconstituteabasisforrelianceuponthoseassetsin |*%) determiningchildsupport(oralimony).Lempresv.McHenryCSANo.734,SeptemberTerm, h+&* 2003.Unreported. T,'+ Y  #XXXXM=Y#3Y3 @-(,  @%QUESTION7       Inreviewingthefacts,itbecomesclearthataconflictofinterestexistsinHelen  representingJohnandRosewhileservingontheBoardoftheChurch.Thus,Helenviolated t Rule1.7inrenderingadvicetoJohnandRoseabsenteitherconsultationandconsentundereither ` Rule1.7(c)oftheRulesofProfessionalConductineffectpriortoJuly1,2005( PriorRPC)or L  Rule1.7(b)(4)undertheamendedRulesofProfessionalConductineffectJuly1,2005( Current 8  RPC).HelenowedadutytoJohnandRosetoexplainherresponsibilitytoandrelationship $ t withtheChurch,sinceHelensrepresentationofJohnandRosemaybemateriallylimitedby  ` HelensresponsibilitytotheChurchasamemberofitsBoardofDirectors.Certainly,an  L  informedconsentfromJohnandRoseaftertheadviceofindependentcounselwouldhavebeen  8  appropriatepriortoHelenundertakingtherepresentation. $    InJanuary2005,HelenshouldhaveinformedRosethatshehadrepresentedJohnin "r  1998,andthatwhilethesubjectmatteroftherepresentationofRoseandJohnbyHelensfirm ^  wasremoteintimeandtherewasnoongoingrepresentation,itwouldbeappropriateforBillto J adviseJohnandRoseregardingthepotentialconflictofinterestthatmayexistandotherwise 6 complywiththeprovisionsofRule1.9underthePriorRPCandtheCurrentRPC.SinceHelens " representationmaybeprecludedbytheapplicationofRule1.9,Rule1.10underthePriorRPC  andCurrentRPCmayoperatetodisqualifytherepresentationbyBillandthelawfirminRoses  divorcematter.Therefore,Helen,Billandthefirmmustevaluatewhethertheearlier  representationcausedJohnorRosetorevealconfidentialinformationtoHelenandtothelaw  firmasimputedthroughHelen,theuseofwhichinthedivorcematterwoulddisadvantageJohn. n   IfHelenjoinedherfirmsubsequentto1998,thenRule1.10(b)(2),underthePriorRPC, F andRule1.10(c)undertheCurrentRulepermitsBillandthelawfirmtorepresentRoseprovided 2 HelenisscreenedfromthecaseandreceivesnoneofthefeereceivedbyBillorthelawfirmfor n servicesprovidedinthedivorcematter.  Z  XPursuanttoRule1.5(a)ofthePriorRPCandtheCurrentRPC,allfeestobechargedby 2 BillmustbereasonablebasedonthefactorscontainedintheRule.NeitherBillnorthelawfirm   canenterintoanarrangementfororcollectafeeinadomesticrelationsmatterthatiscontingent !   oneitherthesecuringofadivorceortheamountofapropertysettlementoraward.See "! Rule1.5(d)(1)ofthePriorRuleandtheCurrentRule. #"  ~$# ЀAllaccountsmustbeseparatedfromthelawyersownpropertyandotherwisecomply j% $ withTitle16,Chapter600oftheMarylandRules.Consequently,theretainershouldhavebeen V&!% depositedbyBillintoanescrowaccountinaccordancewithRule1.15(a)ofthePriorRPCand B'"& theCurrentRPC,andmoniesmaybewithdrawnonlyasearned. .(~#'  XXMXXX3wj3   #XXXXMy#XMXXX  -)- QUESTION8   &  XMXXXM  &_z  &_zz݌̌XMXXXM    @  @ y&  XMXXXM  &8{    ThisanalysismustfocusonthenatureandextentofthegrantofhuntingrightstoRuby  andSaminordertodetermineboththeextentoftheirinterestintheClubsproperty,and t whetherandunderwhatcircumstancestheinterestgrantedtoRubyandSamcanbeassignedor ` grantedtoothers.&8{~{݌ L  ЌXMXXXM   #XXXXM z#XMXXX#XXXXM}#XMXXX  TheClubdidnotgranttoRubyandSamamerelicense(apersonal,nontransferable $ t permission)tousetheClubsproperty.TheClubgrantedarealpropertyinterestinitsdeedto  ` RubyandSamthatallowedRubyandSamtohuntandfishtheClubspropertyforthebenefitof  L  theirownproperty.Therealpropertyinterestwasmoreinthenatureofaprofitaprendrethanan  8  easementbecausethegrantgavethempermissiontoenterontoandusethepropertyaswellasto $  removesomethingofvaluefromtheproperty.Aneasementinterestwouldhavegrantedthem   permissiontoenterontoandusethepropertybutitwouldnotextendtotheremovalofanything   fromthepropertysince aneasementimplies[thatits]owner8shalltakenoprofitfromthe   soil.[#XXXXM}#XMXXXGossv.C.A.N.WildlifeTrust#XXXXMӁ#XMXXX,157Md.App.447,458,852A.2d996,1002(2004),   quoting#XXXXM5#XMXXXAndersonv.Gipson#XXXXMʂ#XMXXX,144S.W.2d948(Tex.App.1940).] p   Thenextpartoftheanalysisrequiresadeterminationofwhethertheprofitaprendrewas H appurtenantoringross.Ifingross,itcanbefreelytransferred,whileifappurtenant,itcanonly 4 betransferredwiththedominantestate.Inthiscase,theprofitaprendrewasgrantedforthe  p benefitofRubyandSamsland,whichmakesitaprofitaprendreappurtenant.Assuch,the  \ rightisonlytransferablewithatransferofthedominantestate.Theprofitaprendrewasnotin H grossbecauseaninterestingrossexistsindependently,andnotsolelytoservethedominant 4 estate.     Underthesefacts,theCourtshoulddeclarethatthedeedtoRubyandSamcreatedareal  propertyinterestintheClubsproperty,aprofitaprendreappurtenant.Theprofitisareal  propertyinterestappurtenanttoRubyandSamspropertyandisnottransferableseparateand  apartfromtheproperty.SinceRubyattemptedtotransferthehuntinginterestseparatelyfromthe l land,thetransferwasinvalid.#XXXXM!#3y3XMXXX  X  _ @-(,   QUESTION9     Ӏ    BarttookoneofLisascheckswithoutherpermission,madeitpayableto_Millhouse_,  forgedhersignatureonitandusedthechecktopayforamotorcycle.Lisabelievesthat t _Millhouse_Ԁshouldhaveknownthatthetransactionwasnotauthorizedbyher.Thequestionand ` extractprovidesremedialsections,aswellasaffirmativedefenses,oftheMd.Anno.Code L  CommercialLawArticle( UCC)andasksexamineestoapplythemtothefactpattern. 8    Lisawillnotbeabletobringasuccessfulcauseofactionagainst_Millhouse_.  `   UCC3420(a)setsoutseveralpossibleactionsforconversionofanegotiableinstrument:  8  8  Thelawapplicabletoconversionofpersonalpropertyappliestoinstruments.An   instrumentisalsoconvertedifitistakenbytransfer,otherthananegotiation,   fromapersonnotentitledtoenforcetheinstrumentorabankmakesorobtains   paymentwithrespecttotheinstrumentforapersonnotentitledtoenforcethe   instrumentorreceivepayment.Anactionforconversionofaninstrumentmaynot p bebroughtby(I)theissueroracceptoroftheinstrumentor(ii)apayeeor \ _indorsee_Ԁwhodidnotreceivedeliveryoftheinstrumenteitherdirectlyorthrough H deliverytoanagentoraco-payee.4     First,Section3420affirmsthatthecommonlawtortofconversionisapplicableto  \ negotiableinstruments.However,acommonlawactionforconversionwouldfailbecausethat H actionliesonlywhenthedefendantisunderanobligationtoreturntotheplaintiffthespecific 4 moneyorobjectentrustedtohisorhercare.CommonwealthLandTitleIns.Co.v.Lawson,69   Md.App.476482(1986);Simmonsv.Lennon,139Md.App.15,33(2001).Here,Lisaisnot   interestedinobtainingthecheckusedbyBart.Instead,shewantstorecoverhermoney.Under  suchcircumstances,acommonlawconversionactionisofnoassistancetoher.    Section3420alsoprovidesthataninstrumentisconvertedifitistransferredfroma l personnotentitledtoenforcetheinstrumentorwhenabankmakespaymentonainstrumenttoa X  personnotentitledtoenforcetheinstrument.Aconversioninthissensemayhaveoccurred D! whenBartdeliveredthecheckto_Millhouse_,although_Millhouse_ԀmayhavebelievedBartwas 0"  actingasLisasagent.Lisadidnotoccuralossatthispoint,however.Lisaslossoccurred #l! whentheBankmadepaymentonthecheckto_Millhouse_Ԁanddebitedheraccountso,toprevail, $X" Lisawouldhavetoprovethat_Millhouse_Ԁwasnotentitledtoenforcetheinstrument.However, $D # _Millhouse_ԀisaholderofthecheckitwasphysicallydeliveredtohimbyBartandthecheckis %0!$ payableto_Millhouse_.UCC1201(20).Assuch,_Millhouse_Ԁisentitledtoenforceit,evenifhe &"% isinwrongfulpossessionofit.Section3301.Section3420doesnotprovidearemedyforLisa '#& againsteither_Millhouse_ԀortheBank.Inaddition,Section3420(b)alsoprovidesthata (#' conversionactioncannotbemaintainedbyanissueroftheinstrument.Lisassignatureappears )$( onthecheck;sheistheissuer,evenifhersignatureisforged.UCC3105(c).Simmonsv. |*%) Lennon,supra,2829(2001).Forthesereasons,Lisahasnocauseofactionagainst_Millhouse_. h+&*    @-(,   ManyexamineesalsodiscussedwhetherornotLisahasanegligenceactionagainst  _Millhouse_.Toprevail,shewouldhavetoprovethat_Millhouse_Ԁhadalegaldutytohertoinquire  intothegenuinenessofhersignature.MerecasualknowledgethatLisadidnotconsider  motorcyclessafeisnotabasisforsuchaduty.Simmonsv.Lennon,supraat4142. t   IfLisahasaremedy,itliesintheprovisionsoftheUCCgoverningabanksdutiestoits L  customers.UCC4401providesthattheBankmaychargeLisasaccountonlyforproperly 8  payableitems.Lisassignatureisforged.Issuchacheck properlypayable?Section3401 $ t providesthatapersonisnotliableonacheckunlessthepersonsignedthecheckorthesignature  ` onthecheckismadebyanagentoftheperson.LisassignaturewasforgedandBartdidnot  L  havetheauthoritytosignhernameasagent.Thus,thecheckisnotproperlypayableandthe  8  BankisrequiredbySection4401toreimburseLisa. $    However,Bankhasaveryviabledefense.UCC4406requiresLisatoexerciseduecare   inexaminingherbankstatementsandtonotifytheBankofunauthorizedpayments.Barthad   beenforgingLisasnameonchecksforseveralmonthsandLisafailedtoexamineher   statements.IftheBankcanproveLisashouldhavedetectedBartsearlierdefalcationsandfailed p todoso,itwillsuccessfullydefendLisasaction. \ @  EXTRACTSECTIONSFORQUESTION9  4  AnnotatedCodeofMaryland,CommercialLaw  \ TITLE1.GENERALPROVISIONS:1201 4  TITLE3.NEGOTIABLEINSTRUMENTS : 3103,3104,3105,3203,3301,3110,3   401,3403,3406,and3420    TITLE4.BANKDEPOSITSANDCOLLECTIONS: 4401   @*   H-(, QUESTION10   2  AjaxsdutiesandobligationstoABCLLCaregovernedbycommonlawandthe  Marylandstatutorylawoflimitedliabilitycompanies.ThereisnoinherentbartoAjax t conductingbusinesswiththecompany.Md.Anno.CodeCorp.&Assoc.ArticleSection4A ` 405.Ontheotherhand,Ajaxisanagentforthecompany,Section4A401. L    TherearetwoapproachestoevaluateAjaxsactions.Thefirstistoapplyanalogousrules $ t ofcorporatelawtothelimitedliabilitycompanycontext.Courtshaveheldcorporategovernance  ` conceptsareapplicabletolimitedliabilitycompanies.See_Froelich_Ԁv.SeniorCampusLiving  L  LLC,355F.3d802,810(4thCir.2004)(applyingbusinessjudgmentruletolimitedliability  8  companydispute).Underthisapproach,AjaxsdealwithABCLLCwillbeanalyzedasan $  interesteddirectortransaction.Md.Anno.CodeCorporationsandAssociationsArticleSection   2419allowssuchtransactionsifthereisdisclosureandconsentorifthetransactionisfairand   reasonabletothecompany.Therewasneitherdisclosurenorconsentbutpurchasingthebuilding   for$600,000mayhavebeenfairandreasonableforthecompany.However,theremedyfora   violationofSection2419isvoidingthetransaction.Cf.IndependentDistributorsv.Katz,99 p Md.App.441,456(1994).Sincethepracticeisflourishingatitscurrentlocation,theefficacyof \ suchanactionisquestionable. H   Ajaxviolatedthebusinessopportunitydoctrinebynotinformingthecompanyofthe  p existenceofthebuildingbeforeheboughtithimself.Thecorporateopportunitydoctrine  \ precludesofficersanddirectorsofcorporationsfromdivertingtothemselvesopportunities H which,infairness,oughttobelongtothecorporation.MarylandMetalsv._Metzner_,282Md.31, 4 45(1978).HereAjaxshouldhavepresentedtheopportunitytopurchasethepropertytothe   company.Hadhedoneso,thecompanywouldhavepurchaseditfor$100,000lessthanit   eventuallypaid.Thebusinessjudgmentrule,codifiedasSection2405.1,isnotavailableto  Ajaxasadefensebecausethebusinessjudgmentruleappliestoclaimsthatacorporateofficer  breachedhisorherdutyofcaretothecorporation.Aclaiminvolvingthebusinessopportunity  doctrineinvolvesthedutyofloyalty,notcare.Katz,supra,at461. l   Alternately,Ajaxsactionscanbeevaluatedagainstthemorerigorousstandardsofthe D! commonlawdutiesofanagenttoitsprincipal.Theresultisthesame.Atcommonlaw,an 0"  agentowesafiduciarydutytoitsprincipal,Kingv._Bankerd_,303Md.98(1985),includingduties #l! ofloyalty,MarylandCreditFinanceCorp.v._Hagerty_,216Md.83(1958),andtodisclosetothe $X" principalmaterialinformation,UnsatisfiedClaimandJudgmentFundv._Fortney_,264Md.246 $D # (1972).Eachmemberowesafiduciarydutytothecompanyasawhole.Ajaxhasclearly %0!$ breachedbothdutiestothecompany. &"%   Inanyevent,anyactionagainstAjaxwouldbeaderivativeoneonbehalfofthecompany (#' asawhole.Carrwillhavetorequestthattheothermembersauthorizethefilingofanaction )$( againstAjaxunlessthedemandwouldclearlybefutile,whichisprobablythecasehere.SeeMd. |*%) Anno.CodeCorporationsandAssociationsArticle4A801etseq. h+&*  @-(, #XXXXM#33XMXXX    QUESTION11        AscounselforthehospitalIanticipatethatJoesestatewillbringcausesofactionagainst  theHospitalsoundingintortfornegligenceandstrictliability. t   Thetheoryofstrictliabilityprovidesthatonewhosellsaproductinadefectivecondition L  unreasonablydangeroustotheuserissubjecttoliabilityfortheresultingharmiftheselleris 8  engagedinthebusinessofsellingsuchaproductandtheproductreachestheuserinthe $ t conditioninwhichitwassold.ACandSInc.,v.Abate,121Md.App.590(1996)Thefacts  ` revealthatJones,Inc.wasinthebusinessofmakingandsellingvaccines,theonessoldtothe  L  HospitalweresealedbyJonesInc.,andtheyappearedtobediscolored(indiciaof  8  contamination).Joewasvaccinatedanddiedshortlythereafter.Whiletheestatemaybringthis $  actionagainstJonesInc.,itmayalsobringitagainsttheHospitalasthedistributorsofthe   vaccine.     TheestatecouldbringacauseofactionagainsttheHospitalandDr.Smithfor   negligence.Theestatemustprovethat:(1)theHospitalhadadutytoprotectJoefrominjury;(2) p theHospitalbreachedthatduty;(3)Joesufferedactualinjuryorloss;and(4)Joesinjurywasthe \ proximateresultoftheHospitalsbreach.TheHospitalhasadutytoitspatients/_invitees_.Dr. H Smithkneworshouldhaveknownsomethingwasamisswiththevaccine,yethechoseto 4 administerthevaccines.HisactionledtoJoesdemise.Hedidnotactasareasonable  p vaccinationcontrolofficershouldhave.Thehospitalisalsoliableunderthetheoryof  \ _respondeat_ԀsuperiorifDr.Smithstortuousconductoccurredwithinthescopeofhisemployment H (i.e.infurtheranceofthehospitalsbusinessandauthorizedbythehospital.)Larsenv. 4 _Chinwuba_,377Md.92(2002)ThistestisclearlymetunderthefactssincetheDoctorwasthe   vaccinationcontrolofficerandwasatworkinoculatingpatients.Thebestdefensemightbethat   thevaccinescameinprepackaged,sealedbottles,wereaccompaniedbyasignedcertificateof  freshnessandauthenticity,andweredeliveredtothehospitalbythemanufacturer.Itwas,  therefore,reasonableforDr.Smithtorelyonthiscertificationandthehospitalshouldbeableto  recoverfromJones,Inc.ifitissued. l   Finally,theestatecouldbringanactionagainsttheHospitalforitsnegligencethatledto D! thestampede.TheHospitalwasawareoftheproblemsthatcouldarisewhenitofferedvaccines, 0"  sinceithadexperiencedproblemsinthepast.Ithadadutytoactreasonablyandbreacheditby #l! hiringaninsufficientnumberofsecurityguardsandhavingnoplaninplacetolimitthenumber $X" inlineforthevaccine.Itwasforeseeablethatpushingandshoving,andinjury,wouldresult. $D #   TheHospitalsdefensewillcenteruponthelackofproofastowhatcausedJoesdeath &"% giventheinconclusiveautopsyresultsandthefactthatanegligiblenumberofvaccinerecipients '#& becameill.Thiswillnotbeabartorecovery,however,iftheestateshowsthatJoewaswell (#' priortothestampedeandinoculationanditbringsacomplaintpleadingbothcausesofaction. )$( #XXXXM#33   `     h      p   XMXXX   @-(, QUESTION12     _Trina_srecourseagainstMike:    _Trina_ԀcouldrequestthattheStatesAttorneyfilechargesagainstMikeforfirstdegree ` assaultforgrabbingherarmandthreateningher.Itwasan_unpermitted_Ԁintentionaltouchingand L  themenacingwordsspokenputherinfearofimminentharm. 8    _Trina_ԀcouldalsoasktheStatetofilechargesagainstMikeforfalseimprisonment.A  ` deprivationofherlibertyoccurredwhenheblockedheraccessfromtheelevatorandhehadno  L  legaljustificationfordoingso.  8    _Trina_ԀcouldalsorequestthattheStatefilechargesagainstMikeforsubornationofperjury   becausehepaidGenetomakefalsestatements.Mikecouldalsobechargedwithperjuryforhis   deliberateliesunderoath.     _Trina_ԀcouldalsosueMikecivillyforthetortsofassault,batteryandfalseimprisonment, p forthereasonsnotedabove. \   _Trina_ԀmaynotbeabletobringadefamationclaimforMikeandGenesstatementsin 4 courtbecausewitnessesgenerallyareimmunefromsuitforstatementsmadeduringtrial.  p Thecommentscaughtbythenewsstation,however,weredefamatory,repeatedlypublished,and  \ ledtotheimmediateconsequenceof_Trina_snotbeingallowedtodance.Asapublicfigure, H _Trina_ԀwouldhavetoshowthatMikeactedwithactualmaliceorintentionaldisregardforthe 4 truth..   _Trina_srecourseagainstthenewsstation:    _Trina_Ԁmaynotfairwellagainstthenewsstationforitsdecisiontopublishthefracas.  Generallyonewhoinvadestherightofprivacyofanotherissubjecttoliabilityfortheresulting l harmtotheinterestsoftheother.Therightofprivacyisinvadedbyanunreasonableintrusion X  upontheseclusionofanother;appropriationofanothersnameorlikeness;unreasonable D! publicitygivenanothersprivatelife;orunreasonablyplacinganotherinafalselightbeforethe 0"  public.Lawrencev.A.S._Abell_ԀCo.,299Md.697,701702(1984)Apublicargumentinvolving #l! afamousdancermayqualifyasanewsworthyevent,andnotanattempttoinvade_Trina_s $X" privacy. $D # Mikesrecourseagainst_Trina_: &"%   Mikemaynotbeabletobringanactionforslander/defamationagainst_Trina_.At (#' commonlawtheslandermustbecommunicatedandanyslanderarguablycommittedwasspoken )$( inHungariantopresumablyEnglishonlyspeakers.Ifacourtdisagrees,however,_Trina_Ԁmaybe |*%) liableforcallingMike syphiliticsinceaccusationsofloathsomediseaseareslanderousperse. h+&*  Thecommentsmadeby_Trina_ԀinEnglishwerearguablytrue,andanhonestexpressionofher T,'+ opinion,soMikeshouldnotbeabletofileaclaimagainstherforthesestatements.Montgomery  Wardv._Cliser_,267Md.406,n.1(1973).#XXXXM#313