WPC  M#~hadzX4\p|3ō;όQfQňbJD+x{?|/w{0)VɠgBӼ^ 'wWY& jؾwdiN1hX}>$,9N6~)g85T{a.t*VQ BFXnO-m/y=2A:#,UBN %; 0:AAUJ{^ w4 mU4UD>ENU*U@ 1u 72d  0V)  0VQ  00 0  0 0 0  0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0r 0a 0M 06 1e  1e 0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԳkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols9s *>8hared3|xU\  `Calisto MT\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(9 Z(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) )USUS.,  _  Page  1  ڀof  20  (.3$ !USUS.,   'USUS.,  _ @ JULY2008MARYLANDBAREXAMINATION  @(("BOARDSANALYSIS   (.3$ !USUS.,   6s z4heading 1  XXX?%2A`Arial?   XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS   6pz4Body Text  XXXI \  `Calisto MTIXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS   <cw:envelope ret  ?%2A`Arial?XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  <M+M :Outline001_1 \  5+ ` hp x 523  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 \ <G+M :Outline001_2 + Y /% 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 <J+M :Outline002_1  H 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline002_2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline002_3 j  ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline002_4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline002_5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline002_6 j  #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline002_7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline002_8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline002_9 j   x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j %&'()*+, 35;AGMSY_1A.1.i.1.a.i.1.a../012345 35;AGMSY_21.a.i.1.a.i.1.a. !USUS.,  _   QUESTION1 f @ X   Biffshouldconsiderthedefensesofinvoluntaryintoxication,voluntaryintoxication,andnot Z  criminallyresponsible. T   N  Intoxicationisacompletedefensewhenitwasinvoluntaryandsoexcessiveastotemporarily H  deprivethedefendantofhisreason.Voluntaryintoxicationmaybeadefenseifaspecificintentisan B essentialelementofanoffense,suchascommonlawburglaryandcommonlawlarceny,andthedefendant < wassointoxicatedastobementallyincapableofentertainingtherequisiteintent.Voluntaryintoxication 6 isnotadefensetoageneralintentcrime,suchas breakandenteradwellinghouse.Clark&Marshall, 0  ATreatiseontheLawofCrimes6.096.11(7thed.1967). *   $  Thedefenseofintoxicationmaybeavailableeveniftheintoxicationresultedfromuseofa   substanceotherthanalcohol.      Inacasewhereadefendantbecomesintoxicatedastheresultofwillfulingestionofasubstance,   anissuemaybewhethertheintoxicationisvoluntaryorinvoluntary.Inastatute voluntaryrequiresthat  anactbeintentionalandtheproductofafreewill.Willsv.Jones,340Md.480,677A.2d331(1995).  Apersonisconsideredtointendthenormalconsequencesofanactbythatperson.Thisraisesthe  questionofwhetherareasonablepersonwouldknowthatanabolicsteroidsmayproduceastateof  intoxication.    Biffingestedasubstanceandwas barelycoherentwhenthepolicearrived.Heassertsthathis | mind wentblank.Hismotiveforthetheftisneithertypicalnorapparent.Hemadenoattempttoconceal v thestolenarticles.ThefactsshouldbesufficienttogenerateanissueastowhetherBiffwastemporarily p deprivedofhisreason.Itmaybeinferredfromthesefacts,ifcombinedwithexperttestimonyastothe  j natureandcause(i.e.,steroids),thathewaseitherintoxicatedorlackedcriminalresponsibility,orboth. !d WhetherornotBiffwasawareofthelikelyeffectsofhisuseofsteroids,andeitherfreelyandvoluntarily "^ assumedtherisk,orwhetherheinadvertentlyandinvoluntarilybecameintoxicated,maydeterminewhether #X hisintoxication,ifany,wasvoluntaryorinvoluntary,andwhetherhecanraisethatdefensetoallcharges $R orjusttothechargesofthespecificintentcrimesofburglaryandlarceny. %L  &F Adefendantisnotcriminallyresponsibleforcriminalconductif,atthetimeofthatconduct,the '@  defendant,becauseofamentaldisorder,lackssubstantialcapacitytoeitherappreciatethecriminalityof (: ! thatconductorconformthatconducttotherequirementsoflaw.Md.Ann.Code,CriminalProcedure )4!" Article,3109.A mentaldisorderisabehavioraloremotionalillnessthatresultsfromapsychiatricor *."# neurologicaldisorder.Md.Ann.Code,HealthGeneralArticle,10101(f). +(#$ ЇItisgenerallyrecognizedthatamnesia,inandofitself,isnotadefensetoacriminalcharge.An f  amnesicepisodeisnotamentaldisorderifitisnotamental,behavioraloremotionalillness.Automatism `  (orunconsciousness)isthestateofapersonwho,thoughcapableofaction,isnotconsciousofwhathe Z  isdoing.Apersonwhoactsautomaticallydoessowithoutintent,exerciseoffreewill,orknowledgeof T  theact.Automatismisdistinguishedfrominsanity.Evansv.State,322Md.24,585A.2d204(1991). N   H  Biffsmentalconditionandaberrantbehavior,evenifcausedbytheuseofsteroids,mustbethe B productofa mentaldisorderinorderforBifftoassertacriminalresponsibilitydefense.Itissufficient < ifthe mentaldisorderarosefromtheintoxicant,althoughintoxicationofitselfisnotamentaldisorder. 6  *  Diminishedcapacityisnotadefensetocriminalculpability._Stebbing_Ԁv.State,299Md.331,473 $  A.2d903(1984),cert.den.,469U.S.900.      Inordertorelyonacriminalresponsibilitydefense,adefendantmustfileawrittenpleathatthe   defendantwasnotcriminallyresponsiblebyreasonofinsanity.Adefendantwhoiscompetentisentitled   todecidewhethertoraisethedefenseofcriminalresponsibility,andthedefendantsdecisionisgenerally  bindingonthedefendantsattorneyandthetrialjudge.Adefendantmustestablishthedefensebya  preponderanceoftheevidencethroughcompetentmedicaltestimony.Md.Ann.Code,Criminal  ProcedureArticle,3110;_Treece_Ԁv.State,313Md.665,547A.2d1054(1988).   X   +(#$ Ї@% QUESTION2  f  XTherearetwoissuespertainingtothecontractanditsnoncompetitionclause:1.isit Z  enforceableunderMaryland'sStatuteofFraudsand2.,assumingitisenforceable,aretherepublic T  policyreasonsmilitatingagainstenforcement? N   X  1.TheStatuteofFrauds B  XTheMarylandStatuteofFrauds,codifiedinpertinentpartinCourtsandJudicialProceedings 6 ArticleXXXX'#XvXXXe#Ԁ5901,provides: 0   X X XNoactionmaybebrought: $   X X X X(3)Uponanyagreementthatisnottobeperformedwithinthespaceofoneyearfrom   themakingthereof[.]    X X X XUnlessthe...agreement...orsomememorandum...isinwritingandsignedbythe  partytobecharged....   X X XAmultiyearobligation,suchasthecontractatissue,clearlyfallswithinthepurviewofXXXXv''#XvXXXQ#Ԁ3.  GeneralFed.Const.,Inc.v.JamesA._Federline_,Inc.,283Md.691,695,393A.2d188(1978).  SincethereisnocurrentcontractsignedbyCal,thecourtmust"looktofindwhetherthecontractis  enforceableunderequitabletheoriesofestoppelorpartperformance"Friedman&Fullerv. | _Funkhouser_,107Md.App91,100,666A.2d1298(1995)(disapproved,inpart,onother v grounds,_Pavel_Ԁv.A.S.Johnson,342Md.143,166,674A.2d521(1996).Severalargumentscan p bemadeonbehalfof_MPES_.  j  X XThedoctrineofpartperformanceispremiseduponthenotionthatitwouldbeunfairtoallowa "^ partytoescapehisperformanceofanoralagreementafterhehaspermittedtheplaintifftoperformin #X relianceonboththeagreementandthedefendant'sinducements. $R  X XCalsubmittedbonusstatementsto_MPES_,whichpaidthem.The"acceptanceofbonusmonies &F ...cannotbeconstruedasanythingotherthancompensationpursuanttotheemploymentagreement '@  [thatCal]nowseekstoavoid.[Cal]wasnototherwiseentitledtosuchpayments,and[_MPES_]would (: ! nothavepaidsameintheabsenceofwhatitperceivedtobealegallybindingcontract.Therecanbeno )4!" otherinterpretationofthefacts."Friedman&Fullerv._Funkhouser_,supra,at108109. *."#  X +(#$  XThetermsoftheoralcontractcanalsobeenforcedonthebasisofestoppel.Apartytoanoral f contractwillbe_estopped_Ԁfromdenyingits_enforceability_Ԁwhen: `   X X X1.therehasbeenaclearanddefinitepromise; T    2.wherethe_promisor_Ԁhasareasonableexpectationthattheofferwillinduceactionor H  forbearanceonthepartofthe_promisee_; B   X X X X3.whichdoesinduceactualandreasonableactionorforbearancebythe_promisee_;and 6  `     h     X X X X4.causesadetrimentwhichcanonlybeavoidedbytheenforcementofthepromise. $   X X_Pavel_Ԁv.A.S.Johnson,342Md.143,166,674A.2d521(1996).Here,thepresidentof_MPES_   statedthatCalwouldcontinuetoworkunderthestandardemploymentcontractandCalpromisedto   doso.Calwascompensatedaccordinglyand_MPES_Ԁhasreliedtoitsdetriment.       XThus_MPES_ԀhastwosoundargumentsthatCalisboundbythetermsofthecontract.Whether  acourtwillenforcethecontractisanotherissuehowever.   X  2.The_Enforceability_ԀoftheNonCompetitionClause.   XInMaryland,asinmostjurisdictions,thegeneralruleisthat: |  X X Xrestrictivecovenantsinacontractofemployment,bywhichanemployeeasapartof p hisagreementundertakesnottoengageinacompetingbusinessorvocationwiththatof  j hisemployeronleavingtheemployment,willbesustainedXXXXv>#XvXXX/-#iftherestraintisconfined !d withinlimitswhicharenowiderastoareaanddurationthanarereasonablynecessary "^ fortheprotectionofthebusinessoftheemployeranddonotimposeunduehardshipon #X theemployeeordisregardtheinterestsofthepublic.XXXXv=#XvXXX.# $R  X X_Ruhl_Ԁv.F.A.BartlettTreeExpertCo.,245Md.118,123124,225A.2d288(1967)(quoting &F _MacIntosh_Ԁv.BrunswickCorp.,241Md.at31,215A.2dat225(1965)). '@      XInthiscase,thenoncompetitionprovisionisforthreeyearsandhasageographicalextentof )4!" 250miles.Itextendsto"anyentity",notsimply_MPES_'scompetitorsorexistingclients.Thenon *."# competitionclause,ifenforcedliterally,wouldbarCalfromprovidingcivilengineeringservicesto +(#$ federal,stateandlocalgovernmentsaswell.Inlightofthesefactors,thenoncompetitionclausecanbe f viewedasimposinganundueburdenuponCalanddisregardingtheinterestsofthepublicbydepriving `  itofCal'sservices.Underthesecircumstances,intheexerciseofitsequitablepowers,acourtmight Z  eitherdeclinetoenforcetheclauseinitsentiretyortomodifytheclause,aprocesssometimesreferred T  toas"bluepenciling."Hollowayv._Faw_,_Casson_Ԁ&Co.,319Md.324,352,572A.2d510(1990). N   H     B  <  6  0   *   $        XXvXXXv     QUESTION3 f  5 `   Z   A. ` AblesChallenge T   N   0 ` AbleisdirectlyaffectedbytheBoardsactionsandthereforehasstandingtochallenge H  herterminations.B` (#` (#    <    ` Ablemaynotbesuccessfulinchallengingherterminationaspastorbecausethe 6 ChurchsdecisionmaynotbesubjecttogovernmentreviewpertheFirstAmendment( Ininterpreting 0  theFirstAmendmentfreedomofreligionprovision,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtnotedthat *  religiousorganizationsrequiredanindependencefromsecularcontrolormanipulation!inshort, $  powertodecideforthemselves,freefromstateinterference,mattersofchurchgovernmentaswellas   thoseoffaithanddoctrine._Kedroff_Ԁv.St.NicholasCathedral,344U.S.94,116,73S.Ct.143   (1952)....TheFirstAmendmentprovidesreligiousinstitutionswithsignificantfreedomswithregard   tomattersconcerningtheologicalcontroversy,churchdiscipline,ecclesiasticalgovernment,orthe   conformityofthemembersofthechurchtostandardofmoralsrequiredofthem[Citationsomitted]  Bournev.CenteronChildren,Inc.,154Md.App.42,5253(2003)).Thus,courtsgenerallydonot  getinvolvedinemploymentcontroversiesconcerningemployees whoareinvolvedinthereligious  activitiesoftheorganization,Bourne,at54.TheBoardwillsuccessfullyarguethataPastoris  involvedinthereligiousactivitiesofthechurchandthematterisnotsubjecttofurthercourtreview.         ` Ifthepositionissecularinnature(nonreligious),however,theCourtmayexaminethe | dutiesperformedandallowtheemployeetopursuehis/herclaimsagainstthereligiousgroup.See, v ArchdioceseofWashingtonv._Moerson_Ԁ,399Md.637(2007)PerhapsAblecouldsuccessfully p arguethatrunningthedaycareisasecularposition,especiallysinceitisopentochildrenwhoseparents  j arenotmembersoftheChurch,andtheChurchhadnolegalbasestoterminateher. !d    "^  #X   B.SethsChallenge: $R #  XvXXXvX]XXXv X$XXX]  #@   ` #@9A݌̌ X$XX X$XvXX X$XvXXXv    #XvXXXv|5#XvXXXv ` In_Flast_Ԁv.Cohen,392U.S.83(1968)(recentlylimitedinapplicationby_Hein_Ԁv. &: FreedomfromReligionFound,Inc.,127S.Ct.2553(2007))theSupremeCourtopinedthata '4  taxpayermayhavestandingtochallengecongressionalspendingongroundsthatitviolatesthe (. ! EstablishmentClause.Marylandalsograntstaxpayersstandingtochallengelegislation.Accordingly, )(!" SethwillhavestandingtochallengetheCountyslaw. *""#  +#$ TheFirstAmendmentmadeapplicabletotheStatesviatheFourteenthAmendment,prohibits f theenactmentofalaw respectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof. `  AsnotedbytheSupremeCourtinLarkinv._Grendel_sDen,Inc.,459U.S.116,122(1982), [_t]he_ Z  purposesoftheFirstAmendmentguaranteerelatingtoreligionweretwofold:toforeclosestate T  interferencewiththepracticeofreligiousacts,andtoforeclosetheestablishmentofastatereligion.... N     H     ` InLemonv._Kurtzman_,403U.S.602,91S.,Ct.2105,2111(1971)theSupreme B Courtarticulateda3prongtesttodeterminewhethertheEstablishmentClausehasbeeninfringed: <  X 6 Everyanalysisinthisareamustbeginwithconsiderationofthecumulativecriteria 0  developedbytheCourtovermanyyears.Threesuchtestsmaybegleanedfromourcases. *  First,thestatutemusthaveasecularlegislativepurpose;second,itsprincipalorprimaryeffect $  mustbeonethatneitheradvancesnorinhibitsreligion8;finally,thestatutemustnotfosteran   excessivegovernmententanglementwithreligion.       X ` Sethmaysuccessfullyarguethatthelawis_violative_ԀoftheEstablishmentClause   becauseitpromotesenrollmentinthechurchsponsoreddaycareandhasnosecularlegislative  purpose.      Finally,SethmaychallengethelawasaviolationoftheEqualProtectionClauseofthe  FourteenthAmendment.TheEqualProtectionClauserequiresashowingthatthelawadvancesa  legitimatepurposeanddoesnotunreasonablydiscriminate.Daycareownershipisnotafundamental  right;however,evenunderthemorelenientrationalbasisanalysisacourtshouldinvalidatetheCountys | law. v  p #XvXXXvB#  j  !d  "^  #X  $R  %L  &F  '@   (: !  )4!"  *."#  +(#$ @% QUESTION4  f XvXXXv `  #XvXXXvݟO#XvXXXv ` (A) CommercialLawArticle,section1201(37)(b)statesthatanagreementto Z  paythelicensefeesandtaxes,keeptheequipmentingoodrepair,theassumptionoftheentireriskof T  lossoftheequipment,andtheoptiontobecometheownerofthehardwareandsoftware,allofwhich N  werepartofJasper#XvXXXvO#XvXXXvԀ#XvXXXvݻQ#stransaction,donotcreateasecurityinterest.However,onthegivenfacts,the H  transactiondidcreateasecurityinterestinthehardwareandsoftwareinfavorofPoindexterasthe B considerationJasperwastopayPoindexterfortherighttopossessionanduseofthehardwareand < softwarewasanobligationforthetermoftheleasenotsubjecttoterminationbyJasperandtheoriginal 6 leasetermwasequaltotheremainingeconomiclifeofthehardwareandsoftware.CommercialLaw 0  Article,section1201(37)(a).Onthegivenfacts,Jasperagreedtopay$90,000overtheagreement *  periodfortherighttopossessionanduseofthehardwareandsoftware.Thegivenfactsdonotstateor $  suggestanyterminationrightofJasper.Theoriginaltermoftheagreementwas3yearsandthe   remainingeconomiclifeofthehardwareandsoftwarewasprojectedbythepartiestobe3years.   XvXXXv   #XvXXXvGV#  XvXXXv ` (B) Underthegivenfacts,thenoticewassentafterdefaultandmorethen10days   beforetheearliesttimeoftheprivatesale.CommercialLawArticle,section9612(b).However,itstated  thatifthehardwarewasnotredeemedwithin15daysofdeliveryofthenoticethatthehardwarewouldbe  soldataprivatesale.    Thiswasamisstatementofthetimeastheprivatesaleactuallyoccurredseveralmonthslater.  CommercialLawArticle,section9623(c)(2)providesthataredemptionmayoccuratanytimebefore  Poindexterdisposedofthehardware.Jasperactuallyhaduntiltheprivatesaleoccurredseveralmonths | laterbutwasnotnotifiedofthattime.Thenoticegivenwasnotreasonablenotificationbecauseitwasless v favorabletoJasperthanitwasinlaw.#XvXXXvݪV#XvXXXvFirstNationalBankofMarylandv._DiDememico_#XvXXXvZ#XvXXXv,302Md.290, p 295,487A.2d646(1985).  j  `  ` (C) Poindexterwillnotprevail._Poindexter#XvXXXv^[#s_Ԁnoticelimitedtheredemptiontoa15day "^ periodandtheprivatesaledidnotoccuruntilseveralmonthsafterthenotice.Reasonablenoticeisa #X conditiontoadeficiencyjudgment.Thisdefectivenoticepreventsthedeficiencyjudgment.XvXXXvFirstNational $R BankofMarylandv._DiDememico_#XvXXXv݊]#XvXXXv,302Md.290,297,487A.2d646(1985);#XvXXXv3^#XvXXXvMarylandNational %L Bankv._Wathen_#XvXXXvݤ^#XvXXXv,288Md.119,414A.2d1261(1980);#XvXXXv@_#XvXXXvsee#XvXXXvݫ_#XvXXXvԀCommercialLawArticle,section9623(c) &F (2). '@  #XvXXXv_#  XvXXXv (: ! #XvXXXvݛ`#XvXXXv )4!"    *."#  +(#$ Ї__@% QUESTION5  f  `   ` Anactionfortortiousinterferencewithcontractualrelationsisapplicabletoprofessional Z  servicecontractsbetweenattorneysandclients.Anattorneyhasalegitimateinterestinacontingentfee T  contract. N     H   ` Ifactingingoodfaith,aclientmaysettlehisclaimdirectlywiththedefendantorthe B insurancecarrierwithouthisattorneysknowledgeorconsent. <  6  ` Aninsurerhasarightanddutytoenterintogoodfaithnegotiationswherereasonableand 0  feasibletosettleaclaim.Thisrightdoesnotincludeinterferencewithalawyerslegitimateinterestina *  contingentfeecontractbyimproperlyengaginginconductcalculatedtoinduceorpersuadetheclientto $  dischargethelawyerandsettlehisclaimdirectlywiththeinsurer.       ` Tobeactionable,theconductoftheinsurer(ABC)neednotbeegregiousbutonly   intentionalfortheimproperpurposeofinducingtheclienttosettledirectlywiththeinsurer.      ` Anypurposefulconduct,howeversubtle,bywhichaninsurerimproperlyandintentionally  inducesorpersuadesaclaimanttorepudiatehiscontingentfeecontractandsettledirectlywiththeinsurer,  isactionable.     ` Thereisnotechnicalrequirementastothekindofconductthatmayresultininterference  withthethirdpartysperformanceofthecontract.Theinterferenceisoftenbyinducementwhichmaybe | anyconductconveyingtheothersdesiretoinfluencetheclientnottodealthroughhisattorney.Itmaybe v astatementunaccompaniedbyanyspecificrequest. p   j  ` WhileonemightsuspectthatAndyscalltoPaulinquiringabouthishealthwasasubtle !d efforttoinducePaultoconsiderdealingdirectlywithABCwithoutSmithsinvolvement,thisconductfalls "^ shortofthatrequiredtoestablishaprimafaciecaseoftortiousinterferencewiththeContract. #X    $R  %L  &F  '@   (: !  )4!"  *."#  +(#$ _ ____@%QUESTION6 f   `   7%&'()*+,-(03  "%" \X     %Dm2  A  .3      TheCitation    %Dmm݌ Z  Ќ ?+ ` hp x X? X\   T   ` TheCourtshouldsustaintheobjectionbyDavidsattorney.Evidenceofissuanceofa N  trafficcitationhastheeffectofinferentiallyestablishingthepoliceofficersopinionofguiltanditsprejudicial H  effectoutweighsitsprobativevalueinacivilactionarisingoutofanaccidentthatresultedinthecitation B beingissued. <  6 &  "%" \X ?+ ` hp x X?  %p2  B  .3      TheFine%p"q݌ 0  Ќ ! XX! X\  <?+ ` hp x X?'0p *   9./0123456(007%&'()*+,-/ / <B+ ` hp x XB"." X H<( ` hp x X<  .vs2  1  .3      Thesubmissionofpaymentsinsatisfactionofatrafficfineisnottheevidentiaryequivalentofa $  guiltypleainopencourt.AdmissionofevidencethatDavidpaidafinenaturallyincludes   evidencethathewasissuedatrafficcitation..vss݌   Ќ H! X` X! X  ?+ ` hp x X?    B+ ` hp x XB"." X H<( ` hp x X<  .v2  2  .3      Paymentofatrafficfineisneitheraguiltypleanoranexpressacknowledgmentofguilt;itisat   mostaconsenttoconviction,closelyanalogoustoapleaof    nolocontendere    ..vw݌  Ќ H! X` X! X  ?+ ` hp x X?   ` Itiscommonexperiencethatpeoplepleadguiltytotrafficchargesforreasonofexpediency  eventhoughtheymaybelievethemselvesinnocent.Thecostofdefensecomparedtotheinconvenience  aswellasindirecteconomiclossesofcourtappearancesarepracticalmotivationsforpayingtrafficfines.     ` ThecourtshoulddenyDavidsmotionforjudgment.EvidencethatPaulaviolatedarule | oftheroadbywalkingonthewrongsideofthehighway,evenifitisaproximatecauseofinjury,doesnot v constitutenegligence    perse    Ԁbutismerely    primafacie    Ԁevidenceofnegligenceandisrebuttable. p   j  ` Wherereasonablemindscandifferonboththequestionofwhether,underallthe !d circumstancestheinjuredpartywasexercisingordinarycareinwalkingalongthewrongsideofthehighway "^ withherbacktooncomingtrafficandwithoutlookingbehindher,andwhetherhernegligence,ifany,was #X aproximatecauseofherinjury,thequestionshouldbesubmittedtothejury. $R  %L $  XXv     # `# $~  $~݌ &F ЌX) X X) X XX)XvX XX)XvXXXv    t'    <(!  6) "   0*!# _ *+"$ Ї#XvXXXvi#  QUESTION7  f ! V' x X'XvXXXv `   X#XvXXXvݗ# VB+ ` hp x XBXvXXXvInreviewingthefactsofthecomplaint,IwouldrecommendproceedingagainstJohnandSeymour, Z  asfollows: T   #XvXXXvL#XvXXXv #XvXXXv0# H<( ` hp x X<XvXXXv1.  Seymour,inhiscapacityasthesupervisinglawyer,hasresponsibilityforJohn'sviolationofthe H  MarylandLawyer'sRulesofProfessionalConduct("Rules")ifitcanbeprovedthatheknew B oftheviolationandratifiedtheconduct.Rules5.2and5.5.SeymourknewthatJohnwas < directedtohandlethepreparationofSamandLisa'spropertysettlementagreement.Itwas 6 Seymour'sfailuretosuperviseJohnthatcausedJohnandSeymourtoviolateRule1.7regarding 0  conflictsofinterestandRule5.5regardingtheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.BecauseJohnis *  notcurrentlyamemberoftheMarylandbar,hecantemporarilypracticelawinMarylandonly $  ifSeymouractivelyparticipatesinthematter.    #XvXXXv˃#  HB+ ` hp x ` XBXvXXXv #XvXXXv# H  <( ` hp x X<XvXXXv2.  InjointlyrepresentingSamandLisa,SeymourandJohnhaveadirectconflictofinterestunder   Rule1.7(a).Marylandlawprovidesthatthisconflictofinterestisnot_waiveable_Ԁbyinformed   consent.JohnandSeymourshouldnothaveundertakentorepresentbothhusbandandwifein  adomesticrelationsmatter,andtheyshouldhavewithdrawnfromtherepresentationwhen  requestedtodosobyDavid,Lisa'slawyer.See,#XvXXXv݊#XvXXXvHalev.Hale#XvXXXv#XvXXXv,74Md.App.555,539A.2d  247(1988).   #XvXXXvD#  HB+ ` hp x ` XBXvXXXv #XvXXXv@# H  <( ` hp x X<XvXXXv3.  Theadvancepaymentoffeesintheamountof$5,000shouldhavebeendepositedintoan  escrowaccountinaccordancewithRule1.15andtheRulesontheAttorneyTrustAccounts | containedinTitle16,Chapter600oftheMarylandRulesofProcedure.Thefeeshouldnotbe v withdrawnorotherwiseusedorpledgedbyJohn,Seymourandthefirmuntilitisearned.Rules p 1.5,1.15,and#XvXXXv#XvXXXvAttorneyGrievanceCommissionv.Lawson,#XvXXXv#XvXXXv401#XvXXXvu#XvXXXvԀ#XvXXXvݽ#XvXXXvMd.536,933A.2d842  j (2007).Uponterminationofrepresentation,theunearnedfeesmustbereturnedtotheclient. !d Rule1.16(d) "^  #XvXXXv#  HB+ ` hp x ` XBXvXXXv #XvXXXvn#   <(4 4` hp x X<XvXXXv4. 4 JohnandSeymourshouldbedisciplinedforviolationofRule1.5(d)(1)becauseacontingency $R feewaschargedonthevalueofassetsthatJohnobtainedforSaminthenegotiationofthe %L propertysettlementagreement. &F #XvXXXv#XvXXXv '@  5. 4 DependinguponJohnsexperience,skillsandthedifficultyofthenegotiationsandotherrelated (: ! services,thehourlyrateof$500maybeexcessiveandunreasonable. )4!"  #XvXXXv{#XvXXXvԀRule1.5(a) *."#  #XvXXXv”#  B+ ` hp x 44` XBXvXXXv +(#$  #XvXXXvݐ# H  <( ` hp x X<6.  JohnandSeymourhadadutytotakereasonablemeasurestoavoidthedisclosureof f confidentialinformationreceivedfromSamandimbeddedintheelectronicformoftheinitial `  draft.DavidisnotprohibitedbytheRulesfromusingtheinformationrevealedtohimintheinitial Z  draftofthepropertysettlementagreement.SeeRules1.6and4.4,aswellasEthicsDocket T  No.200709,CommitteeonEthics,MarylandStateBarAssociation,regardingtheuseof N  metadata.X) XXXv H      #XvX XX)#    B  $                             |  v  p  j  d  ^  X   R  !L  "F  #@  $:  %4  &.  '(   (" !   )!" QUESTION8  f  `    Daughter,MotherandDadhaveatleastarguablyovercompensatedthemselvesfortheir Z  servicestotheCorporationandfailedtocontinuetomakedividendsastheCorporation T  agreedwhenSonresignedfromtheBoard.Sonseeksredressforbothoftheseperceived N  injuries.ThefactsindicatethatSon,eitheronhisownbehalforonbehalfofthe H  Corporation,mayhavearemedytoaddresseachissue. B  <  XInMaryland,"[_t]he_Ԁbusinessandaffairsofacorporationshallbemanagedunderthe 6 directionofaboardofdirectors."MarylandAnnotatedCode,Corporationsand 0  AssociationsArticle("CorporationsArticle")XXXXv'#XvXXX#Ԁ2-401(a).Marylandhascodifiedthe *  standardofcarefordirectors:  $   X XH XAdirectorshallperformhisdutiesasadirector...    X X(1)Ingoodfaith;     (2)Inamannerhereasonablybelievestobeinthebestinterestsofthe   corporation;and  (3)Withthecarethatanordinarilyprudentpersoninalikeposition  woulduseundersimilarcircumstances.    **** ` (e)Anactofadirectorofacorporationispresumedtosatisfythe  standardsofsubsection(a)ofthissection.     CorporationsArticleSection2405.1. |     XInaddition,Marylandcommonlaw: p  X X Xrecognizesthatminorityshareholdersareentitledtoprotectionagainstfraudulentor !d illegalactionofthemajority.Especiallyincloselyheldcorporations,themajority "^ shareholderowesafiduciarydutytotheminorityshareholder(orshareholders)'notto #X exercise[their]controltothedisadvantageofminoritystockholders.'Lernerv.Lerner $R Corp.,132Md.App.32,53,750A.2d709(2000).Amajorityshareholderowesa %L fiduciarydutytominorityshareholdersnottousehisvotingpowerforhisownbenefit &F orforapurposeadversetotheinterestsofthecorporationanditsstockholders. '@  CooperativeMilkServ.v._Hepner_,198Md.104,114,81A.2d219(1951). (: !  X XMonav.MonaElec.Group,Inc.,176Md.App.672,697(2007). *."#    +(#$     A.Son'sPossibleRemedies f   (1)Son'sDirectActionForDividends Z   XSonhasadirectclaimagainsttheCorporationanditsdirectorsforitsfailuretodeclarea N  dividendforthreeconsecutiveyears. H   X X XAshareholdermaybringadirectactionagainstthecorporation,itsofficers,directors, < andothershareholderstoenforcearightthatispersonaltohim.Tomaintainadirect 6 action,theshareholdermustallegethathehassuffered"aninjurythatisseparateand 0  distinctfromanyinjurysufferedeitherdirectlybythecorporationorderivativelybythe *  stockholderbecauseoftheinjurytothecorporation."Hanks,supra,at271(footnote $  omitted).Anydamagesrecoveredbytheshareholderinthedirectactiongotothe   shareholderhimself.    X XMonav.MonaElec.Group,Inc.,176Md.App.,supra.    XWhentheSonresignedfromtheBoardin2005,theCorporationandtheremainingdirectors  agreedtocontinueitscurrentdividendpractices.Thefailuretodeclaredividendsdoesnotinjurethe  Corporation;theharm,ifany,issufferedbytheindividualshareholders.Thus,Sonhasaclaimforhis  proratashareofdividends.However,sincetheagreementoftheCorporationwastocontinue  dividends"aspermittedbybusinessconditions",thedefendantsmayhavethesubstantialbenefits  conferredbyMaryland'sbusinessjudgmentrule. |  X  (2)Son'sRightsToFileADerivativeAction. p  XThefactssupportthecontentionthatthecompensationpaidtotheofficerswasexcessiveand !d thatDadwaspaidforconsultingservicesthathedidnotperform.Totheextentthatexcessive "^ compensationwaspaid,theofficers(asrecipients)andthedirectors(asauthorizingpayments)would #X beliabletotheCorporation.InordertoassertthisrightonbehalfoftheCorporation,Sonmustfilea $R derivativeaction. %L  X X XAderivativeactionis"anextraordinaryequitabledevicetoenableshareholdersto '@  enforceacorporaterightthatthecorporationfailedtoassertonitsownbehalf.Any (: ! recoveryinashareholder'sderivativesuitisinfavorofthecorporation,notthe )4!" individualshareholder(orshareholders)whobroughtthederivativeaction.Before *."# bringingaderivativesuitinMaryland...,theshareholdermusteithermakeademand +(#$ ontheboardofdirectorsthatthecorporationbringthesuit,orshowthatdemandis f excusedasfutile. `   X XMonav.MonaElec.Group,Inc.,,supraat698(citationsomitted). T        (3)Dissolution. H   XInadditiontohisotherremedies,asashareholder,SoncanpetitiontheCircuitCourtto < dissolvetheCorporationifhecanprovethat"thoseincontrolofthecorporation"haveactedinan 6 illegal,fraudulentoroppressivemanner."CorporationsArticle3413(b)(2).IfSoncandemonstrate 0  thattheactionsofthedirectorsandofficerswasintendedtobenefitthemselvesinfurtheranceoftheir *  personalinterestsinsteadofthecorporation,anactionfordissolutionisappropriate._Birnbaum_Ԁv. $  SL&BOpticalCenters,Inc.,905F.Supp.267(D.Md.,1995).    X X p B.Defenses    X XTheprimarydefenseavailabletothedirectorsisthebusinessjudgmentrule.   X XAsindicatedabove,thereisastatutorypresumptionthatcorporatedirectorsperformtheir  dutiesingoodfaith,inamannerreasonablybelievedtobeinthebestinterestsofthecorporation;and  withthecarethatanordinarilyprudentpersonwoulduseundersimilarcircumstances.Corporations  Article2405.1.Maryland'sversionofthebusinessjudgmentruleisfocusedupon"themanner...by  whichadirectormakesdecisionsratherthantheresultsofthedecision."D.Hanks,supraat167.In | ordertobesuccessful,Sonmustpresentevidencetoovercomethepresumptionthatthedirectors v actedreasonablyandinthebestinterestsofthecorporation.Benderv.Schwartz,172Md.App.648, p 667,917A.2d142(2007).  j  X XThefactsindicatethatMother,DaughterandDadvotedtoincreasesubstantiallythe "^ compensationtotheofficersandtopayDad$500,000peryearfornonexistentconsultingservices.At #X thesametime,theydeclinedtodeclareadividendbecauseof"adversebusinessconditions."Thereis $R noevidencethatthecompensationarrangementswerereviewedbyanyindependentparty.Thus,Son %L has_colorable_Ԁargumentsthathissisterandhisparentsbreachedtheirdutyofcarewithregardtothe &F settingofcompensation.Thesameanalysisobtainsforaclaimfordividends. '@   X XThecompensationarrangementsforSister,MotherandDadwereconsideredandapprovedas )4!" apackageforallthreedirectorsatthesametimeandthusconstitutedan"interesteddirectortransaction *."# aseachdirectordirectlybenefittedfromtheboard'saction.CorporationsArticleSection4119sets +(#$ out"safeharbor"proceduresforboardstofollowinconsideringinteresteddirectortransactions.The f directorsdidnotavailthemselvesofanyoftheseprocedures.Itsfailuretodosowasneitheragrounds `  forliability,D.Hanks,supra,220.29,norabasistosetasidethepresumptionthattheBoard'saction Z  wasinthebestinterestofthecorporation,Section4119(d);Sullivanv._Easco_ԀCorp.,656F.Supp. T  531,535(D.Md.,1987). N   p However,approvalbynoninteresteddirectorswouldhavebeenveryhelpfultotheSister, B MotherandDad.Cf.Monav.MonaElec.Group,Inc.,,supraat704(approvalofcompensation < bydirectorswhowere"friends,relatives,employeesandprofessionalswithwhom[thedominant 6 shareholder]hadarelationship"issufficienttoestablishgoodfaith.) 0   *   $                           |   XvXXXv   v  QUESTION9  f    `   a.MayAlappealthecourtorderand/orreducetheamountrequiredintheChild Z  SupportGuidelinesbytheamounthepaysmonthlytohispensionplanandhisbusiness T  expenses,whichwerenotbroughttotheattentionofthelowercourt? N    H  Sincetheprotectiveordermaybeconsideredinanydivorceproceedingfiled, B _Katsenelenbogen_Ԁv._Katsenelenbogen_,135Md.App.317(2000),itisessentialthatAlappealthe < protectiveordererroneouslygrantedunderthefacts.TheDistrictCourtsprotectiveordermaybe 6 appealedtotheCircuitCourtofMarylandpursuanttoSection4507ofMarylandFamilyLawCode 0  Annotatedonthefollowinggrounds: *   $   X  A.Therewasinsufficientgroundstoawardthe6monthsprotectiveorderagainstAl.Therewas   noevidencethathewasviolentand,infact,Pegadmittedhehadneverbeenviolent.Merefiringofthe   nannyandleaving becausethiscouldgetuglyisinsufficient.Therefore,itisimportanttoappealthe   protectiveorderandhaveitrescinded.    X   X  B.AlthoughtheDistrictCourtcouldawardtemporarycustodyoftheminorchildrentoPeg  pursuanttoSection4506(d)oftheMarylandFamilyLawCodeAnnotated,itdidnothavejurisdiction  tograntpermanentcustodyofthechildrenintheprotectiveorder,andtheordershouldalsobe  rescindedonthisground.See,_Coburn_Ԁv._Coburn_,342Md.244(1996)   X   X  C.WhileSection12201(b)(2)(theChildSupportGuidelines)ofMarylandFamilyLawCode | Annotatedallowsthedeductionoftheordinaryandnecessaryexpensesrequiredtoproduceincome v fromtheincomecalculations,voluntarycontributionstoapensionplanarenotconsideredanecessary p businessexpense.Cohen_v.Cohen_,162Md.App.599(2005).Althoughthecourtcanonlyrevisit  j thesemattersupona materialchangeincircumstances,thebusinessexpensescanbefactoredintothe !d calculationsonappeal,asthecasewillbehearddenovoinCircuitCourt.(MarylandFamilyLawCode "^ Annotated,(Sec.4507(b)) #X   $R  &      b.IsthereanywaytochallengethedivorceproceedingsfiledbyPeg?  f   Section7103(a)ofMarylandFamilyLawCodeAnnotatedliststhegroundsforabsolutedivorce: Z    X <%4 4 <DL` X<Ӂ(a)Groundsforabsolutedivorce.Thecourtmaydecreeanabsolute N  divorceonthefollowinggrounds: H  Ё `  (1)adultery; < Ё `  (2)desertion,if:' f 0  Ё ` (_i_)thedesertionhascontinuedfor12monthswithoutinterruptionbeforethe $  filingoftheapplicationfordivorce;   Ё ` 0 0 : : (ii)thedesertionisdeliberateandfinal;and   Ё : :   ` 0 0 : : (iii)thereisnoreasonableexpectationofreconciliation;  Ё : :   `  (3)voluntaryseparation,if:  Ё ` (_i_)thepartiesvoluntarilyhavelivedseparateandapart  withoutcohabitationfor12monthswithoutinterruptionbeforethefilingofthe  applicationfordivorce;and | Ё ` 0 0 : : 4(ii)thereisnoreasonableexpectationofreconciliation; p Ё : :   `  (4)convictionofafelonyormisdemeanorinanystateorinany !d courtoftheUnitedStatesifbeforethefilingoftheapplicationfordivorcethe "^ defendanthas #X  `    (_i_)beensentencedtoserveatleast3yearsoran $R indeterminatesentenceinapenalinstitution;and %L Ё ` 0 0 : : (ii)served12monthsofthesentence; '@  Ё : :   `  &  (5)2yearseparation,whenthepartieshavelivedseparateandapart )4!" withoutcohabitationfor2yearswithoutinterruptionbeforethefilingoftheapplication *."# fordivorce;') +(#$ Ё `  (6)insanityif: `  Ё ` (_i_)theinsanespousehasbeenconfinedinamentalinstitution, T  hospital,orothersimilarinstitutionforatleast3yearsbeforethefilingofthe N  applicationfordivorce; H  Ё ` (ii)thecourtdeterminesfromthetestimonyofatleast2 < physicianswhoarecompetentinpsychiatrythattheinsanityisincurableandthereis 6 nohopeofrecovery;and 0  Ё(iii)1ofthepartieshasbeenaresidentofthisStateforatleast2yearsbeforethe $  filingoftheapplicationfordivorce;   Ё `  (7)crueltyoftreatmenttowardthecomplainingpartyoraminorchild   ofthecomplainingparty,ifthereisnoreasonableexpectationofreconciliation;or   Ё `  (8)excessivelyviciousconducttowardthecomplainingpartyora  minorchildofthecomplainingparty,ifthereisnoreasonableexpectationof  reconciliation.   X <( 4 <DL44X<  Basedonthefacts,theonlygroundsPegcouldremotelyallegearethoselistedin  subparagraphs7and8!crueltyorexcessivelyviciousconduct. |     Thereareinsufficientfactstosupporteitheroftheseprovisions.Merefiringofthenannydoesnot p constitutecrueltyoftreatmentorexcessivelyviciousconduct.Atmost,PegcanallegethatAltreated  j herinahorriblemanner.However,anyactionbyAlthatrendersthemarriage intolerableisnot !d sufficientjustificationforadivorceonthegroundsofcruelty._Ricketts_Ԁv._Ricketts_,393Md.479 "^ (2006)Accordingly,Pegmaynotbeabletoshowcrueltyorexcessiveviciousconductandwillhaveto #X waituntiltherequisitetimeperiodsforvoluntary(12months)orinvoluntary(24months)separationto $R occurbeforethetwocanbedivorced. %L #XvXXXv#   `     h      )4!" QUESTION10  f  XvXXXv#XvXXXv# 7%&'()*+,-(009./0123456"%"  9%` ` hp x X9  %2  a  .3   `   Equitabletitlepassed,underthedoctrineofequitableconversion,toHusbandandWife Z  atcontractsigning.Therefore,thejudgmentliendoesnotaffecttitle.(See_Coe_Ԁv.Hays T  328Md.350,614A.2d576(1992))%<݌ N  Ќ  X` ` X   XvXXXv#XvXXXv,#XvXXXv"%"  9%` ` hp x X9  %2  b  .3   `   #XvXXXvo#XvXXXvDeedoftrustconstitutesalienwhichencumbersthetitleanditmustbepaidpriortoor B fromproceedsofsaleifsufficienttosatisfythelien;otherwiseA,BandCmustprovide < additionalfundstosatisfythelien.%݌ 6 Ќ  X` ` X   #XvXXXvݍ#?+ ` hp x X?XvXXXv#XvXXXv݄#XvXXXv"%"  9%` ` hp x X9  x%2  c  .3   `   #XvXXXv#XvXXXvThelawsuitisforthepaymentofpersonaltytobeusedon_Blackacre_,anditdoesnot *  affecttitleto_Blackacre_Ԁasitisnot#XvXXXv#XvXXXvalispendens#XvXXXv #XvXXXvaction.Also,itwasnotreducedto $  judgmentpriortotheexecutionofthecontract.%v݌   Ќ  X` ` X   #XvXXXv\#?+ ` hp x X?XvXXXv#XvXXXvݸ#XvXXXv"%"  9%` ` hp x X9  %2  d  .3   `   #XvXXXv#XvXXXvTheSurvey:%݌   Ќ  X` ` X   #XvXXXv# x?+ ` hp x X?XvXXXv#XvXXXv&#XvXXXv"&"  9% hp x X9  &2  1  .3     #XvXXXvi#XvXXXvTheunpaveddrivewaymayconstituteaneasementthatmayaffecttitleandwould  affecttheuseof_Blackacre_ԀbyHusbandandWife.Additionalfactualinquirywouldbe  requiredtodeterminethenatureandextentoftheeasementandwhetheritis  acceptableto_Husband_ԀandWife.Theeasementisnotanexpresseasementbecause  itwasneitherrecordednorrevealedinthetitlesearch.& ݌  Ќ ! X  X!   #XvXXXv݇#?+ ` hp x X?XvXXXv#XvXXXv݋#XvXXXv"&"  9% hp x X9  &2  2  .3     #XvXXXv#XvXXXvTheshedareadoesnotaffectthetitleto_Blackacre_.However,A,BandC(aswellas | HusbandandWifeasfacilitatedbytacking)mayhavetherighttofilesuitforadverse v possessionfortheshedareaprovidedtheownersof_Whiteacre_Ԁdidnotgivetheir p consentfortheshedtobeconstructedorinstalledacrossthepropertylineandthe  j otherrequirementsarefulfilled.&o݌ !d Ќ ! X  X!   #XvXXXv#?+ ` hp x X?XvXXXv#XvXXXv#XvXXXv"&"  9% hp x X9  &J2  3  .3     #XvXXXv+#XvXXXvHusbandandWifeareonnoticethatthereisatenantinpossessionofaportionof #X _Blackacre_ԀsoHusbandandWifemayberequiredtotaketitlesubjecttotherightsof $R thetenantinpossession,whichwouldincludetheharvestofthecorn.RealProp.Art. %L 2115(ImpliedWarrantyofQuietEnjoyment)and3101(b)(Purchasertakeswith &F noticeofvalidlease).Leasesforatermoflessthansevenyearsdonotrequire '@  recordingunderRealProp.Art.3101.&J݌ (: ! Ќ ! X  X!   #XvXXXvI#