WPC0U d:I@a7̂9<1alvRa^%љh>Pt3oF0Ѿ?;frDQ<8v&N9ķ7qߒ2T $Mr+iChSn{=^)eIw ]$v_ #a-T}7(m^KoFT($hڷ<ҀV .e,rn1v&8 &~E@Fm"zd,Bk[k(&mgbT+c ;+AQH<. 8P}KJ$^_ (8s}+Jb0@(B*gFBC.Š`C,l$Cj{yYm6mi&huP={~N E=6I)ۼР>æxG&q#1[( jWUsվ#z#UNm % 0F 0U 0\ 0E 0+ 0 0 0 0 0| 0CP 0 0j 0> 0 0 0 0p 05 0@ 05 0  0 0 0s 0; 0 0 0< 0 0:a 0 03]# 00$ 0-% 0*& 0'( 0$>) 0!b* 0+ 0, 0-- 0- 0E. 0. 0]/ 0/ 0u0 01 1U1 7 1 0a1U,O2U>{2 0=c2 03 0-4 1u5 7216^ c6wo64s666 m6 0w6 0&7 07 0P8 09 09 0: 0D; 1< 72b=bd=U8= 0l0> 0? 0@ 0>A 0ANtB 0vB 0C 0DU*D 0-D 0-E 0*G 0'DH 0$kI 0!J 0K 0L 0M 7O 1gO 7vO 1eO 7O 1O 72P 1P 72=Q 1oQ 72Q 7(R 16R 72R 1R 72vS 1S 72/T 7aT 1oT 72T(UHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL$,,,,$0( Z6Times New Roman RegularX(i$  USUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%A A IQY!/23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *D+M (_24   ," IQY!,23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *A+M (_23  ` ) IQY!)23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *>+M (_22   &IIQY!&23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *;+M (_21   #QY!#23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *8+M (_20  h  QY! 23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *5+M (_19   QQY!23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  *2+M (_18   Y!23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%A A IQY!/23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  *DM (_15   ," IQY!,23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  *AM (_14  ` ) IQY!)23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  *>M (_13   &IIQY!&23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  *;M (_12   #QY!#23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  *8M (_11  h  QY! 23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  *5M (_10   QQY!23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  (2M &_9   Y!23  Ԁ  5+ A IQY!5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%A A IQY!/23   5+ A IQY!5  (DM &_6   ," IQY!,23   5+ A IQY!5  (AM &_5  ` ) IQY!)23   5+ A IQY!5  (>M &_4   &IIQY!&23   5+ A IQY!5  (;M &_3   #QY!#23   5+ A IQY!5  (8M &_2  h  QY! 23   5+ A IQY!5  (5M &_1   QQY!23   5+ A IQY!5  &2M $_   Y!23   5+ A IQY!5  <:Default Para0;;.footer   !XXX   !:8page number< :Outline001_1  X 2( A IQY!2A8(\ Y`SymbolA23  S9\  `&Times New RomanSA8(\ Y`SymbolA..S9\  `&Times New RomanS  5+ A IQY!5  <c+i :Outline001_2   /%A A IQY!/23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <`+i :Outline001_3   ," IQY!,23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <]+i :Outline001_4  ` ) IQY!)23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <Z+i :Outline001_5   &IIQY!&23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <W+i :Outline001_6   #QY!#23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <T+i :Outline001_7  h  QY! 23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <Q+i :Outline001_8   QQY!23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  <N+i :Outline001_9   Y!23  ..  5+ A IQY!5  < :Outline002_123  < :Outline002_223  < :Outline002_323  < :Outline002_423  < :Outline002_523  < :Outline002_623  < :Outline002_723  < :Outline002_823  < :Outline002_923  ,-./0123 359=AEIMQ1P.......54.(92$ i!  USUS.,  (\ Y`Symbol\  `&Times New Roman(;3$2#  0  .3  0  2qn0TxBr_p2    5+ 4 <DL5XXX  2( 4 <DL2   6 4heading 2    XXXMP\  ` Book AntiquaM     S9\  `&Times New RomanS  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)=i)2 d2:i+003|x$U(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# :EFGHIJKx=Gaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets ListMLQuestions and Representative Answers Page of &\  ` Book Antiqua64Body Text    XXXMP\  ` Book AntiquaM  S9\  `&Times New RomanS  2pp0TxBr_p3   2( 4 <DL2XXX  2( 4 <DL2  2//0TxBr_c1    XXX    .52,Title    XXX    4852Subtitle    XXX     6p c4Heading 1XXX?Z%2A`Arial?      ?Z%2A`Arial?:$$ 8Body Text 2XXX    :'' 8Body Text 3XXX%2A`Arial<`+f :Outline003_1   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <`+f :Outline003_2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <]+f :Outline003_3 j 4 ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <Z+f :Outline003_4   &hhDL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <W+f :Outline003_5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <T+f :Outline003_6 j <  DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <Q+f :Outline003_7   ppL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <N+f :Outline003_8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <K+f :Outline003_9 j D    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j 5+i.[\]^_`ab 35=CIOU[a2(a)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.eci.,-./0123 35;AGMSY_3a.A.i.1.a.i.1.a.g4i.( CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)i(a)(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.ka.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.mA.5+i.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.p1.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.r1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.t1.5+i.(CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.wA.  i!  USUS.,  _   O8@,XXdd8FEBRUARY2005BAREXAMINATION  QUESTIONSANDREPRESENTATIVEGOODANSWERS  QUESTION1  ` L  _Southside_,atowninSomersetCounty,Maryland,isknownforitslocal,familyownedsmall 8  businessesandsmalltownatmosphere.Forover200yearsthisareahasattractedtouristsdrawnto $ t shopanddineinthequaintshopsandrestaurants.Nocommercialfacilityin_Southside_Ԁutilizes  ` buildingspaceinexcessof5,000squarefeet.  L    _Mega_ԀMartisanationalchainof50,000squarefootstoreswithhundredsoflocations $  throughouttheUnitedStates._Mega_ԀMartwantedtopurchasepropertyin_Southside_Ԁtotake   advantageofthetouristtrade.OnSeptember1,2004,_Mega_ԀMartpaid$1,000,000foralotandhired   contractorstosurveythelandandbegingrading.     Existingstoreownersin_Southside_Ԁlearnedof_Mega_ԀMartsplansandbecameupset.They p readofinstancesinothercitieswhere_Mega_ԀMartquicklydisplacedexistingsmallbusinessesand \ didntwantthistohappentothem.Theylobbiedthe_Southside_Ԁtowncounciltoenactemergency H legislationtothwart_Mega_ԀMart.OnOctober1,2004,thecouncilintroducedandenactedthe 4 followinglaw:  p  Nationallyownedcommercialestablishmentsinexcessof1,000squarefeetand H locallyownedcommercialestablishmentsinexcessof5,000squarefeetare 4 prohibited.    Youserveasgeneralcounselto_Mega_ԀMart.Whatlegalissuesshouldyouraiseonbehalfof  _Mega_ԀMarttochallengethelaw?Discussfully.     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 D!        Firstthingtoconsideriswhether_Mega_ԀMarthasstanding._Mega_ԀMartdoeshavestanding #l! becausetherewaslegislationenactedthatprohibitsnationalcommercialestablishmentsfrombeing $X" inexcessof1,000squarefeet._Mega_ԀMartisanationalchainwhosestoresare50,000squarefeet. $D # _Mega_ԀMartwillsufferharmfromthelegislationanditis_redressable_Ԁ!ifthelawisfound %0!$ unconstitutionalitwillnolongerharmMM. &"%   TheattorneyshouldchallengethelawbasedonaviolationoftheDueProcessClauseofthe (#' 14thAmendment.Itisinterferingwith_Mega_ԀMartslivelihood.Andmustbenecessaryfora )$( compellingstateinterest.Theinterestthatthelegislationisprotectingisalocalinterest.Also,_Mega_ |*%) Martshouldhavehadnoticeandhearingbecausethelegislationisaffectingit.Thelegislationcould h+&* bechallengedasbeingvagueand_overbroad_,sinceareasonablepersonwouldnotknowwhatthey  coulddo.    ThelegislationcouldbeattackedundertheEqualProtectionClause.Itistreatingoutsiders t differentlythanlocals.Thelegislationisbasedongeographyandmustbenecessaryfora ` compellinggovernmentalinterest.Protectinglocalinterestswillnotmeetthatburden. L  Ё  Thelegislationcouldalsobeconsideredataking.ThelawwaspassedafterMMpaid $ t $1,000,000,andduetolegislationMMmaynothaveauseforthelot.Ifso,itwillbeatakingand  ` theTownof_Southside_ԀwillhavetocompensateMMforthefairvalueoftheland.  L  [     ThelegislationisalsoaviolationoftheCommerceClause.Itinterfereswiththe $  instrumentalitiesoreffectsofinterstatecommerce.Underthedormantcommerceclausenolocal   regulationshouldburdeninterstatecommerceunlessithasanimportantgovernmentinterest!   protectinglocalbusinessmenwouldnotmeetthattest.Therefore,thelawwouldbestruckdown.     ThelawalsoviolatestheContractsClause.ThelawsubstantiallyinterfereswithMMs p existingcontractswiththecontractor.ThusitwouldbefoundunconstitutionalunlesstheTowncan \ showanimportantgovernmentalinterest. H   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2  \      _Mega_ԀMartmayraisethefollowingissues: 4  M:EFGHIJKL(=y3=":3"   X      :3D2=3  0    Standing!Tohavestandingthepartyseekingtochallengethelawmustbetheparty   injuredandcourtmustbeabletoremedythesituation.Thelawwasenactedtoprohibit  _Mega_ԀMartfrombuilding,and_Mega_ԀMartwillbeinjured.Ifthecourtstrikesthelawas  beingunconstitutionalthesituationwillberectified.:3D݌(#(# Ќ  ":3"        :3 2=3  0    ContractClause!Thegovernmentcannotenactlawsthatwillinhibitexistingcontracts. l _Mega_ԀMartboughtthelandfor$1,000,000andhadhiredcontractorstosurveylandand X  begingrading.Thelawwillforce_Mega_ԀMarttocancelitscontractswiththecontractors.:3 [݌D!(#(# Ќ  ":3"      :3Y2=3  0    CommerceClause!ThislawviolatestheCommerceClausebecauseitundulyburdens 0"  interstatecommerce,whichisnotallowedunlessthereisacompellingstateinterest._Mega_ #l! isanationalchain,anditsproductsmostprobablycomefromawarehouselocatedoutof $X" statebyatruckerfromsomeotherinstrumentality.Assuch,thislawwillundulyburden $D # interstatecommerce.Favoringthelocal_storeowners_Ԁisnotpermissible.:3Y݌%0!$(#(# Ќ  ":3"      :3e2=3  0    Taking!Thislawisalsoataking.Congressoragovernmentcantakeapersonsland &"% providingjustcompensationisgivenandaslongasitisforajustifiedgovernmental '#& purpose.Nowthat_Mega_Ԁwillnotbeabletousethelandforthepurposeintendedithasno (#' useforthelandandthisshouldequatetoanunlawfultaking.:3e݌)$((#(# Ќ  ":3"      :3!2=3  0    EqualProtection!Throughthe14thAmendment,theEqualProtectionClauseprohibits |*%) thislawasitisunfairtooutofstatebusinesses.Thelawallowscommercial h+&* establishmentsof5,000squarefeetbutnationalchainsofonly1,000squarefeet.:3!#"݌(#(# Ќ  ":3"      :3#2=3  0    DueProcess!ThelawviolatestheDueProcessClauseasitisatakingoflife,libertyor  property._Mega_Ԁshouldhavebeenentitledtoahearingonthistakingofitsproperty.:3#$݌(#(# Ќ  ":3"      :3%2=3  0    Vague/_Overbroad_Ԁ!Lastly,thelawcanbechallengedforvaguenessand_overbreadth_Ԁasit t doesnotsaywhatitisthathelawisprohibitingbesidessquarefeetanddoesnotprovide ` areasonablealternative. :3%%݌L (#(# Ќ   =(#3yM:EFGHIJKL" Xq"7   `  h+&* Ї  QUESTION2   (    SheilaandBen,husbandandwife,purchased_Blackacre_Ԁastenantsbytheentiretiesin1970.  _Blackacre_Ԁconsistsof25rollingacresandisimprovedwitha5,000squarefoothouse,agazeboand t anOlympicsizedswimmingpool.Additionally,in1972,SheilaandBenpurchased_Whiteacre_Ԁas ` TenantsbytheEntirety._Whiteacre_Ԁisa10acreparcel,improvedwithahousethatSheilaandBen L  useasavacationhouse. 8    OnJuly1,1998,theirnephewSteveobtainedawritten3yearoptionsignedbybothSheila  ` andBen topurchaseSheilaandBenshousefor$600,000".Stevepaid$150incashin  L  considerationofthisoption.  8    OnJune1,2001,SheilaandBensignedanaddendumthatreadasfollows:     We,SheilaandBen,agreetocontinuethisoptionfor3moreyearsuntilJune1,2004.     Bendiedin2003.OnMay1,2004,StevenotifiedSheilaofhisintenttoexercisehisoption p topurchase_Blackacre_Ԁfor$600,000andthatthesettlementdatewouldbeSeptember15,2004. \ Sheilarepliedthatshewouldnothonortheoption.Steveangrilyinformedherthathewouldfilesuit H andforcehertodoso. 4   Sheilacomestoyou,aMarylandattorney,andasksifshecankeep_Blackacre_.  \    WhatlegalargumentswillSheilamaketokeep_Blackacre_?Discussfully.  4 (  REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1     Ӂ      Sheilawillmakeanumberofargumentstoattempttokeep_Blackacre_Ԁand_Whiteacre_.    First,Sheilawillarguethattheoriginaloptioncontractdidnotsatisfythestatuteoffrauds X  becauseitismissingamaterialterm,andisthus,unenforceable,makinganyattempttoextendit D! unenforceableaswell.Contractsforlandmustalwayssatisfytherequirementsofthestatuteof 0"  frauds.Inparticular,landcontractsmustsufficientlyidentifytheparceloflandinquestion.Sheila #l! willclaimthattheoptiondoesnotidentifysufficientlywhichlandistobesold.SheilaandBen $X" purchasedboth_Blackacre_Ԁand_Whiteacre_Ԁastenantsbytheentirety,andusedbothas houses.Thus, $D # theterm SheilaandBenshousecouldrefertoeitherparcelofland.Inresponse,Stevewillclaim %0!$ thatthetermisunambiguous,andrefersto_Blackacre_;claimingpeopledontcommonlyreferto &"% vacationhousesinthesamemannerastheirregularhouse,andwillattempttoprovideevidenceof '#& such. (#' 0    Second,Sheilawillclaimthatnocontractexists(orthatanycontractthatmayexistis |*%) voidable)duetohonesandreasonablemutualmistakeastoamaterialterm.Shewillstatethatshe h+&* honestlybelievedthecontracttobeabout _Whiteacre_(thevacationhome),whichisareasonable  belieftohave(afterall,whywouldyoumakeanoptiontosellyourmainresidenceoutfromunder  youduringthecourseofthreeyears).Steve,ontheotherhand,appearstohonestlyandreasonably  believethatthecontractrefersto _Blackacre_.Whenthereisamutualmistakeastoamaterialterm t ofthecontract(andthepieceoflandtobesoldisamaterialtermoflandcontracts),thereis ` effectivelyno meetingofthemindsor mirrorimageofofferandacceptancerequiredtoform L  avalidcontractatcommonlaw.Ifitisvoidable,Sheilawillclaimshevoidedthecontractbysaying 8  shewouldnothonortheoptionassoonasshebecameawareofthemutualmistake.Forthesesame $ t reasons,shecouldalsoattempttogetthecontractrescindedifthecourtholdsitavalidcontractfor  ` oneoftheproperties.  L  b6    Third,Sheilawillclaimthattheaddendumtothecontractisnotvalid,eveniftheoriginal $  contractwasvalid.Insupportofthis,Sheilawillclaimtwothings.Theaddendumisamodification   ofanexistingcontract,which,atcommonlaw,requiredmodificationtobesupportedbyadditional   consideration.Sincetherewasnoadditionalconsideration,itisnotvalid.Inthealternative,shewill   claimthattheaddendumtothecontractformedanewoptioncontract,whichhasalltheproblems   oftheclaimsabove,andiseithernotenforceable,orvoidable,andwasvoided. p   Last,SheilahassomeweakclaimsthatthecontractwasterminatedwhenBendied,asthe H contractstatedthat SheilaandBenagreeandBenisdead.However,deathofonepartydoesnot 4 normallyterminatethecontractualobligationsoftheothersigningparty,assumingtheycanperform,  p whichSheilacan,assheisnowthesoleownerofboth_Whiteacre_Ԁand_Blackacre_.Sheilacanclaim  \ thatthecontractspecified SheilaandBenshouseandneitherhousebelongsto SheilaandBen, H andthus,thethingidentifiedinthecontract(evenifitwasheldtobeonehouseortheother)no 4 longerexists,makingperformanceimpossible.   0<      Stevewillrespondtoalltheseclaimsinthesameway,whichistoattempttoprovide  evidencethatalloftheseambiguitiesinthecontractarenot,infactambiguous,oriftheyare  ambiguousontheirface,thatthepartiesknewwhatwasmeant.Becausethereisnothinginthe  contractthatspecifiesitisthefinalexpressionoftheparties,hewillbeabletointroducesuchparole l evidence. X    IfSheilawinsanyofthesearguments,shewillkeep_Blackacre_.Ifsheloses,shemaylose 0"  _Blackacre_Ԁor_Whiteacre_Ԁdependingonwhichthecourtidentifiesas SheilaandBenshouse. #l!  BREPRESENTATIVEANSWER2 %0!$     :F    Tenancybytheentiretiesisaformofcoownershipavailableonlytomarriedcoupleswhere '#& thecoupleownsasalegalunitwithrightsofsurvivorship.Apartymaynotunilaterallyaffectthe (#' ownershiprightsheldinTbyE.Here,bothSheilaandBensignedtheoption;therefore,theTby )$( Eownershipdoesnotaffectitsvalidity.UponBensdeath,thepropertyheldinTbyEpassedto |*%) Sheila,whosurvivedBen.Therefore,thehousesarerightfullyownedbySheilaandshewasunder h+&* paid$150inconsiderationoftheoptiontoholdtheoffernoobligationtokeeptheoffertoSteve  openbeyond2001.    ContractsforlandmustbeinwritingtosatisfytheStatuteofFrauds.Heretherewasa t writing,thereforethisrequirementissatisfied.Acontractforlandmustdescribethepropertywith ` enoughspecificitytoidentifyit.Here, SheilaandBenshouseisnotsufficientbecausetheyown L  twohouses;thereforethecontractisimpermissiblyvague. 8  ZF    Anofferisheldopenandacceptedaccordingtothetermsoftheoffer.Anoffercanbeheld  ` foraspecificamountoftime,whereconsiderationisgiventoholdtheoffer.Here,Steveopenuntil  L  2001.Again,considerationmustbegivenforanoptioncontract.Noconsiderationwasgivenon  8  June1,2001toaccompanytheaddendum;thereforeSheilaandBenwerenotobligatedtoholdthe $  offerpastJune,2001.    h+&* Ї>K   QUESTION3   MD  In2003,PaulaPlaintiffpurchasedanewhomefromBuilder.Severalmonthslater,Plaintiff  developedasevereasthmaticcondition.Plaintifflearnedthatherhousehadhighlevelsofairborne t mold.PlaintifffiledacivilactionagainstBuilderintheappropriateCircuitCourt.Thegravamen ` ofthesuitwasthatthemoldconditionscausedPlaintiffshealthproblems.PlaintiffdesignatedEd L  SmithasanexpertwitnesstoexpressanopinionthatPlaintiffsconditionwascausedbyairborne 8  mold.Duringhisdeposition,Smithtestifiedastothefollowing: $ t  M:EFGHIJKL(=x3=":3"    :3.Q2=3  0 `   HehasaMastersDegreeinPublicHealthandhascompletedhisPhDstudiesinthat  L  subject.Heisnowworkingonhisdissertationwhichanalyzestherelationship  8  betweenairbornemoldsporesinresidencesandrespiratorydiseasessuchasasthma.:3.QgQ݌$ ` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :3S2=3  0 `   Hehasevaluatedeveryscientificstudyrelatingtothetopicofhisdissertation   publishedwithinthelast20years.Asaresultofhisresearch,Smithisconvinced   thatairbornemoldcancauseasthmainotherwisehealthypersons.:3SIS݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :3T2=3  0 `   BaseduponPlaintiffspriormedicalhistory(whichrevealednoindicationof \ asthma),themoldlevelsmeasuredinherhouse,andtheabsenceofanyother H triggeringevent,SmithopinedthatthemoldconditionsinPlaintiffshousecaused 4 herasthma.:3TU݌ p` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :3V2=3  0 `   Smithadmittedthatveryfewexpertsineitherthepublichealthormedicalfields H agreewithhisconclusionsastotherelationshipbetweenairbornemoldsand 4 respiratoryillnessesbuthetestifiedthathisdissertation,whenpublished,wouldhelp   establishacausalrelationship.:3VW݌ ` (#` (# Ќ    BuilderslawyerfiledapretrialmotionreferencingSmithsdepositiontestimonyand  seekingacourtorderthatSmithnotbeallowedtotestifyasanexpertwitness     WhatgroundscanbeassertedtopreventSmithfromtestifyingasproposed?How X  shouldtheTrialCourtruleonthemotion?  D! M   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  $X" Z    ForexperttestimonytobeacceptableinMarylandCourts,itmustmeettheFryestandard. %0!$ Marylandhasnotadoptedthe_Daubert_Ԁ(morelenient)approachtoadmissibility. &"%   Inanyevent,tobeadmissibleunderFrye,thetestimonymustconformtogenerallyaccepted (#' scientificprinciples.Smithadmitsthathisproposedlinkbetweenairbornemoldsandasthmaisnot )$( generallyaccepted,andassuchfailstomeettheFryestandards.Furthermore,hehasnotestablished |*%) medicalcredentialstotestifyaboutPlaintiffsmedicalhistoryandconclusionsdrawntherefrom. h+&* Ї  Anexpertcannormallytestifyastoitemsunderlyinghisopinionitgenerallyrelieduponby  othersinthefieldinarrivingatopinionsevenoftheevidenceitselfwouldnotbeadmissible(i.e.  reports,_heasay_).Thedefenseshallobjectto(a)Smithbeingqualifiedasanexpertwedonotknow  whetherhewillbeacknowledgedwithaPh.D.apeerreviewedpublicationand(b)anytestimony t baseduponinadmissibleevidence. `   UnderFrye(MD)theevidenceshouldnotbeallowed.Under_Daubert_,theevidence 8  Testimonywouldbeallowed(closecall).Therearesomeexpertsinbothpublichealthandmedical $ t fieldswhoagree,itappears,thatthemethodsofarrivingattheconclusionsmeetscientificstandards  ` (reviewofliterature).However,MarylandstillfollowsFryeandrequiresgeneralacceptance.  L  Accordingly,CourtshouldnotallowSmithstestimony.  8  Z   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2    bT  GroundstoPreventSmithfromtestifyingasproposed.     PlaintiffseekstouseSmithasanexpertwitnessinthefiledofairbornemold.Defensewill \ raisethefollowingissuestopreventSmithfromtestifyingasproposed. H   ExpertWitness.  p   Expertwitnessesarethosenonlawyerswhotestifyusuallyforthepurposeofmakingapoint H atissuesclearerforthecourtorjury.Expertwitnessesareusuallyrequiredtoprovethebasisoftheir 4 expertisebyeducation,experienceintheparticularfield,publishinghistoryorotherrelevant   qualifications.HewouldseeminglyqualifyasanexpertbyvirtueofhiseducationMastersand   completedPh.D.studiesinPublicHealth.Additionally,hepurportstohavereceivedallofthe  scientificstudiesregardingtherelationshipbetweenairbornemoldsporesinresidenceand  respiratorydiseases.SobasedontheeducationandexperiencepursuinghisPhD,hewouldbe  qualified. l   ScopeandStandardofTestimony D!   ScopeofTestimony:ItisquestionablewhethertheproposedtestimonyofSmithwouldbe #l! allowedinbaseduponwhatheisofferingforthem.HelookedupPlaintiffsmedicalhistoryand $X" madeanassessmentastohercondition.Thismaybeoutofthescopeofwhathecantestifyto. $D # Suchtestimonymayrequireamedicaldoctorsopinion,notjustsomeonewhohasaMastersplus %0!$ additionalcoursework.Shouldthisbetestimonydeliveredbyamedicaldoctor?Heshouldbe &"% barredfromtestimonyattrial. '#&  h+&* Standardsregardingtestimony    TheactionwasfiledinCircuitCourt,acourtbasedintheStateCourtsystemofMaryland.  Ifthisactionwasfiledinfederalcourt,the_Daubert_ԀStandardforscientificevidencewouldapply. t HereinMaryland,FryeisstilltherelevantstandardforuseinMDcourts. `   Fryerequirestheexperttobeanexpertinthefieldusingresearchandconclusionstandard 8  andacceptedinthefield.HereSmithseekstointroduceevidencefordoctoralworkthatairborne $ t moldcancauseasthmainhealthypeople.Asdiscussedpreviously,hewouldgenerallybe  ` consideredanexpertinhisfieldbasedoneducation.However,thetheoryhewouldofferinhis  L  testimonyisnotacceptedinhisfield.Byhisownadmission,hestatesveryfewexpertsineither  8  publichealthormedicineagreewithhisconclusions.Hisdissertationwouldbethefirsttoestablish $  suchacasualrelationship.     Becausehispurportedtestimonycannotbecorroboratedbyexpertsinpublichealthor   medicineorbyothersourcessuchasjournalsorlearnedtreatises,hisproposedtestimonydoesnot   meetthefundamentalrequirementsforadmission.Thetrialcourtshouldsustainthemotionafforded p bythedefenseprecludinghistestimony. \  h+&* Їb  QUESTION4   (q[  ConnieConsumerpurchasedahomecomputerfrom_EZ_ԀCompute,Inc.thatmanufactures  computersandsellsthemataretailstoreinMontgomeryCounty,Maryland.Thecomputerdidnot t functionproperlyandConniewasunabletoobtainsatisfactionfrom_EZ_ԀCompute.Frustrated,and ` actingprose,shefiledacivilactionintheDistrictCourtofMarylandforMontgomeryCounty L  against_EZ_ԀCompute.Connie,notsurehowtoservethesummonsandcomplaint,tookthepapers 8  tothestoreandencounteredBill,asalesclerk.ConnieexplainedwhatthepaperswereandBill,who $ t knewofConniesproblemswithhercomputerandwastryingtobehelpful,toldConniethathe  ` wouldtakethemand makesurethattheygottomanagement.Billmeanttogivethecourtpapers  L  tohissupervisorbutforgot.  8    Conniecompletedandsignedanaffidavitofservicewhichstatedthatshedeliveredthe   summonsandthecomplainttoBillonbehalfof_EZ_ԀCompute.     _EZ_ԀComputedidnotfileanypleadinginthecaseand,induecourse,theDistrictCourtof   MarylandforMontgomeryCountyenteredajudgmentonaffidavitagainst_EZ_ԀComputefor$1,500, p theamountclaimedbyConnie. \   Sixmonthslater,theentryofthejudgmenthascometotheattentionof_EZ_ԀComputes 4 management.Theywishtohavetheirdayincourt.  p iqW  A.Whatactionsshould_EZ_ԀComputetaketoallowittopresentitscase? H   B.Whatshouldbethegroundsforsuchactions?     C.HowwilltheCourtrule?     Explainyouranswerthoroughly.   x   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  D! zq_EZC_=_EZ_ԀComputer #l! C=ConnieCustomer $X"   A._EZC_ԀshouldimmediatelyfileamotionwiththeDistrictCourtaskingthecourttouseits %0!$ _revisory_Ԁpowerandgrantanewtrial.._EZC_Ԁshouldalsofileamotionforanewtrial. &"% z    B._EZC_Ԁcanargueitshouldreceiveanewtrialonthegroundofinsufficientserviceof (#' process.Thegeneralconceptofserviceisthatitis reasonablycalculatedtogiveactualnotice. )$( [Rule3121].However,CCviolatedtheMarylandRulesin2differentways.First,Rule3123(a) |*%) clearlystatesthat apartytotheactionmaynotserveprocess.Second,Rule3124statesthatwhen h+&* thepartytobeservedisacorporation,as_EZC_Ԁprobablyis,(ithas Inc.initsname),processmust  beservedona residentagent,president,secretaryortreasurer.CCservedprocessonasalesclerk  clearlynotapersonauthorizedtoreceiveprocess.Also,evenifBillhadgiventhemto   management,ashehadtoldCChewould,itwouldnothavebeenaproperservicea manager t ofacorporationcanonlyreceiveprocessifthereisagoodfaithattempttoservethecorporate ` officersmentionedabove,thatfailed,creatingthenecessityofservicingamanager.Here,CCnever L  attemptedtoservethecorrectofficers. 8    C.Thecourtwilllikelygrant_EZC_Ԁanewtrial.Thecourthaslatitudetoreviseajudgment  ` underRule3535;here,Rule3535(b)appearstoapply(irregularityormistakenoevidenceof  L  fraudonCCspart).Whilegenerally,theCourtcanonlyexerciseits_revisory_Ԁpowerwithin30days  8  (Rule3535(a),Rule3353(b)specificallyallowsthepowertobeused atanytime. $    Whenacourtinvokesits_revisory_Ԁpower,it maytakeanyactionthatitcouldhavetaken   underRule3534whichincludesopeningthejudgmenttoreceiveadditionalevidence,amending   thejudgment,orevenenteringanewjudgment.SinceRule3534allowsmotionsandtoamend   judgmentstobejoinedwithmotionsfornewtrial,andthereasonamotionfornewtrialwouldnot p beavailableto_EZC_ԀbecausethetimeforfilinghadpassedwasdonesolelytoCCsinsufficient \ serviceofprocess,thecourtwouldlikelygrantanewtrial. H |  8  REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2   \ V    A.MotiontoReviseJudgment. 4   Unfortunately,sixmonthsafterentryofjudgment,itistoolatefor_EZ_ԀCompute,Inc.tofile   aNoticeofIntentiontoDefend(beforetrial),aMotionforNewTrial(10days),aMotiontoAlter  orAmendaJudgment(10days),oranappeal(30days)._EZ_ԀComputecanonlytrytofileaMotion  toReviseJudgmentforirregularitybasedondefectiveserviceofprocessunderRule3535(b).It  canbefiledatanytime.Ifgranted,thecourtwillrevisethejudgment.Itwillnotnecessarilygrant l anewtrial. X    BTherearetwogroundsforirregularity,bothrelatedtoserviceofprocess. 0"    ServicebytheWrongPerson $X"   Connie,apartytotheaction,shouldnothaveserved_EZ_ԀComputeherself.Rule3123(a). $D # Sheshouldhaveusedanotherpersonatleast18yearsofage.   %0!$   ServiceontheWrongPerson '#&   _EZ_ԀCompute,Inc.,acorporation,mustbeservedbyservingitsresidentagent,president, (#' secretary,ortreasurer.Rule124(d)._EZ_ԀComputehasastoreinMontgomeryCountyandisrequired )$( tohavearesidentagent.Ifitdidnotdesignateone,theStateDepartmentofAssessmentand |*%) Taxationshouldbeserved. h+&*   Itisonlyifnoneofthesepeoplecanbeservedthatamanagermaybeserved.Inthiscase,  Sheilahasnotevenattemptedtoidentifytheresidentagent,president,secretaryortreasurerofthe  corporation.therefore,herserviceonthematterwasdefective. t   LackofPersonalJurisdictionNoNotice. L    Eventhough_EZ_ԀComputeconductsbusinessinMontgomeryCounty,Marylandandarguably 8   wasservedinMontgomeryCounty,theDistrictCourtforMontgomeryCountydoesnothave $ t personaljurisdictionifitdoesnotmeetgeneralstandardsoffairplayandjustice.Billforgottogive  ` thepaperstohissupervisor.Iffollowsthatthemanagementof_EZ_ԀComputedidnotknowaboutthe  L  lawsuituntiljudgmentwasentered.  8    C.Thedefenseofimproperserviceofprocessandlackofpersonaljurisdictionshould   normallybeassertedbeforefilingananswer.However,inthiscase,_EZ_ԀComputeneverhadan   opportunitytobeheardandshouldbepermittedtoassertthemnow.Thecourtshouldgrantthe   motionandreviseitsjudgmentorreopenthecase.    h+&*    QUESTION5   ߔ    ChrisCounselorandAndyAttorney,solepractitionerswithlawpracticeslocatedinTowson,  Maryland,filedArticlesofOrganizationwiththeMarylandStateDepartmentofAssessmentsand t Taxation( _SDAT_)onJune12,2004,creatingCounselorandAttorney,LLC(the LLC).The ` ArticlesofOrganizationprovide(_i_)thattheLLCiscreatedforthepurposeofthepracticeoflaw; L  (ii)thatbothChrisandAndywillbeindemnifiedandheldharmlessforanyclaimsofmalpractice 8  filedagainsttheLLC;and(iii)thatindividualmembersarenotauthorizedtoactasagentsofthe $ t LLCsolelybyvirtueofbeingmembers,andthatpersonsdoingbusinesswiththeLLCarepresumed  ` tohaveknowledgeofthelimitsoftheliabilityofindividualmembers.  L    OnJune15,2004,Chrissigns,individually,theorderforstationeryfromSallyStationery, $  Inc.( SSI).ChristellsSSIthatthenewfirmisreadytooperateandthathemusthavethestationery   within5days.SSIdeliverstherushordertoChrisonJune20,2004,alongwithaninvoice   addressedtotheLLC,AndyandChrisfor$2,560.24.Onthatsameday,Andyusedthestationery   whenhewrotetotheownerofSSItothankherforthepromptserviceandtonotifyhismost   importantclientabouthisnewfirm. p >    TheArticlesofOrganizationareacceptedby_SDAT_ԀonJune25,2004.AndyandChris H mergetheirpracticeseffectiveJuly1,2004,andtheysendanannouncementontheSSIprinted 4 stationerytoalloftheirclients.  p   OnSeptember1,2004,Marty_Malaprop_,M.D.( Marty)filessuitagainstChris,Andyand H theLLCallegingthatAndywasnegligentinrepresentingMartyinamedicalmalpracticeclaimin 4 September2002.     OnNovember18,2004,SSIfilessuitagainstChris,Andy,andtheLLCforfailingtopaythe  invoiceforthestationery.    A.  ` Basedsolelyonthefactsgivenabove,whatdefensescanChris,Andy,andthe l LLCraiseinthelawsuitfiledbyMarty?Whatisthelikelihoodofsuccessofeachdefense? X  Explainyouranswerfully. D!   B. ` Basedsolelyonthefactsgivenabove,whatdefensescanChris,Andy,andthe #l! LLCraiseinthelawsuitfiledbySSI?Whatisthelikelihoodofsuccessofeachdefense? $X" Explainyouranswerfully.  $D # Л   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1 '#&      A.  ChrisandAndywillraisethedefensethatChrisandAndyarenotpersonallyliablebecause )$( theyaremembersofalimitedliabilitycompany.Generally,themembersofanLLCarenot |*%) personallyliableforanyoftheLLCsdebtsorliabilitiesandanysuchliabilityislimitedtotheassets h+&* oftheLLC.Moreover,theywillarguethatMartyhadconstructivenoticeofthearticlesof  organizationthatarefiledwiththe_SDAT_ԀwhichstatesthatbothAndyandChriswillbeindemnified  andheldharmlessofanyclaimsofmalpractice.ChrisandAndywillbeunsuccessfulinthese  defenses.Anattorneycannotusesuchan exculpatoryclausetolimititsmalpracticeliability.An t attorney,eventhoughamemberofanLLCremainspersonallyliableforanyprofessional ` malpractice.Tothatend,Andywouldbepersonallyliableforhisnegligenceinhisrepresentation L  ofMarty.ChriswillarguethatheshouldnotbeheldliableforAndysnegligenceandhewillbe 8  successfulinthisargumentunlessChrisnegligentlysupervisedAndyorotherwiseparticipated $ t in/contributedtothenegligentrepresentation.  `   B.  Chris,AndyandtheLLCwillarguethatSSIhadconstructive/actualnoticeofthearticlesof  8  organizationthatstatethatindividualmembersarenotauthorizedtoactasagentsoftheLLC.Andy $  willarguethatChrisindividuallyorderedthestationaryfromSSIandwasnotauthorizedasanagent   toactonbehalfofAndyortheLLC.AndywillfurtherarguethatChriswasactingasapromoter,   priortothe_SDAT_sacceptanceoftheLLCsfiling,andtherefore,Chrisispersonallyliableand   couldnotbindhimortheLLC.However,theseargumentswillfail.WhileChriswasapromoter   andwillbepersonallyliableforhisorderofstationeryonbehalfoftheLLC,healsohadimpliedand p apparentauthoritytoorderthestationery.SSIcouldnothavehadanynotice(actualorconstructive) \ oftheprovisionsinthearticleoforganizationbecausetheywerenotacceptedby_SDAT_Ԁatthetime H ChriscontractedwithSSI.Moreover,AndyratifiedChrisactionbyusingthestationery.TheLLC, 4 however,didnotadoptthecontract,andtherefore,willnotbeliable.However,ChrisandAndywill  p beliabletopayforthestationary.  \ B  REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2        d  A.  TheLLCcandefendagainstMartyssuitthatitwasntinexistenceatthetimeofthealleged  tort.TheLLCwasalegallyvalidlimitedliabilitycompanyonJune25,2004.Martyallegesthat  thetortoccurredinSeptember2002.JudgmentforLLC.Chriswillalsodefendbystatingthatprior  toJune2004,hewasasolopractitionerwithnotiestoAndy,henceheowedMartynoduty. l JudgmentforChris.Andywillhavetodefendtheactionastheonlyproperlyidentifieddefendant. X  TheLLCsoperatingagreement(ii)isprohibitedbecausemembersofanLLCcannotdisclaim D! professionalmalpracticesoAndycantdefendbasedontheLLCsclauseandbecauseitwasntin 0"  existenceatthetimeAndywasallegedtohavecommittedmalpractice. #l!     Andywillhavetofinddefensesthatareonlyapplicabletohim.IfMartyobtainsajudgment $D # againstAndyhewillbepersonallyliable.AndymaynotuseLLCassetstopayforthejudgment. %0!$ MartymaynotseizeLLCassetstogetpaidonthejudgment.ButMartyasacreditorofAndycould &"% seizeAndysrightstopaymentthatAndyreceivesfromtheLLC. '#& J  B.  ChriswillbepersonallyliableforthedebtowedtoSSI.Normally,membersofanLLCare )$( notpersonallyliable,butLLCdidnotexistwhenChrisenteredintothecontractwithSSI.Chriswill |*%) beliableunderpromoterliability.Hewillremainliableuntilthereisanovation.Chris,SSIand h+&* LLChavetoagreethecontractwasbetweenLLCandSSI,otherwiseChrisisliable.IfChristries  todefendthattheLLCsclause(iii)barshisliabilityhewillfail.IfSSIreasonablybelievedChris  couldbindLLCasitsagent,thenChrisisliable,becausedespitetheclauseifathirdpartythinks  ChriscanbindtheLLCtoacontract,Chriswillbeliable. t )    IfChristriestoargueheisprotectedviacorporateestoppel,hemightprevail.SinceSSI L  addressedthebillstoLLC,AndyandChris,itappearsSSIacknowledgedLLCsexistence,soit 8  shouldbe_estopped_Ԁfromdenyingitsexistence. $ t z    AndyandtheLLCwillarguetheyhavenoliabilityundertheagreementbecauseAndydid  L  notsignit,andtheLLCdidntvalidlyexistuntil6/25/04.IfChrisissuccessfulwithhiscorporate  8  estoppelargument,AndyandtheLLCwillbeliable.Ifnot,thenAndyandLLChavenoliability. $  Simplyusingthestationarydoesnotconstituteanovation.AndyandLLCwouldhaveobtaineda   benefitfromChrisagreement,buttheydidntincurliability.    h+&*  5,-./01234(0xM:EFGHIJKL  QUESTION6     X  MilkyKing,LLCisapopularicecreamshopthatcaterstohighschoolstudentsinFrederick  County,Maryland.MikeworkedatMilkyKingduringthesummerof2004untilthesolemember, t Tim,terminatedhisemploymentbecausesaleshaddecreasedduetotheopeningofanew ` competitor,CandyHeaven.AlthoughMikewasoneofMilkyKingslongertermemployees,hewas L  terminatedduringaneconomicslowdownbecausecustomershadcomplainedthathewasrudeand 8  angryallofthetime.AfterMikesemploymentwasterminated,hisbestfriendRaycontinuedto $ t workparttimeatMilkyKing.Raywas15yearsoldandhisjobatMilkyKingwasthefirstjobhe  ` everhad.  L  C X    OneafternooninAugust2004,MikestoppedbyMilkyKingtovisitRay.Timwasoutfor $  lunchatthetime,soMikewentbehindthecounterandassistedRayinservingicecreamtothe   customers.Whilehewasworkingbehindthecounter,Mikesformergirlfriend,Sue,cameintothe   MilkyKingandbeganmakingloudlycriticalcommentsaboutMike.Mikerespondedbythrowing   acontainerofboilingfudgesauceatSue.Suewasrushedtothehospitalwhereshewastreatedfor   seconddegreeburnsthatrequiredseveralpainfulskingraftsoveraperiodofsixmonths.Shehas p permanentscars. \   InOctober2004,SuefilessuitagainstMike,Tim,Ray,andMilkyKing,LLCfortheinjuries 4 shesustained.  p     Analyzethepotentialliabilityofeachpartyundertheallegedclaims.Discussyour H answerfully.  4   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1       Suevs.Mike:SuemaysuccessfullysueMikefortheintentionaltortofbattery.Battery,  definedasaharmfuloroffensivetouchingofonetoanotherwithoutconsent,wascommittedby l MikewhenhethrewtheboilingfudgesauceontoSue,whichmadecontactwithSueandcaused X  seconddegreeburns.(Notethatthetouchingneednotbeskintoskin!aprojectileorotherobject D! propelledbythedefendantthattouchesthevictimissufficient.)SuecanrecoveragainstMike. 0"    Suevs.Tim:SuewillbeunsuccessfulinasuitagainstTimpersonallyfortheactsofMike. $X" Asamemberofaproperlyformed_L.L.C._,membersarenotpersonallyliablefortheactionsofthe $D # LLCorofagentsoremployeesoftheLLC.Hence,TimasamemberoftheLLC!andhimselfnot %0!$ thetort_feasor_,Timcannotbeheldliableunderthesefacts.(SeealsoSuevs.RayandSuevs.LLC). &"%   Suevs.Ray:SuewillbeunsuccessfulinasuitagainstRay.SuecouldallegethatRaywas (#' actingwiththeapparentauthorityofTimortheLLCtopermitMiketogobehindthecounterwhile )$( Timwasout.However,underthesefacts,MikecametotheLLCtomerelyvisitRay.Suewillargue |*%) thatRayhadadutytopreventMikefromworking,butthatdutywouldrestonTim,asupervisor, h+&* andnotonRay,amereemployeeandaminor.ItisarguablethatRayactedreasonablyasany15  yearoldanddidnotencourageMiketocommitthewrongfulact.    Suevs.LLC:SuewillbesuccessfulinasuitagainsttheLLC.TheLLC,astheemployer t andaprincipal,isresponsiblefortheactsofitsemployeesandservantsunderthetheoryof ` respondentsuperior. L  F    A.0 ` TimsNegligence:TheLLCwillberesponsibleforTimsnegligenceinleavingthe $ t storestaffedwithnooneotherthanRay,a15yearold,whopresumablyiswithout  ` theknowledgeorexperiencetooperatethestorealone.TimowedadutytoSue:  L  1)toensurethatthestorewassafeand2)toproperlysupervisetheemployeesofthe  8  LLC.Underthesefacts,whenTimleftthestore,hecreatedanunsafesituationby $  whichMikecouldenterandworkbehindthecounterofthestorewithoutobjection,   eventhoughhewasnolongeranemployee.Timhadthedutytoeithersuperviseor   toclosethestorewhenhewasunabletodoso,andthatdutywasbreached,which   directlyandproximatelyresultedinSuesinjuries. ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#  B. ` VicariousLiabilityofLLC:TheLLCmaybeliablealsofortheactsofMike.Mike \ wascloakedwiththeappearanceofbeingemployedbytheLLCwhenhewas H workingbehindthecounterassistingRay.Assuch,theLLCisliablebecauseMike 4 wasanagentoftheLLCforpurposesofvicariousliability.TheLLCwillalsoargue  p thattheintentionaltortwasnotwithinthescopeoftheemployment,andsuchultra  \ viresactscannotbeimputedtotheLLC.H` (#` (#  REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2        1.  MikesLiability:Mikeisclearlyliableashecommittedanintentionaltort.However,there  isaquestionastowhetherhecouldclaimindemnificationfromtheLLC.MikecouldarguethatRay  allowedhimbehindthecountertoworktothebenefitoftheLLC,andassuchwasactingasan l employeeoftheLLC.MikecouldarguethattheLLC/Timleavinganinexperiencedemployee(part X  timeemployee)alone,itwouldbeforeseeablethatRaywouldneedhelpandcouldaskanyoneto D! assist.ButevenifRaysallowanceforMiketoassistweretobeconstitutedasestablishingagency, 0"  Mikeactedoutsidethescopeofanyperceivedemployment(eventhroughRaysauthorization)by #l! anintentionalbattery.Thus,Tim/LLCcannotbeheldliableforMikesactionbasedonMikes $X" agency. $D # d  2.  RaycouldhaveliabilityforallowingMiketogetbehindthecounter.Suewouldarguethat &"% RayknewMikehadbeenterminated,kneworshouldhaveknownthatMikewaspartlyterminated '#& becauseofhisangerandrudenesstocustomers.Thus,RayisliableforallowingMiketogetbehind (#' thecounter.Raycouldarguethat,irrespectiveofMikesstatusasanemployee,Rayisindemnified )$( throughtheLLCandthathecannotbeheldliableforMikesconduct,astheconductwasnot |*%) reasonablyforeseeable. h+&* Ї  Raywouldlikelysucceedinclaimingindemnification,(seeinfrawithregardtoTims/LLCs  arguments)butthejurycouldfindthatRayisalsopersonallyliable,(i.e.,parentsupto$10,000for  allowingMikebehindthecounter).  3.  TimandLLC ` `h  Asstatedabove,TimandLLCwouldarguethatMikewasnotanemployee/agentandthat 8  evenifhewas,Mikeactedoutsidethescopeofhisemployment.Thus,theLLCwouldnotbeliable. $ t Tim,onthisargument,wouldneverbepersonallyliablebecausethestoreisanLLC.Thus,Timis  ` indemnified.Indeed,Timwouldnotbepersonallyliable,owingtotheLLCstatus.Suemight  L  prevail,however,becauseshecouldarguethatTimleftRayincharge.GivenRaysinexperience  8  (e.g.,firstjobever,age,parttime)itwasforeseeablethatRaywouldneedhelpandthatRaywould $  enlistanexemployeewhohadexperienceworkingintheshop.Tim/LLCwouldhavetoarguethat   Raywasactingoutsidethescopeofhisemploymentandwasunauthorizedtoallowsomeoneelse   towork(i.e.,ineffecthiringsomeoneforevenabriefinterval).Theissueforthetieroffactswould   bedidTimleavingRayinchargeauthorizeRaytoenlistthehelpofsomeonewhohadbeen   terminatedoranyoneelseforthatmatter. p   Therefore,theLLCcouldbeliableifRayweredeemedtobeactingwithinthescopeofhis H employment.GiventhatservingicecreamwasRaysjob,itisnotlikelytheLLCwillbeliablefor 4 Mikesconduct  p e h+&*    QUESTION7   J    HughandWilmaweremarriedonMay1,1995.Hugh,awidower,hasthreeadultchildren  byapreviousmarriage.OnFebruary2,2002,HughsoldhisresidenceinBaltimoreCountyand t enteredintoawrittencontractwithSidneytopurchaseSidneyshomeinaresidentialsubdivision ` inCharlesCounty,Marylandfor$800,000.AtclosingonApril7,2001,atHughsdirection,title L  tothepropertywasdeededtoHughandWilmaastenantsbytheentireties. 8    OnJune10,2003,becauseofHughsfailinghealthandresultantdiminishedincome,Hugh  ` andWilmasoldthepropertytoathirdpartyfor$1,200,000andpurchasedasmallerresidenceinthe  L  samelocalityfor$200,000.TitlewasdeededinHughsnameonly.Thebalanceofthepurchase  8  pricewasdepositedbyHughwithoutWilmasknowledgeintheCharlesCountyBank&TrustCo. $  inHughsnameonlyandwasthereafterusedtopayjointexpensesandHughsmountingmedical   bills.HughdiedonNovember1,2004.     ByhisWill,Hughbequeathedthesumof$200,000toWilmaandtheremainderofhisestate,   includingtheaccountintheCharlesCountyBank&TrustCo.,equallytohischildren.Hughs p oldestchildwasappointedpersonalrepresentativeoftheestate. \   AsWilmasattorney,properlyadmittedinMaryland,whatadvicewouldyougive 4 WilmawithrespecttoherinterestinHughsassets?   p  L     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  4      AtthetimeofHughsdeathhewasmarriedtoWilma,hadthreeadultchildren,andwhatwe   assumetobeavalidwillandtestament.Hisestateatthetimeofhisdeathincludedmostlyhisbank  accountandhisresidence.  Ѐ  ThebankaccountwasfundedbytheprofitsofthesaleofHughsandWilmashomeonJune l 10,2003.Thehouse,originallyboughtin2001,wasdeededtoHughandWilmaastenantsbythe X  entirety.Whenthehousewassold,theyownedtheprofitsequallytogether!nothalftoeachparty D! !astenantsincommoncouldtake.Here,Hughseemstobequeathhalfofthe$400,000toWilma 0"  !or$200,000!apparently,consideringthisherequalshareofprofits. #l!   However,Wilmasinterestshouldbethebalanceoftheaccount.Sheisentitledtothefull $D # amountoftheproceedsofthesale.Hughdidnothavetherighttodepositthemoneyinhisname %0!$ alone.Theoriginalpropertywasdeededastenantsbytheentirety!showingHughandWilmas &"% intentiontocreatearightofsurvivorship.HadHughdiedpriortothesalein2003,Wilmawould '#& haveunquestionablyinheritedtheproperty.Ibelievetheintentshouldalsobetransferredtothe (#' homesaleproceedsaswell.WilmahasarighttoreceivethefullbalanceoftheaccountinCharles )$( CountyBank&Trust,provideditwasonlyfundedwiththehomesaleproceeds,asthefactsseem |*%) toindicate. h+&* vQ_v    WilmasInterestinHouse:AlthoughWilmaandHughweremarriedatthetimeofthe  purchaseinJune2003,Hughdidnotputhernameonthedeed.Thiswouldindicatethathedidnot  intendfortheirtobearightofsurvivorship.Twoissuescloudthisfact!themarriagecreatedan t expectationofatleastalifeestateinthepropertyforWilma,especiallyconsideringthatthehouse ` hadbeenpurchasedwithprofitsfromtheirprevioushome,whichtheyhadexplicitlyheldastenants L  bytheentirety.Hughswill,however,seemstowanttoremovetheassetfromthemaritalproperty 8  andaddittohisestate,whichwouldthenbeequallydividedamongsthischildren.Itispossiblethat $ t thehousemightbetreatedassuch.  `   IbelieveWilmahasafullinterestinthehousethatwaspurchasedwiththerestofthe  8  $200,000profit.AnyotherassetinHughsestatewouldconceivablybeinheritablebyHughs $  children.ThebankaccountandmaritalresidencearetiedtoWilmaandshouldbecomeherproperty   regardlessofHughswill.   Q REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2  p     AsWilmasattorney,IwouldadviseherthatshecanclaimaninterestinHughsassets. H  XTheCharlesCountyresidencewillnotpasstoWilmabyoperationoflawasaresultof  p Hughsdeathbecausetheydidnotowntheresidenceastenantsbytheentirety.  \  X  Thecreationofatenancybytheentiretyrequires5unities.First,theunityoftimerequires H thatHughandWilmaacquirethepropertysimultaneously.Theydidsohere.Second,theunityof 4 titlerequiresthattheyacquirethepropertythroughthesametitleorinstrument.Thisdidnothappen   herebecausethepropertywasdeededtoHughaloneandnottoWilma.Third,theunityofinterest   requiresthattheyacquiretheexactsameinterestintheproperty.ThisfailsbecauseWilmasabsence  inthedeedmakesherinterestsubordinatetoHughs.Fourth,theunityofpossessionrequiresthat  theybothacquirepossessionoftheproperty.Wilmaspossessionisonlyasaresultofhermarriage  toHughandnotdirectlyastheresultoftheconveyancetoWilma.ButarguablyWilmaobtained l possessionthroughtheconveyancebecauseshe purchasedthepropertywithHugh.Fifth,theunity X  ofpersonrequiresthatHughandWilmabemarriedconstitutingoneentityorperson.Thisunityis D! satisfied.However,becausetheunityoftitleandinterestarenot,WilmaandHughdidnotownthis 0"  propertyastenantsbytheentiretyandWilmathereforehasnorightofsurvivorship. #l! I`    However,astotheproceedsfromthesaleofthepreviousCharlesCountyresidence,Wilma $D # hasaninterest.Thatproperty(Sidneyshome)washeldbybothHughandWilmaastenantsbythe %0!$ entiretybecauseallfiveunitsweresatisfied!thepropertywastitledinbothnames.Whenthe &"% residencewassold,theproceedswereownedbythemaritalrelationship!thatis,bybothHughand '#& Wilma.IwouldadviseWilmatoarguethatshehasaninterestinthe$800,000leftoverfromthe (#' proceedsafterthecurrentresidencewaspurchasedfor$200,000. )$(   |*%)   HughschildrenwilllikelyarguethatHughwasentitledtodirectthismoneyonbehalfof   bothofthembyvirtueofthemaritalunion.Ibelievethisargumentwillfailbecauseittakesboth  thehusbandandthewifetoconveyaninterestinpropertyheldastenantsbytheentirety.      Inconclusion,IwouldadviseWilmatoseekaninterestintheremainderoftheproceedsthat ` Hughputinthebank,notwithstandingthe$200,000bequeathedtoWilmainthewill. L        h+&* N   QUESTION8   p  Alicewasattemptingtocross AStreetatitsintersectionwith BStreetinsuburban  BaltimoreCounty,Maryland. Astreetisafourlanehighwayrunningnorthsouthandhasa t medianseparatingthenorthboundfromthesouthboundlanes. BStreetrunseastandwestandis ` atwolanestreet.Alicewasonthesouthsideof BStreetandintendedtocross AStreetwalking L  fromeasttoWest. 8    AtrafficsignalwasinplaceandAlicewaitedforthe walklightbeforeproceedingacross  `  AStreet.Alicecrossedthenorthboundlaneof AStreetandsteppedontothegrassymedian.  L  Asshewasabouttostepoffthemedian,thelightchangedtoaflashingred dontwalksignal.She  8  lookedfortraffic,sawnoneandproceededacrossthesouthboundlanesof AStreet.Whenshehad $  almostreachedthecurb,avehicletravelingon BStreetinaneastwestdirectiondrivenbyBennett   turnedleftintothesouthboundlaneof AStreetandstruckAlice,seriouslyinjuringher.     Thefollowingstatutewasineffectatthetimeoftheaccident:     PedestrianControlSignals \  i( 805,-./01234":3"    :3" 2 (  a  )3  0 `   Walk!Apedestrianhavinga walksignalshallcrosstheroadwayinthedirection 4 ofthesignalandshallbegiventherightofwaybythedriverofanyvehicle.:3" [ ݌ p` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :3 2 (  b  )3  0 `   DontWalk!Apedestrianshallnotstarttocrosstheroadwayinthedirectionofa H  dontwalksignal.:3  ݌4` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :3& 2 (  c  )3  0 `   PartiallyCompletedCrossing!Ifapedestrianhaspartiallycompletedcrossingon   a walksignal,thepedestrianshallproceedwithoutdelaytoasidewalkorsafety  islandwhilethe dontwalksignalisshowing.:3& _ ݌` (#` (# Ќ    Undisputedevidencefromtrafficcontrolauthoritiesindicatesthatthelightinquestionwas l properlyfunctioningandthatafterthe walklightgoesoffa flashingredlightappearswhichthen X  changestoa steadyred. D!   AlicefiledsuitagainstBennett,thedriverofthevehiclewhichstruckher. #l! ! ! k(Eh88i ":3"    :3h2Eh  a  .3  0 `   WhatisthebasisofAlicessuit?:3h݌$D #` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :3c2Eh  b  .3  0 `   Whatargumentsand/ordefensescanBennettraise,orattempttoraise?:3c݌&"%` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :32Eh  c  .3  0 `   WhatisthebestargumentAlicecanmaketoBennettsdefenses? :3݌(#'` (#` (# Ќ   h+&*   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1   l! ! m(88k":3"    :32  A  .3  0 `   AlicewillsueBennettallegingnegligenceandpossiblybattery(seediscussionof  negligenceelementsinfra).:3݌t` (#` (# Ќ  ":3"    :32  B  .3  0 `   BennettwillarguethatAlicewascontributorilynegligentandthusbetotallybarred ` fromrecoveringagainsthim.InasuitfornegligenceinMarylandthePlaintiffmust L  establishduty,breach,causationanddamageswhichAlicecandoherebecause 8  Bennetthadadutytooperatehisvehiclesafelyandavoidpedestriansandhe $ t breachedthatdutybystrikingAlicewithhiscarbutforhisstrikingherwithhiscar  ` shewouldnothavebeen seriouslyimpaired.:3U݌ L ` (#` (# Ќ    OncethePlaintiffestablishesnegligencetheDefendantcanassertthedefenseofcontributory $  negligencewhichmeansthatthePlaintifffailedtoexerciseduecareforherownsafety,andthat   failureisthecauseofherinjuries.BennettwillarguethatAlicesnegligenceisestablishedbyher   violationofthe PedestrianControlStatuteinstartingtocrosstheroadwayinthedirectionofa    dontwalksignal.TousePlaintiffsviolationofastatuteasevidenceofnegligenceadefendant   mustestablishthatplaintiffwasamongtheclassofpersonsthestatutewasdesignedtoprotectand p thattheharmplaintiffsufferedwasofthetypethatstatutewasdesignedtoprotectagainst,orinother \ wordssatisfythe classofpersonclaimingharmtest.Bennettwillclearlybeabletosatisfythistest H asthepedestriancontractstatuteisdesignedtoprotectpedestriansfrombeingstruckbycarsasthey 4 crossthestreet.InsomestatesthiswouldamounttonegligencepersebutinMarylandthisismerely  p evidenceofnegligence.  \   Inthealternate,BennettwillarguethatAliceassumedtherisk!anegligencetestbasedon 4 plaintiffsactualknowledgeofthepotentialdangerofasituationandhervoluntarynegligenceto    riskit.Hereitiseasytoestablishthatapedestriancrossingalargestreetwasawareofthe   inherentdangers!however,becauseAliceexercisedduecare!areasonablepersonwouldassume  thatitwassafetocrossastreetifthelookedfortrafficandsawnone!thisargumentwilllikelyfail.    AlicesbestargumentinresponsetoBennettsdefensethatshewascontributorilynegligent X  isthatBennetthadthelastclearchancetoavoidthecollision.Ifdefendantsnegligentactabreach D! ofdutyofcarecomeschronologicallyafterplaintiffscontributorynegligence,thendefendantis 0"  deemedtohavehadthelastclearchancetoavoidtheincidentandwillstillbeheldliableifhefailed #l! todoso.Clearly,whileAlicemayhaveactednegligentlyincrossingwhilethelightwasflashing $X" thered dontwalksignal,Bennettasthedriverofthevehiclehadthelastclearchancetoavoidthe $D # collision(hecouldhaveswerved,slammedonthebrakes,etc)andfailedtodoso.Thus,Bennett %0!$ Willbefoundnegligent. &"%  h+&*    REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2   $}  AlicewillbringasuitbasedonnegligenceagainstBennett.AlicewillclaimthatBennetthad  adutytodrivewithcarasanyreasonablyprudentdrivewould;Bennettbreachedthatdutywhenhe t hadhisturnontoAStreet;BennettsbreachofdutywastheactualandproximatecauseofAlices ` injury;AliceasharmedbyBennett. L    AlicewillarguethatBennettwasunderdutytobecarefulwhenmakinghisturn,especially $ t becausetheintersectionwasabusyintersectionbecause Awasafourlanestreet.Alicewould  ` arguethatareasonableandprudentdriver,whenturningfromatwolanestreettoabusyfourlane  L  highwaywouldexercisecareandbeonthelookoutforpedestrians.AlicewillclaimthatBennett  8  breachedthatdutybynotbeingobservantenoughunderthecircumstances.Alicewillclaimthat $  Bennettwastheactualcauseofherinjurybecausehestruckherwithhiscar.Alicewillclaimthat   Bennettwastheproximatecauseofherinjurybecauseitwasforeseeablethatifadriverdoesnot   exerciseduecare,hecanstrikeapedestrian.AlicewillarguethatBennettsbreachcausedher   injuries.     Marylandisacontributorynegligencestate.Therefore,BennettwillfirstarguethatAlice \ wascontributorilynegligentbecauseshewalkedacrossthestreetwhenthe dontwalksignwas H flashing.Bennettwillarguethatareasonableandprudentpedestrianwouldnotattempttocrossthe 4 streetinsimilarcircumstances.BennettwouldpointtothestatuteasproofofAlicesnegligence.  p Thestatutespecificallystatesthat apedestrianshallnotstarttocrosstheroadwayinthedirection  \ ofa dontwalksignal.InMaryland,violationofastatuteisnotpersenegligence,butrather H evidenceofnegligence.ForthesereasonsBennettwillarguethatAlicewascontributorilynegligent 4 andasaresultBennettshouldnotbeheldliable.     Assumptionofrisk!BennettwillalsoarguethatAliceassumedtheriskisanaffirmative  defense.Asoutlinedabove,Alicesteppedoffthemedianwhileshehada dontwalksignal.She  thereforeknewthattherewasariskofoncomingtraffic.Sheassumedtherisk,soBennettwould  arguethatBennettsnotliable. l   Alicewouldpointtotheotherstatutorypowers,saythatsheisallowedtoproceedtothe D! sidewalkwithoutdelay,whichiswhatshedid.Assuchshewasnotnegligentnorassumedtherisk. 0"  AlicewouldfurtherarguethatevenifsheassumedtheriskBennetthadthebestclearchanceto #l! avoidtheaccidentwhich,duetohisnegligence,hedidnot. $X"  h+&* $   QUESTION9   1L  KwameKaneownsKappaTitle,atitleandsettlementcompanyinSilverSpring,Maryland.  Whenhestartedthecompanyin1999itwasasmallcompanybuthasgrowntobeamultimillion t dollarayearbusiness.OnMay15,2004at4:40p.m.,Kwameconductsasettlementforthesaleof ` a$900,000home. L    Aspartofthesettlement,thebuyer,BillBiggins,presentsachecktoKwameintheamount $ t of$1milliondrawnonhisaccountwithAcmeBank.ThecheckbearswhatappearstobeanAcme  ` BankcertificationstampsignedbyanofficerofAcmeBank.Aftersettlementcostsarecalculated,  L  KwamedisbursesacheckfromKappasescrowaccountfor$10,000toeachoftherealestateagents  8  forBigginsandtheseller,SamSeller.KwamethenissuesacheckfromKappasescrowaccount $  toBigginsfor$80,000whichrepresentsthedifferencebetweentheamountofthecertifiedcheckand   thefinalpurchasepriceofthehome.     Onthenextbusinessday,KwametakesthecertifiedchecktoAcmeBanktoverifythatthe   checkwascertifiedbythebankbeforedepositingitintoKappasescrowaccountatFirstBank p becauseofhisfearofwhatdamagea$1milliondeficitcoulddotohisbusiness.Kwamemeetswith \ thebanksbranchmanager,IdaIndy,whotakesthecheckfromKwameandthenstates the H certificationlooksfine,butifyouhaveMr.BigginsphonenumberIcancallhimtoseeifhewrote 4 thecheck.KwametellsIdathatacallwasnotnecessarybecauseMr.Bigginspersonallygavethe  p checktohimalongwithhisdriverslicense.Idathensays wellthatisourcertification.Kwame  \ thengoestoFirstBankanddepositsthe$1millioncertifiedcheckintohisescrowaccount.Hethen H wires$900,000toSellersmortgagecompanyfromKappasescrowaccountaspayoffonthat 4 mortgage.     Threedayslater,KwamereceivesacallfromAcmeBankssecuritydishonoringpayment  onthe$1millioncheckbecausethecertificationstamponthecheckwasaforgeryandthesignature  onthecertificationwasforged.AsaresultoftheonemilliondollarshortfallinKappaTitles  escrowaccount,anumberofchecksdrawnontheescrowaccountaredishonored.Kwamereceives l numerouscomplaintsandcallsfromrealestateagentsandcustomerswhostatetheywillneverdo X  businesswithKappaagain.Kappahasa50%decreaseinbusiness. D!   KappaTitlehasretainedyouforlegaladvice. #l!   GiveadetailedanalysisofanyrightsKappaTitlemayhaveunderMaryland $D # CommercialLawtorecoveritslosses.  %0!$ +2   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  (#' >    KappaTitlehasacauseofactionagainstAcmeBank.Thesignatureonthecheckand |*%) certificationwerebothforgeries,therefore,theywereauthorizedsignaturesofAcmeBank,the h+&* drawee.Therefore,theunauthorizedsignatureandstampwereineffectiveasAcmeBanks  certification,butthesignaturewaseffectiveasthatofBiggins.KappaTitlewasaholderindue  course.KappaTitletooktheinstrument,whichhadbeennegotiated,ingoodfaithforvaluewithout  knowledgeoftheforgery.However,pursuantto3403oftheAnnotatedCodeofMaryland,Acme t Bankratifiedtheunauthorizedsignaturewhenthebanksofficer,Ida,statedthat ...[it]isour ` certification,sothecheckisfine.KwamereliedonherstatementtohisdetrimentanduponIdas L  statement,thecertificationbecameauthorized.Moreover,AcmeBanksnegligencemayhave 8  contributedtoKappaslossifthebankdidnotexerciseordinarycareinverifyingthatthe $ t certificationwasauthorizedandtherefore,shouldbeprecludedfromassertingtheforgeryagainst  ` Kappa,and/orFirstBank,who,ingoodfaith,tookthecheckforvalue/collection.[3406].  L    WhenAcmeBankratifiedthecertificationitbecamethe obligatedbankpursuantto3 $  411andisliabletoKappaTitlefortheamountofthecheck,plushislossinbusiness.AcmeBank   alsosatisfied acceptanceasdefinedin3409whenthesignaturewasratifiedandwasobligated   topaythecheckamountasrequiredunder3413.Moreover,onceAcmeBankbecamean    acceptor,Biggins,thedrawer,wasdischargedofliabilitypursuantto3414.Moreover,oncethe   checkwas acceptedthroughAcmesratificationofthecertification,AcmeBankmadewarranties p ofpresentment(title,enforcement,noalteration,noforgery,noinsolvency). \   KappacanalsoarguethatIdamadearepresentationtohimandthatbasedonthenegligent 4 misrepresentation,hereliedonitandactedtohisdetrimentandheisentitledtoequitablerelief,  p pursuantto1103oftheCodeofMaryland.  \ >?   REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2    I    ThisquestioninvolvestheUCCArticles3/4becauseitisacertifiedcheck.Anegotiable  instrumentisapromiseorordertopayasumcertainwithorwithoutinterestatatimecertain.    HereBBprovideda$1,000,000checktoKKforthepurchaseofahouse. l   Acertifiedcheckisacheckmadepayabletoholderorbearerthathasbeen authorizedby D! thebank.The certificationverifiesthatthefundsareintheaccountofthedrawer.Here,Acme 0"  hadcertifiedthecheckaccordingtoIdaIndy.I.I. ratifiedthecheckonbehalfofAcme. #l!   Aholderisapersonentitledtoenforcetheinstrument.Here,KKisaholderofBBscertified $D # check.KKisaholderinduecoursebecausehetookforvalueandwithoutnoticeofanydeficiencies %0!$ intheinstrument.Infact,heexerciseddiligenceinverifyingthatthecheckboreAcmes &"% certification. '#& I    Certificationmeansthatthebankhasacceptedthecheck.Here,thestampandthesignature )$( bythebankofficer.Acmeisobligatedtopaythecheckastheacceptor,andisobligatedtopaythe |*%) $1,000,000.TheunauthorizedsignatureisgoodasagainstAcme.Acmeacceptedthecheck. h+&* Ї  Negligencesubstantiallycontributingwillbarapartyfromenforcinganinstrumentincertain  cases.Here,thebankAcmefailedtoexerciseduecarethroughitsagent,I.I.TheburdenisonKK  toassertthatAcmefailedtoexerciseduecare.Thenegligencewillbeapportioneddependingupon  therespectiveactionsoftheparties.Here,KKcheckedBBsdriverslicenseandcheckedwiththe t bank. `   Adrawerisobligatedtopaythedraft.Here,BBhasabscondedandlikelywillnotbefound. 8    Acmeacceptedthecheckandmustpayexpensesandlostinterestresultingfromthenon  ` payment.KKmaybeabletorecoverconsequentialdamagesaswell.  L    FirstBankisnotliable,butwillalsobeabletorecover. $  ON h+&*    QUESTION10   S    OfficerGonzales,whileoffdutyinhismarkedpolicevehicle,observedavehicledrivingin  theoppositedirectionatahighrateofspeedinexcessofthepostedspeedlimit.HemadeaUturn t andactivatedhisemergencyequipmentandpulledthevehicleoverforspeeding.Thevehiclewas ` drivenbyDanny.Earlwasinthebackseat. L    OfficerGonzalesaskedforDannyslicenseandregistration.WhenDannyopenedtheglove $ t compartment,OfficerGonzalessawarollofmoney.OfficerGonzalesaskedthetwooccupants  ` whethertheywerehidingdrugsorweaponsinthevehicle.Theybothrespondedbystating no.  L  OfficerGonzalesaskedDannyifhecouldsearchhiscar,towhichDannyresponded no.Officer  8  GonzalesinformedDannythathesuspectedthatthevehiclecontaineddrugsandaskedthemtoexit $  thevehicle.Theyexitedthevehicle,butEarlranoff.     OfficerGonzalessearchedthevehicleandultimatelyfound1kilogramofcocainebetween   thebackseatandabackarmrest.Healsofound$5,000incash.WhenOfficerGonzalesaskedwho   ownedthecontraband,Dannydeniedownership. p   OfficerswhoarrivedonthescenepursuedEarl.Trae,acaptainintheU.S.AirForceSpecial H Forces,sawEarlrunningfromthepolice.HedidnotknowwhatEarlhaddone,butbelieved 4 somethingillegalwasafoot.Traehurdledafence,chaseddownEarlandthensubduedhimwith  p handtohandcombattechniques.TraethensearchedEarl'spocketsandretrievedaloadedhandgun.  \ Traehandedthehandgunovertothepolice. H   OfficerGonzalesarrestedbothDannyandEarlandtransportedbothofthemtothestation.   AtthestationOfficerGonzalesstatedtoDanny, asthedriveryouwilldothemosttimeandboy   willtheguysinthejointloveyou!AtthatpointDannyyelledatEarlstating: Iamnotdoingtime  foryou!UponfurtherquestioningDannysaidthedrugsbelongedtoEarl.    BasedontheconfessionofDanny,GonzaleschargedEarlwithpossessionofacontrolled l dangeroussubstanceandpossessionwiththeintenttodistributeacontrolleddangeroussubstance. X  Inaddition,Earlwaschargedwithpossessionofahandguninthecommissionofafelonyandsimple D! handgunpossession. 0"    Earlsattorneywantstofileamotiontosuppressallevidenceobtained.  $X"   WhatissuesdoyouanticipateEarlsattorneywillraiseinthesuppressionmotion? %0!$ HowdoyoubelievetheCourtwillruleoneachissue?Discussfully. &"% S   h+&* REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1       IllegalSearch󀀀EarlsattorneywillmakethecasethatthesearchofDannyscarwasnotreasonable  underthefourthamendmentappliedtothestatesunderthefourteenthamendment.Thepolice t officerconductedasearchbaseduponspeeding,arollofmoney,andEarlrunningaway.Noneof ` theseareprobablecauseoftheoccurrenceofacrime,orobviatetheneedforawarrant(despitethe L  automobileexception).However,thisargumentwillprobablynotsucceedbecauseEarlhadno 8  ownershipinterestinthevehicleandthusnostandingtoobjecttoitssearch. $ t CitizenSearch󀀀Hemayobjecttothetacklingofhisclientbyaprivatecitizen.However,private  L  citizensarenotsubjecttotheconstitutioninthisexampleunlesstheyareactingatthedirectionof  8  thepolice.Thereisnoindicationthatisoccurring. $  Contraband󀀀ThecontrabandwasfoundinDannyscarnotEarls,thereforeitshouldbepresumed   tobeDannys.Or,undertheillegalsearchargument,fruitofpoisonoustree.   Charge󀀀Earlisbeingchargedwith4crimesthatarereallytwo.Thetwolesserincludedoffenses p shouldbedropped. \ `    5th&6th󀀀Dannywasinterrogatedbythepoliceandthefactsindicatethathewasnotadvisedofhis 4 Mirandarights,inparticularofhisrighttoremainsilentandhisrighttocounsel.However,Earlhas  p nostandingtoobjecttothis.  \ f REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2        Earlsattorneywillarguethatthesearchofthecarwasillegal,inviolationofthe4th  Amendment,andthatallevidenceobtainedtherefromshouldbeexcludedunderthefruitof  poisonoustreedoctrine.    Whilethestopofthevehiclewasjustifiedduetothespeeding,theofficerhadnoreasonto X  searchthecar.Arollofmoneyintheglovecompartmentdoesnotgiverisetoprobablecausethat D! therearedrugsinthevehicle.TheofficeraskedforconsenttosearchthecarandDannysaid no. 0"  ThecourtwillnotsuppresstheevidenceagainstEarlhowever,becausehelackedstandingbecause #l! thecarbelongedtoDanny.Earlhadnorightofprivacyinthecarbecauseitwasnothis.Thedrugs $X" wereobtainedbyanillegalsearchofDannyscarandcannotbeexcludedbyEarl. $D #   ThegunthatEarlhadwasretrievedbya specialforcesperson,notthepolice.SoEarl &"% couldnotsaythatthepoliceillegallysearchedhim.Thereisnostandingtosuppressifthereisno '#& stateaction. (#'   )$(   Additionally,EarlcannotbesuccessfulinsuppressingDannysstatements,eventhoughit  seemshisstatementwascoercedandviolatedMirandarulesunderthe5thAmendment.Earlcould  onlytrytosuppressstatementshemighthavemade.     TheCourtwilldenyEarlssuppressionmotionontheevidencefortheabovestatedreasons. `  h+&*   QUESTION11       Able,ahomelessperson,wascoldandhungry.HeobservedBakergoingintoBakershouse  atabout9:30p.m.inWaldorf,CharlesCounty,Maryland.Bakerleftthefrontdoorpartiallyopen. t Afterafewmoments,AblewentuptothedoorofBakershouseandknockedonthedoor.Baker ` respondedwith comeonin.Ablepushedthedoorsothatitwasfullyopenandtookonestepover L  thethresholdofthedoorwayandstopped.Ablethenstatedloudly: Iamcoldandhungry.Giveme 8  foodandmoney!Bakerwascaughtbysurprise.HefeltthreatenedbyAblespresenceand $ t statements.AblethenstuckhishandinhisownpocketinsuchawaythatBakerfearedthatAblehad  ` aweapon.Bakeryelledouttohiswifewhowasinthekitchentocallthepolice.Ableturnedand  L  fled.HewaslawfullyapprehendedbytheCharlesCountypolice,givenhisMirandarights,and  8  legallysearchedatwhichtimealockbladepenknifewasrecoveredfromhispocket.Ablewas $  chargedwithfirstdegreeburglaryandfirstandseconddegreeassault.HeisintheCharlesCounty   jailawaitingtrial.     AsanattorneyintheMarylandPublicDefendersOffice,youhavebeenassignedtodefend   Able. p o    StateindetailAblesdefensestothecrimeschargedandprovideananalysisofwhether H thedefenseswillbesuccessfulforAble.  4 ~u REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  H      1stDegreeBurglary. 1stdegreeburglaryisthebreakingandenteringthedwellinghouseof   anotherwiththeintenttocommitafelonyorathefttherein.Here,Abledidnotmakea breaking  forpurposesofthischarge.Able knockedonthedoorandpushedthealreadyopendoorfully  openandenteredinresponsetoBakerscommandto comeonin.Thisisnotabreakingfor  purposesofthiscrimebecauseAbleenteredwiththeconsentofthehomeownerBaker.  v    Inaddition,Abledidnothavetherequisiteintenttocommitafelonyoratheftonceinside \  Bakershome.WehavenofactstosuggestBakersintentwasunlawfulinanyway.Hemayhave H! simplyintendedtoapproachBakershouseasapanhandler,notathief.Inaddition,stating Iam 4"  coldandhungry.GivemefoodandmoneyisnotsufficienttoinferAblesintentatthetimeofthe  #p! enteringofBakershome.Asaresultoftheaboverationale,Ablewillbesuccessfulinassertinga  $\" defensetotheburglarycharge. $H # y    2ndDegreeAssault. 󀀀Istheplacinginfearofanimminentbatteryoranattempted(CL) & "% batteryinMaryland.HereAbleonlystatedtoBaker Imcold8.Givemefoodandmoney.This '#& isnotsufficientlanguagetosubstantiateathreattoBaker,norisitanaffirmativeactthatwould (#' indicatethatAbleintendedtoharmBaker.Ablesreachingontohispocketmaysatisfythe placing )$(  infearelementofseconddegreeassaultcircumstantially,butthisiscertainlynotbeyondargument *%) onAblesbehalf.ThischargeisthemostlikelyonetoconvictAble,althoughitisweak.Itwill  hingeonwhetherBakersfearwasreasonablyobjective.     1stDegreeAssault. 󀀀Isseconddegreeassaultwithahandgunoradangerousanddeadly t weapon.HereAbleonlyhadapenknife,whichisnotconsideredtobeadeadlyweaponunder d MarylandLaw.Inaddition,Ablemadenoaffirmativeacttoattempttodoseriousbodilyharmto P  Baker,otherthanplacinghishandinhispocket.Thisdoesnotrisetoaninferenceoftherequired <  intentfor1stdegreeassault. ( x       Asaresultoftheaboverationale,Ablewillbesuccessfulindefendingtheburglarycharge  P  and1stdegreeassault.WeneedmorefactstodetermineAblesculpabilityforseconddegreeassault.  <  ItismybeliefthatAblewillprobablybeconvictedoftheseconddegreeassaultcharge,because (  Bakersfearwasprobablyobjectivelyreasonableandsubjectively,actualfear.     @*     `    REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2      HerearetheavailabledefensestoAblescharges. `     1stDegreeBurglary. 󀀀1stdegreeburglaryisthebreakingandenteringadwellingofanother 8 duringnightordaytimewiththeintenttocommitafelonytherein. (x       Sinceburglaryisaspecificintentcrime,inordertoestablishburglary,theprosecutionneeds P toprovethatAblehadaintenttocommitafelony. <     Here,Ablesintentwasnottocommitafelony,butrathertoaskforsomefoodandmoney.  Therefore,hedidnothavetherequisiteintent.      Anotherelementisthe breakingandentering.Here,Bakerleftthefrontdoorpartially  open,andAbleknockedonthedoorbeforeheactuallyenteredpremise.Moreover,whenAble t knockedonthedoor,Bakerrespondedbysaying comeonin.Usually,aconsentisnotadefense `  toacrime,butinthiscase,Abledidhavetheconsentoftheownertoenterthepremise. L!       YoucouldarguethatbreakingoccurredwhenAblepushedopenthedoorthatwasalready $#t! partiallyopened.However,theenteringpartseemsunlikelytosucceedsinceAbleonlytookone $`" stepoverthethresholdofthedoorwayandstopped. $L #   Therefore,withthelackofmensreaandbreakingandenteringelements,itseemsthatthe &$"% publicdefendercansuccessfullyarguethedefense. '#&   Defenseto1st&2ndDegreeAssault!2nddegreeassaultisthecommonassault,meaning )$( intenttocommitbatteryorintenttothreatentype. *%)      p+&*   Here,thedefenseofAblewouldbethathedidnotintendtothreatenBakerorcommita  batteryuponBaker.Accordingtothefacts,Bakerwas threatenedbyAblespresenceand  statements.Thedefenseoflackofrequisitemensreawouldnotprobablysucceedinthischarge  becausealthoughAblemaynothaveintendedtothreatenBaker,Ablesloudstatementof Iamcold t andhungry.Givemefoodandmoneydidinfactcreateathreateningsituation. `       1stdegreeassaultistheassaultinthe2nddegreewithadangerousweaponorwiththeintent 8  toinflictseriousbodilyharm.AlthoughAbledidnothaveapenknifeinhispocket,Abledidnot $ t pulloutthatknifeinathreateningmannernordidheevengrabtheknifeinhiscoattopresentto  ` BakerthathemayhurtBakeriftheconditionsarenotmet.Therefore,itisunlikelythatAblewill  L  beconvictedof1stdegreeassault.  8   h+&*   QUESTION12   Ð  Abewasinjuredinamotorvehicleaccidentinwhichtheotherdriverwasclearlyatfaultand  adequatelyinsured.ThenextdayAbewroteacheckforcarrepairs1causedbytheaccidentthat t bounced.Hewasservedwithacriminalsummonscharginghimwiththeftarisingoutofthebounced ` check.ThecriminalcaseispendinginAnneArundelCounty,Maryland,DistrictCourt. L    AbehiredBentley,amemberoftheMarylandBartorepresenthiminhiscivilandcriminal $ t case.BentleyadvisedAbeMarylanddoesnotrequirewrittenfeeagreements.  `   BentleytoldAbehewouldchargeacustomarycontingentfeeinthepersonalinjurycase,a  8  flatfeeof$1,000inthetheftcaseplusabonusof$1,000ifAbereceivedaprobationbefore $  judgment.Bentleyrequired$1,000immediately.Bentleydepositedthe$1,000inthefirmsgeneral   businessoperatingaccount.     Bentleyimmediatelyrecovered$5,000underthepersonalinjuryprotection(PIP)automatic   nofaultpaymentprovisionofAbesownautomobilepolicyandpromptlysettledthepersonalinjury p claimfor$50,000.Ablewasplacedonprobationbeforejudgmentinthecriminalcase. \   BentleyhasnowtoldAbethatthecontingentfeeis50%oftheentire$55,000,calculated 4 beforedeductionofexpensesanddemandedpaymentofthebonusinthecriminalcase.  p   Abehasaskedyoutorepresenthimwithrespecttothefeedisputeandhasaskedwhether H Bentleyisallowedtochargehimthatmuch. 4   WhatwouldyouadviseAbeconcerningtheenforceabilityofthefeearrangementwith   Bentley?     REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  l     IwouldadviseAberegardingnumerousdeficienciesinthefeearrangementwithBentley, D! includingvariousunenforceableprovisions. 0"    First,awrittenfeeagreementisrequiredinacontingencyfeecaseinMaryland.Bentleys $X" statementthatoneisnotrequiredviolatedhisprofessionalresponsibilitytohisclient.Suchafee $D # arrangementmuststatehowthecontingencyistobecalculatedandwhetheritdeductsexpenses %0!$ beforeoraftertheattorneyispaid.Thisoralagreementforacontingencyfeeinthecivilcasewith &"% nootherspecifictermsisunenforceable. '#&     Second,acontingencyfeemaynotgivethelawyeragreaterinterestintheoutcomeofthe )$( casethantheclient.Here,afiftypercentcontingencydoesnotgiveeitherpartyagreaterinterest. |*%) Sinceacontingencyfeemustbereasonableinlightofthenoveltyofthecase,theamountoftime h+&* necessarytohandlethecase,thecomplexityoftheissuesandtheriskstakenbythelawyer,afee  arrangementgivingBentleyfiftypercentofAbesrecoveryfromthepersonalinjuryclaimappears  tobeunreasonableandmaynotbeenforcedincourt.    Next,Bentleydepositedthe$1,000.00upfrontbonusinthefirmsoperatingaccountwhen ` hehadnotyetearnedthefee.Sincethesefundsstillbelongedtotheclient,theyshouldhavebeen L  heldintheescrowaccountuntilthecaseisoverandBentleywasentitledtopaymentofhisfee. 8    Further,anattorneymaynotconsenttoasettlementwithoutthepermissionoftheclient.  ` Bentleysettledthepersonalinjuryclaimfor$50,000.00withoutfirstsecuringAbesapproval.  L  ThereforeBentleysattempttocollectapercentageofthisrecoveryisquestionableandmaynotbe  8  enforceableincourt. $    Additionally,contingencyfeesareneverallowedincriminalcases.Here,Bentleyexpressly   madea$1,000.00bonuscontingentontheresultofthecriminalcase.Thisisnotatraditional   contingencyarrangementbutisstillquestionable,especiallysinceBentleypaidittohisoperating   accountbeforeearningitasmentionedabove. p   Lastly,the$5,000.00fromAbesnofaultpaymentinsuranceprovisionwasmoneydueto H AberegardlessofBentleysaction,astorequestafiftypercentcontingencyfeeastothesefundsis 4 likelytobeviewedasunreasonablebyacourt.  p    REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2 4 Ť   Theunderlyingruleforallfeesisthattheymustbereasonablegiventhecircumstances.     CivilCase.       BentleymisinformedAbewhenhesaidthefeearrangementneednotbeinwritingbecause l allcontingencyfeeagreementmustbeinwriting.Theymuststatethepercentagetopbepaidand X  whetherthatpercentagewillbecalculatedbeforeorafterthedeductionofexpenses.Furthermore, D! thepercentagechargedmustbereasonable.Inthiscase,fiftypercentisunreasonable. 0"  Reasonablenessofafeewillbebasedonthecomplexityofthecase,howmuchworkmustbeput #l! intoit,theexperienceandskilloftheattorney,whethertheattorneymustturndownotherclients, $X" andwhatiscustomaryinthelocallegalcommunity.Inthiscase,theworkBentleydidwaseasy:the $D # otherdriverwas clearlyatfaultand adequatelyinsured.TheclaimwassettledpromptlysoAbe %0!$ didnthavetoinvestmuchtime.Hisskillswerenotcalledupon,and