ÿWPCÑ ó×°ÒXHàf§éO…Ð¥6¨û~±*Ž¥7â6püå¼Û vÇÄÕZ°v³7™¯O„r#î’Ïþ~…Ç Že‚P­#FF/^b³(¿™¸&s¢j÷‚ÿ¾Î~oÅa¹´ÞêÐS}´S¾µ§™ì_¹NÂÅ3üŽ«[7ÅNA-“Õbwc.ø«£@—ò,¸Ði*HNáÿÒPîr)C¥D¢ºãÓ¾² ù¨ñ„å¿Q¬§EÒpc”2Ñ猻™ý@»ý퇳ûÄ–Ë®ß( qÝ‚*£—ô2öÕôrZÚÃ4qSQTÌËOz1u¡%Kyˆu¸¨J~Ñ”vë´ašÄò`»¤ͼ Ó»´éׇüÃî8ÍI÷¶ž¯0’¼æ0úI×Wx)ºueÊcŸüÝzWÑPÏt\^6žäKEœUq‡æ6ýÁ4ÿ™…âì>dñµéÌ'T!¨¿2âÑvLÆÆzpuZ w%½J:†P2"Èóq‚^ÃsÃü¿îžÂ%zVG>ê…IÛ´ÚÖ®zc[sÆ»æÉA;žxö/þ§¼G¸˜¾À°f>J–­ôùY<ªß_ÃÞ[ØL~Ž){v#“™~VKX™Šcä{x¥iÚ±˜_û=zïµË¢"òŸÔ…)Úg[#ÁúUN» % 0: U@I ^ ‰ w• 4™ ­ ¼ m¾ U>Õ ™ N¬ ¬ U*® 1uØ 72M 0c   0Vâ â b8 8 0VR R R R R R R R "¨ 07HÊ 0 00( 0-X 0*… 0'¯ 0$Ö 0!ú 0 09 0TTTTTTTTTTTTTT 1el˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman jv•5s SzZ3{5Backup3|x!ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `&Times New Roman Ý ƒ½Þ)ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà@ëë¹ìàò òPage€Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú€of€Ú  Ú33Ú  Úó ó%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(.3½Þ$©©Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝPage ù of &ù(.3½Þ$ªªÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý Ñ e ÑÑ ° Ñ6“ÿÿ4Body TextÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔ?‡%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓ<cwÿÿ:envelope retÑ  ÑÔ‡ôôôÔÔ?‡%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡ ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÑ  Ñ<c+f ÿÿ:Outline004_1Ó ˜þ ÓÓ À ÓÓ/%œ œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ ˜þ Ó<`+f ÿÿ:Outline004_2Ó Ôþ ÓÓ Ü ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<]+f ÿÿ:Outline004_3Ó jÿ ÓÓ 4 ÓÓ) <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ jÿ Ó<Z+f ÿÿ:Outline004_4Ó Ôþ ÓÓ Œ ÓÓ&hh”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<W+f ÿÿ:Outline004_5Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ä ÓÓ#ÀÀìDœôL¤#ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<T+f ÿÿ:Outline004_6Ó jÿ ÓÓ < ÓÓ DœôL¤ ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ jÿ Ó<Q+f ÿÿ:Outline004_7Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ” ÓÓppœôL¤ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<N+f ÿÿ:Outline004_8Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ì ÓÓÈÈôL¤ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<K+f ÿÿ:Outline004_9Ó jÿ ÓÓ D ÓÓ   L¤ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÓ jÿ ÓDEFGHIJK ÿÿ35;AGMSY_2a.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXÔÖ€ ÿÿÖÓ  Óò òÑ€"NVÑJULY€2006€BAR€EXAMINATIONÐ ° ÐÌQUESTIONS€AND€REPRESENTATIVE€GOOD€ANSWERSÐ ˆØ ÐÌQUESTION€€1Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óRon€White€and€Jeff€Ô_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ô€were€returning€home€to€Cecil€County,€Maryland€afterÐ 8 ˆ Ðspending€the€day€in€Atlantic€City.€White€was€driving€his€car€and€Ô_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ô€was€the€passenger.Ð $ t ÐClose€to€home€in€Maryland,€Whiteððs€car€ran€off€the€road€after€he€saw€a€deer€running€in€theÐ  ` Ðroadway.€White€and€Ô_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ôððs€recollections€differed€as€to€the€actions€of€the€deer.€No€otherÐ ü L  Ðpeople€or€vehicles€were€involved€in€the€accident.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€Maryland€State€Police€arrived€and€White€was€issued€citations€for€driving€under€theÐ À  Ðinfluenceò ò€ó óof€alcohol,€driving€while€impaired€by€alcoholò ò,€ó ónegligent€driving€and€speeding.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhite€paid€the€preset€fine€for€the€speeding€violation.€White€later€appeared,€with€counselÐ ˆØ  Ðin€the€District€Court€of€Maryland€sitting€in€Cecil€County.€Through€negotiations€with€the€AssistantÐ tÄ ÐStateððs€Attorney,€the€driving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol€charge€was€dropped.€White€pleadedÐ `° Ðòònolo€contendereóó€to€the€charge€of€driving€while€impaired€by€alcohol€and€guilty€to€the€charge€ofÐ Lœ Ðnegligent€driving.Ð 8ˆ ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ô€has€sued€White€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Cecil€County€for€injuries€he€sufferedÐ ` Ðin€the€accident.Ð üL ÐÌà  àIn€th€civil€case,€Ô_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ô€wants€to€introduce€as€evidence€the€payment€of€the€ticket,Ð Ô$ Ðguilty€plea€and€òònol€contendereóó€plea.Ð À ÐÌà  àò òHow€should€the€trial€court€rule?€Explain.ó óÐ ˜è ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÌREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1ó óÐ \ ¬ ÐÓÓÌÓ  Óà  àIn€Maryland,€violation€of€a€statute€is€admissible€as€evidence€of€negligence€in€tort€actions.€Ð 4"„  ÐThere€is€no€negligence€per€se€so€even€admittance€of€all€of€the€evidence€Ô_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ô€seeks€to€introduceÐ  #p! Ðwould€allow€the€finder€of€fact€in€the€case€to€analyze€any€admitted€statutory€violations€and€eachÐ  $\" Ðparties€account€of€the€incident€involving€the€deer.Ð ø$H # Ðà  àÌà  àWhite€pled€guilty€to€the€charge€of€negligent€driving.€€A€guilty€plea€in€a€case€where€theÐ Ð& "% Ðdefendant€has€the€same€motivation€to€vigorously€defend€himself€as€he€would€in€a€subsequent€tortÐ ¼' #& Ðaction€can€be€used€against€him€as€an€admission€in€that€subsequent€action.€€As€an€admission€of€a€partyÐ ¨(ø#' Ðopponent,€Whiteððs€guilty€plea€is€admissible€in€Ô_ÔFoxworthyÔ_Ôððs€case.Ð ”)ä$( ÐÌà  àThe€payment€of€the€preset€fine€for€speeding€by€White€can€also€be€viewed€as€a€guilty€plea.€Ð l+¼&* ÐÔ_ÔThis€is€a€much€closer€call€than€the€negligent€driving€guilty€plea,€however,€because€the€fine€is€a€veryÐ ° Ðsmall€penalty€and€may€be€less€costly€than€defending€against€the€speeding€ticket.€€Since€there€is€lessÐ œì Ðindicia€of€the€reliability€of€paying€a€fine€for€speeding€as€an€admission€than€there€is€for€a€guilty€pleaÐ ˆØ Ðfor€negligent€driving€(which€presumably€carries€a€much€stiffer€penalty),€it€is€less€likely€that€WhiteððsÐ tÄ Ðpayment€of€the€speeding€ticket€will€be€admissible€as€an€admission€of€a€party€opponent.Ð `° Ðà  àÌà  àA€nolo€contendere€plea€faces€many€of€the€same€issues€of€reliability€that€payment€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðspeeding€ticket€did.€€White€may€have€received€a€very€lenient€sentence€in€return€for€his€pleading€noloÐ $ t Ðcontendere€and€may€have€avoided€facing€a€trial€in€which€the€penalty€would€have€been€much€moreÐ  ` Ðsevere.€€Also,€in€his€plea€of€nolo€contendere,€White€is€specifically€denying€the€charges€being€broughtÐ ü L  Ðagainst€him€despite€the€fact€that€he€is€pleaing€out.€€Whiteððs€refusal€to€admit€guilt€leads€to€a€very€largeÐ è 8  Ðproblem€in€allowing€the€plea€as€an€admission€by€White€at€a€subsequent€tort€proceeding€because€thereÐ Ô$  Ðare€indicia€directly€counter€to€reliability€of€the€statement€and€ample€evidence€that€White€did€not€haveÐ À  Ðthe€motivation€to€vigorously€defend€himself€because€of€the€type€of€risk€that€was€involved.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€trial€court€should€admit€Whiteððs€guilty€plea€for€negligent€driving,€but€the€court€shouldÐ „Ô  Ðnot€allow€Whiteððs€payment€of€the€speeding€ticket€or€plea€of€nolo€contendere€for€driving€whileÐ pÀ Ðimpaired€by€alcohol€as€admissions€by€White.€€Foxworthy€may€still€introduce€evidence€to€suggest€thatÐ \¬ ÐWhite€engaged€in€these€activities.Ð H˜ ÐÓ  ÓÌò òÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€€2Ð  p Ðó óÓÓÌÓ  Ó1.à  àòòPayment€of€the€Ticket:óó€€€€Foxworthy€wishes€to€introduce€as€evidence€the€fact€that€White€paidÐ øH Ðthe€preset€fine€for€the€speeding€violation.€€Foxworthy€should€not€be€permitted€to€introduce€theÐ ä4 Ðpayment€into€evidence.€€Whiteððs€payment€of€the€ticket€is€not€an€admission€of€guilt€or€an€admissionÐ Ð  Ðby€Foxworthy€that€he€was€speeding.€€Thus,€the€court€should€not€admit€the€evidence€if€FoxworthyÐ ¼  Ðwishes€to€prove€that€White€admitted€to€driving€over€the€speed€limit€on€òòpublic€policy€grounds.óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌ2.à  àòòGuilty€Pleaóó:à ¸ àThe€court€may€properly€admit€evidence€of€Whiteððs€guilty€plea.€€A€civil€partyÐ €Ð Ðmay€introduce€evidence€of€a€criminal€defendantððs€guilty€plea€in€a€criminal€proceeding.€€The€onlyÐ l¼ Ðlimitation€is€that€the€guilty€plea€is€only€admissible€in€a€òòsubsequent€civil€trial€arising€out€of€the€sameÐ X ¨ Ðoccurrence€or€transactionóó€as€the€criminal€proceeding.€€Here,€Foxworthy€is€bringing€a€claim€forÐ D!” Ðdamages€based€on€the€same€incident€for€which€White€was€criminally€charged.€€The€evidence,€thus,Ð 0"€  Ðshould€be€òòadmissibleóó€as€non„hearsay€òòadmission€by€a€party„opponentóó.Ð #l! ÐÌ3.à  àòòNolo€Contendereóó:€€The€court€should€find€that€Whiteððs€òònolo€contendereóó€plea€is€inadmissibleÐ ô$D # Ðon€the€grounds€of€public€policy.€€Maryland€courts€do€not€allow€pleas€of€nolo€contendere€to€beÐ à%0!$ Ðadmitted€against€a€criminal€defendant€in€either€a€subsequent€civil€or€criminal€trial.€€FoxworthyÐ Ì&"% Ðwishes€to€introduce€the€evidence€of€Whiteððs€nolo€contendere€plea€to€the€driving€while€impaired€byÐ ¸'#& Ðalcohol€charge.€€A€òònolo€contendereóó€plea€is€not€an€admission€by€the€criminal€defendant€of€guilt.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐTherefore,€the€court€should€exclude€evidence€of€the€nolo€contendere€plea€on€òòpublic€policyóó€òògrounds.Ð )à$( ÐóóÌÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÐ  h+¸&* ÐQUESTION€2Ð ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óYou€are€the€Maryland€attorney€representing€Venice€Marriot,€a€volatile€hotel€heiress€andÐ ˆØ Ðsocialite,€in€her€highly€contentious€divorce€and€custody€battle€with€her€soon€to€be€ex„husband,Ð tÄ ÐElmo€Klump€in€a€Maryland€Circuit€Court.€The€proceedings€are€not€going€well€for€her€and€in€theÐ `° Ðweeks€before€trial,€it€is€clear€that€Elmo€will€likely€receive€sole€custody€of€their€3€children,Ð L œ Ðalimony€and€a€significant€monetary€award.€All€of€this€has€made€Venice€even€more€distraught.ò òÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àó óOn€May€1,€2006,€Venice€meets€with€you€in€your€office€to€prepare€for€her€deposition.€AtÐ  ` Ðyour€suggestion,€she€brings€her€best€friend€Mercedes€to€the€meeting€to€serve€as€a€calmingÐ ü L  Ðinfluence.€During€the€meeting,€you€hear€Venice€tell€Mercedes€how€they€should€kill€Elmo€byÐ è 8  Ðð ðslicing€him€up€like€a€piece€of€sushi.ðð€You€think€they€are€joking,€but€on€the€way€out€of€yourÐ Ô$  Ðoffice,€Venice€comments€on€how€much€she€likes€the€samurai€sword€collection€prominentlyÐ À  Ðdisplayed€in€your€office.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOn€May€5,€2006€you€read€in€the€newspaper€that€Elmo€survived€an€attack€by€two€samuraiÐ „Ô  Ðsword€wielding€female€assailants.€€You€also€notice€that€two€of€your€swords€are€missing.€LaterÐ pÀ Ðthat€day€Venice€comes€to€your€office€and€tells€you€that€she€has€your€missing€swords€in€the€trunkÐ \¬ Ðof€her€car€and€asks€for€your€help€disposing€of€them.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àYou€are€now€concerned€about€your€continued€representation€of€Venice€and€seekÐ  p Ðpermission€from€the€Court€to€withdraw€as€her€counsel.€As€the€trial€date€is€near,€the€Court€refusesÐ  \ Ðyour€request€unless€you€provide€an€explanation€as€to€why€you€are€unable€to€continue€yourÐ øH Ðrepresentation.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àò òa.€May€you€disclose€Veniceððs€statements€made€in€your€office€on€May€1,€2006€andÐ ¼  ÐMay€5,€2006€to€the€trial€judge€in€support€of€your€motion€to€withdraw€from€the€case?Ð ¨ø ÐExplain€your€reasoning.Ð ”ä ÐÌÓ  Óà @ àADDITIONAL€FACTSÐ l¼ ÐÓÃ&ÓÌà  àó óVenice€and€Mercedes€are€now€facing€trial€in€a€Maryland€Circuit€Court€for€the€attemptedÐ D!” Ðmurder€of€Elmo.€The€stateððs€attorney€has€subpoenaed€you€to€testify€about€the€statementsò ò€ó ómade€byÐ 0"€  ÐVenice€on€May€1,€2006€and€May€5,€2006.€Venice€argues€those€statements€are€confidentiallyÐ  #p! Ðprotected€communications€and€you€should€not€be€allowed€to€testify€about€them.Ð  $\" ÐÌà  àò òb.€How€should€the€trial€judge€rule?€Explain€fully.Ð ä%4!$ Ðó óÌò òÓ  ÓÌREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€€1Ð ¨(ø#' Ðó óÓ5)ÓÌÓ  Óà  àA.à ` àAn€attorney€generally€has€a€duty€to€maintain€òòconfidential€communicationsóó€with€hisÐ €*Ð%) Ðor€her€clients.€€In€this€case,€Veniceððs€friend€Mercedes€was€present€during€consultations.€€Ô_ÔTheÐ l+¼&* Ðpresence€of€a€third€party€will€not€defeat€confidentiality€where€that€person€was€present€for€the€purposeÐ ° Ðof€aiding€the€exchange€of€legal€advice.€€Mercedes€was€present€at€the€meeting€òòat€my€suggestionóó€inÐ œì Ðorder€to€serve€as€a€òòcalming€influenceóó.€€The€Maryland€Court€of€Appeals€has€ruled€thatÐ ˆØ Ðcommunications€between€an€attorney€and€client€in€the€presence€of€a€person€who€is€serving€to€calmÐ tÄ Ðthe€client€retain€their€confidential€character.€€€Thus,€the€presence€of€Mercedes€does€not€relieve€meÐ `° Ðof€my€duties€to€maintain€confidence.€€Ð L œ Ðà  àAn€attorney€may€disclose€when€there€is€a€significant€likelihood€that€disclosure€will€preventÐ 8 ˆ Ðdeath€or€substantial€€bodily€harm.€€Here,€I€was€initially€under€the€impression€that€the€two€were€jokingÐ $ t Ðabout€ð ðslicing€[Elmo]€up€like€a€piece€of€sushi.ðð€€Given€the€attack€on€Elmo,€which€occurred€withinÐ  ` Ðfour€days€of€the€meeting,€was€perpetrated€by€two€female€assailants,€and€was€committed€with€twoÐ ü L  Ðsamurai€swords,€it€is€quite€likely€€that€the€women€attempted€to€kill€Elmo.€€I€could€reasonably€fear€forÐ è 8  Ðthe€possibility€of€future€violence€against€Elmo€or€the€children.€€As€such,€disclosure€would€beÐ Ô$  Ðpermitted.Ð À  Ðà  àÌà  àVenice€has€informed€me€that€she€has€my€missing€swords€and€would€like€my€help€disposingÐ ˜è  Ðof€them.€€Neither€the€attorney„client€privilege€nor€the€confidentiality€protect€against€physicalÐ „Ô  Ðevidence€that€has€been€touched€by€an€attorney.€€An€attorney€has€a€duty€to€not€engage€in€any€fraud€thatÐ pÀ Ðwould€impair€the€administration€of€justice.€€Under€these€facts,€I€could€reasonably€conclude€thatÐ \¬ Ðcommunications.€€In€òòNewman€v.€Stateóó,€€the€case€from€which€these€facts€are€derived,€the€Court€ofÐ H˜ ÐAppeals€ruled€that€the€presence€of€a€third€person€at€the€request€of€an€attorney€for€the€purpose€ofÐ 4„ ÐÔ_ÔclamingÔ_Ô€discussions€did€not€defeat€the€privilege.€€Admission€of€an€evidence€as€to€the€discussion€onÐ  p ÐMay€1€would€violate€Veniceððs€attorney„client€privilege.Ð  \ ÐÑ  Ñà  àÌà  àOn€May€5,€Venice€attempted€to€obtain€my€help€in€doctoring€or€hiding€evidence€that€wasÐ ä4 Ðprobably€related€to€a€crime.€€While€an€attorney€must€not€aid€a€client€in€hiding€or€destroyingÐ Ð  Ðexculpatory€evidence,€the€discussion€about€such€actions€retains€privilege.€€The€court€should€onlyÐ ¼  Ðadmit€evidence€of€the€May€5€meeting€to€the€extent€that€I€moved,€touched€or€manipulated€evidence.€Ð ¨ø ÐBarring€such€actions€on€my€part,€the€conversation€would€be€both€confidential€and€privileged.Ð ”ä ÐÓ  ÓÌÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€€2Ð l¼ Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  à(A)à ` àI€have€reasonable€grounds€to€believe€that€my€client€Venice€attempted€to€murder€herÐ D!” Ðhusband€Elmo.€€I€am€representing€her€in€a€divorce€and€custody€battle€and€I€have€serious€problemsÐ 0"€  Ðfighting€for€her€to€get€custody€since€she€probably€tried€to€kill€Elmo,€which€may€be€quite€repugnant.€Ð #l! ÐBoth€of€these€rationales€support€filing€the€motion€to€withdraw,€as€does€her€request€to€get€my€helpÐ $X" Ðperpetrating€what€I€quite€reasonably€believe€is€a€crime€(obstruction)€by€hiding€the€swords.Ð ô$D # Ðà  àÌà  àIf€Veniceððs€statements€in€my€office€were€not€privileged€I€could€disclose€them€to€the€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðwithout€worry.€€Because€a€third„party,€Mercedes,€was€there€at€the€time,€the€statement€might€not€beÐ ¸'#& Ðprivileged.€€Mercedes€was€not€there€at€my€request€òòto€help€Veniceððs€caseóó€(like€an€expert),€€she€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthere€as€Veniceððs€ð ðcalming€influence.ðð€She€was€there,€however,€at€[my]€request,€and€although€sheÐ )à$( Ðâ â(Mercedes)€was€not€acting€in€furtherance€of€the€case,€since€she€was€there€at€my€request,€and€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpurpose€of€the€meeting€was€to€prepare€the€Ô_ÔdepoÔ_Ô€testimony,€it€is€quite€likely€Veniceððs€statement€wouldÐ ° Ðfall€under€the€attorney„client€privilege.Ð œì Ðâ âÑ  Ñà  àÌÌà  àEven€though€it€is€probably€privileged,€I€can€reveal€it€to€the€judge€because€it€is€crucial€toÐ `° Ðexplaining€why€I€want€(and€maybe€need)€to€withdraw.€€First,€I€should€try€being€vague€and€saying€thatÐ L œ ÐI€have€strong€reason€to€believe€my€client€has€engaged€in€criminal€conduct,€and€has€tried€to€get€myÐ 8 ˆ Ðhelp€in€furthering€it.€€If€that€isnððt€enough,€disclosing€the€statements€to€just€the€judge€is€warranted.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àVeniceððs€statement€on€May€5€would€also€be€Ô_ÔdisclosableÔ_Ô€since€she€tried€to€get€me€to€furtherÐ ü L  Ðwhat€I€reasonably€believe€was€a€crime.€€I€should€tell€her€at€the€time€I€canððt€help€and€that€anyÐ è 8  Ðfruits/instrumentalities€of€a€crime€should€not€be€disposed€of,€as€that€is€also€a€crime.Ð Ô$  Ðà  àÌà  à(B)à ` àVeniceððs€statement€on€May€1€would€be€a€confidentially€protected€communication.€Ð ¬ü  ÐDespite€the€third€party€presence,€it€was€made€in€the€context€of€an€attorney„client€meeting,€and€theÐ ˜è  Ðmeeting€was€for€the€purpose€of€working€on€the€litigation.€€At€the€time,€it€seemed€like€a€jokingÐ „Ô  Ðstatement.€€The€statement€about€€the€sword€collection€may€be€admissible,€since€it€was€on€the€way€out,Ð pÀ Ðif€anyone€else€heard€it,€since€that€was€not€made€in€the€context€of€the€Ô_ÔdepoÔ_Ô€prep€and€would€not€beÐ \¬ Ðprivileged€in€the€presence€of€a€random€third€party.Ð H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àThe€statements€on€May€5€are€probably€not€protected.€€They€were€made€in€the€effort€toÐ  p Ðperpetrate€a€crime€or€fraud,€whether€or€not€it€involved€me,€in€that€she€was€seeking€to€dispose€ofÐ  \ Ðevidence.€€That€makes€them€an€exception€to€the€attorney„client€privilege.Ð øH ÐÓ  ÓÌÐ  Ð  ÐÑ"NVÑâ "âÑe°ÑѰ°Ñâ "âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€3ó óÐ e ÐÓ™DÓÌÓ  Óà  àRex€Reporter€is€a€sports€reporter€for€The€Post-Gazette.€€€Rex€is€investigating€alleged€steroidÐ =Ø Ðabuse€by€Buddy€Bigman,€a€star€of€Maryland's€professional€baseball€team.€€Rex€has€learned€thatÐ )Ä ÐBuddy's€ailing€father,€Frank€Bigman,€resides€in€a€private€nursing€home€in€Baltimore€City.€€With€theÐ ° Ðapproval€of€the€newspaper's€editor,€Rex€goes€to€the€nursing€home€during€regular€visiting€hours.€Ð  œ ÐWhen€he€arrives€at€the€nursing€home,€pursuant€to€the€home's€policy€as€to€visitors,€Rex€signs€his€nameÐ í ˆ Ðin€a€book€at€the€reception€desk€and€writes€that€he€is€visiting€Frank€Bigman.€€Rex€then€walks€toÐ Ù t ÐFrank's€room.€€The€door€to€Frank's€room€is€slightly€ajar.€€Rex€opens€the€door,€walks€in€and€saysÐ Å ` Ð"Hello€Mr.€Bigman.€How€are€you€feeling€today?"€€Frank€Bigman€responds€"I'm€fine,€but€who€areÐ ± L  Ðyou?"€€Rex€introduces€himself€as€a€reporter€for€The€Post-Gazette,€and€asks€Frank€if€he€knowsÐ  8  Ðanything€about€his€son's€use€of€performance€enhancing€steroids.€€Frank€becomes€agitated€andÐ ‰$  Ðdemands€that€Rex€leave€his€room€immediately.€€Rex€states€that€he€only€has€a€few€questions€and€asksÐ u  ÐFrank€to€be€patient.€€Frank€again€demands€that€Rex€leave€his€room.€€Rex€angrily€responds€that€heÐ aü  Ðonly€is€doing€his€job,€and€again€asks€Frank€about€Buddy's€alleged€steroid€use.€€Frank€yells€"Get€outÐ Mè  Ðof€here!"€€This€time€Rex€leaves,€slamming€the€door€behind€him€on€his€way€out.€€Frank€remains€veryÐ 9Ô  Ðupset€over€this€incident,€and€for€the€next€several€days€experiences€shortness€of€breath€and€has€troubleÐ %À Ðsleeping.€€Ð ¬ Ðà  àÌà  àA€few€months€later€Frank€and€his€son€Buddy€visit€your€office€to€discuss€a€possible€lawsuitÐ é„ Ðagainst€the€Post-Gazette.€€After€the€meeting,€Buddy€telephones€you€and€tells€you€that€his€father€isÐ Õp Ð86€years€old€and€has€been€diagnosed€as€suffering€from€the€initial€stages€of€dementia.€€Buddy€says€thatÐ Á\ Ðhis€father€"has€good€days€and€bad€days"€and€that€often€Frank€is€lucid€but€sometimes€is€confused€andÐ ­H Ðforgetful.€€Buddy€thinks€the€stress€of€a€trial€would€be€harmful€to€his€father.€€Buddy€also€says€that€hisÐ ™4 Ðfather€is€a€very€proud€person€and€would€be€humiliated€if€he€knew€that€Buddy€had€disclosed€thisÐ …  Ðinformation€to€you€and€asks€you€not€to€tell€his€father.Ð q  Ðà  àÌà  àò òa.€€Analyze€what€causes€of€action€Frank€may€have€against€òòThe€Baltimore€Post-Gazetteóó,Ð Iä Ðand€the€likelihood€of€success.ó óÐ 5Ð Ðà  àÌà  àò òb.€€Should€the€information€provided€to€you€by€Buddy€affect€your€professionalÐ  ¨ Ðobligations€to€Frank?€€Are€you€obligated€to€disclose€the€telephone€call€with€Frank?Ð ù ” Ðó óÌò òÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1ó óÐ Ñ"l! ÐÌÓ  Óà  à(a)€Frank's€cause€of€action:€Frank€may€sue€the€Post€Gazette€(PG)€for€Rex's€torts€if€they€wereÐ ©$D # Ðwithin€the€scope€of€Rex's€employment.€€It€appears€that€is€the€case,€since€Rex's€conduct€was€not€onlyÐ •%0!$ Ðto€further€and€advance€PG's€interest,€but€Rex€first€obtained€approval€from€PG's€editor€before€visitingÐ &"% ÐFrank.€€Therefore,€Frank€has€the€possible€causes€of€action€against€PG:Ð m'#& ÐÌà  àTrespassing:€Rex€trespassed€into€Frank's€room€when€he€entered€without€permission,€andÐ E)à$( Ðparticularly€when€he€stayed€about€being€told€twice€to€leave.Ð 1*Ì%) ÐÌà  àInvasion€of€Privacy:€Frank€had€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€in€his€private€room.€RexÐ  ,¤'+ Ðviolated€that€privacy€by€continuing€to€stay€after€being€told€to€leave.€€This€cause€of€action€will€beÐ e Ðdifficult€to€prove.Ð Qì Ðà  àIntentional€Infliction€of€Emotional€Distress:€Rex's€behavior€was€extreme€and€outrageous.€Ð =Ø ÐHe€should€not€have€made€demands€of€an€old€man€in€a€nursing€home,€particularly€after€seeing€howÐ )Ä Ðmuch€he€was€upsetting€Frank.€€Frank€suffered€severe€emotional€distress€as€a€result€of€Rex'sÐ ° Ðpurposeful€behavior€("very€upset",€"shortness€of€breath",€"trouble€sleeping")€with€actual€physicalÐ  œ Ðsymptoms.€€This€will€also€be€difficult€to€prove,€however,€since€the€conduct€may€not€be€consideredÐ í ˆ Ðextreme€and€outrageous€enough.Ð Ù t ÐÌà  à(b)€My€client€in€this€situation€is€Frank,€not€his€son€Buddy,€even€if€Buddy€is€paying€my€fee.€Ð ± L  ÐTherefore,€my€obligation€is€to€Frank€alone.€€I€must€do€what€is€in€Frank's€best€interests.€€I€also€haveÐ  8  Ðan€obligation€to€disclose€to€Frank€information€regarding€his€case€and€keep€Frank€aware€ofÐ ‰$  Ðdevelopments.€€Buddy's€remarks€do€not€fall€into€this€category,€and€therefore,€I€do€not€need€to€discloseÐ u  Ðthe€information.€€It€does€not€affect€Frank's€case€against€PG.€€However,€I€should€keep€the€informationÐ aü  Ðin€mind€when€I€decide€on€a€strategy€with€Frank.€€Since€I€must€do€what€is€in€my€client's€interests,€IÐ Mè  Ðcannot€do€things€that€will€be€harmful.€€I€must€make€that€determination€myself,€however,€and€cannotÐ 9Ô  Ðallow€Buddy€to€dictate€the€strategy€for€Frank.€€My€obligations€to€Frank€remain€the€same€under€theÐ %À ÐMaryland€Rules€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€I€will€discuss€the€impact€of€a€trial€with€Frank€andÐ ¬ Ðlet€Frank€determine€if€he€can€handle€it€as€the€final€decision€is€always€the€clientððs.Ð ý˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2ó óÐ Õp ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà  àa.€€In€the€first€place,€Frank€may€sue€the€Baltimore€Post€Gazette€directly€under€a€theory€ofÐ ­H Ðrespondent€superior,€as€Rex€is€clearly€in€an€agency€relationship€with€the€PG.€€Frank€could€also€joinÐ ™4 ÐRex€in€the€suit€as€a€joint€tortfeasor€with€PG.€€Ð …  ÐÌà  àFrank€has€two€real€options€for€causes€of€action,€but€only€one€has€a€chance€of€success.€€First,Ð ]ø ÐFrank€may€sue€on€the€theory€of€Intentional€Infliction€of€Emotional€Distress.€€This€is€very€unlikelyÐ Iä Ðto€succeed,€because€while€Rex's€behavior€may€have€been€a€little€obnoxious,€it€could€hardly€be€calledÐ 5Ð Ðextreme€or€outrageous.€€Also,€the€incident€seems€to€have€physically/psychically€injured€Frank€forÐ !¼ Ðonly€a€few€days,€an€injury€which€probably€isn't€severe€enough€to€bring€an€IED€claim.€€Also,€MarylandÐ  ¨ Ðdoes€not€recognize€a€negligent€IED€claim,€so€Frank€has€no€real€shot€at€an€emotional€distress€claim.€Ð ù ” ÐÌà  àHowever,€Frank€may€have€a€trespassing€claim€against€Rex.€€Rex€never€clearly€got€permissionÐ Ñ"l! Ðto€enter€Frank's€room€(though€he€was€validly€in€the€nursing€home).€€Even€if€he€did€originally€haveÐ ½#X" Ðpermission€to€be€in€Frank's€room,€Frank€clearly€revoked€Rex's€license€to€be€on€his€property€when€heÐ ©$D # Ðtwice€demanded€that€Rex€leave€the€room,€then€yelled€"get€out€of€here!"€€This€claim€is€likely€toÐ •%0!$ Ðprevail€as€Rex€was€intentionally€on€Frank's€property,€and€caused€Frank€injury€(i.e.€emotionalÐ &"% Ðfragility,€shortness€of€breath,€trouble€sleeping).Ð m'#& ÐÌà  àAs€a€side€note,€Frank€could€not€bring€a€claim€for€slander€or€defamation€of€his€son,€since€theÐ E)à$( Ðstatement€was€never€published,€was€not€clearly€a€statement€(rather,€a€question),€and€the€right€belongsÐ 1*Ì%) Ðto€his€son,€Buddy,€to€bring€suit.Ð +¸&* ÐÐ  ,¤'+ Ðà  àb).€€Frank€must€still€be€treated€like€a€regular€client.€€Buddy's€information€will€probably€leadÐ e Ðme€to€treat€Frank€more€carefully.€€That€is,€explaining€everything€fully€and€in€detail,€so€I€can€be€sureÐ Qì ÐFrank€understands€what€is€going€on.€€If€I€notice€his€mental€state€clearly€deteriorating,€I€may€have€toÐ =Ø Ðappoint€a€guardian€for€him.Ð )Ä Ðà  àMy€duty€of€loyalty€is€to€Frank,€not€Buddy,€so€ordinarily€I€would€have€to€disclose€the€phoneÐ ° Ðcall.€€However,€if€disclosing€the€phone€call€would€be€harmful€to€Frank,€I€do€not€have€to€disclose€itÐ  œ Ð(in€the€same€way€that€a€psychiatrist€report€does€not€have€to€be€disclosed€if€disclosure€would€beÐ í ˆ Ðharmful€to€the€client).€Ð Ù t ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÐ  ± L  Ðà@%ìàò òQUESTION€4ó óˆÐ e ÐÌà  àIn€1995,€Fred€Farmer,€his€son€Albert€and€Albert's€wife,€Beth,€purchased€"Blackacre",€a€farmÐ =Ø Ðin€Washington€County,€Maryland.€€The€deed€conveyed€title€to€the€property€to€Fred,€Albert€and€BethÐ )Ä Ðas€tenants€in€common.€€Later€that€year,€Fred€orally€agreed€with€Albert€that,€if€Albert€paid€the€taxesÐ ° Ðand€maintained€the€farm,€he€would€receive€Fred's€interest€in€the€farm€at€Fred's€death.€€Fred€died€onÐ  œ ÐFebruary€1,€2005,€with€a€will.€€In€addition€to€Albert,€Fred€was€survived€by€another€son,€Dan,€whoÐ í ˆ Ðwas€aware€of€Albert's€and€Fred's€oral€agreement.Ð Ù t Ðà  àÌà  àFred's€will€was€duly€and€legally€admitted€to€probate.€€The€will€provided€that€Fred's€estate€wasÐ ± L  Ðto€be€divided€equally€between€his€two€sons.€€The€will€made€no€mention€of€Fred€and€Albert'sÐ  8  Ðagreement.€€The€will€designated€Albert€as€personal€representative€and€he€was€duly€and€legallyÐ ‰$  Ðappointed€by€the€appropriate€court.Ð u  Ðà  àÌà  àOn€February€15,€2005,€Albert€wrote€to€Dan€and€stated€that€he€had€maintained€BlackacreÐ Mè  Ðaccording€to€the€agreement€and€that€he€was€planning€to€convey€the€Estate's€interest€in€Blackacre€toÐ 9Ô  Ðhimself€and€Beth€"to€fulfill€my€agreement€with€our€father."€Ð %À Ðà  àÌà  àOn€April€4,€2005,€Dan€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Washington€County€forÐ ý˜ Ðdeclaratory€judgment€against€Albert€personally€and€as€Personal€Representative€of€Fred's€Estate.€€TheÐ é„ Ðcomplaint€challenged€the€validity€of€the€agreement€and€sought€to€have€it€declared€unenforceable.Ð Õp Ðò òà  àÌà  àA.€€Is€a€complaint€for€declaratory€judgment€an€appropriate€means€to€obtain€the€reliefÐ ­H Ðsought€by€Dan?€€Explain€your€answer.Ð ™4 Ðó óà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÓ  Óà @ àò òADDITIONAL€FACTSó ó:ò òÐ ]ø ÐÌó óÓ®oÓà  àAlbert€filed€a€timely€answer€to€the€complaint€and,€with€it,€a€counter€complaint€against€Dan,Ð 9Ô Ðasserting€the€agreement€was€valid.€€Dan€filed€a€timely€answer,€and€both€parties€filed€motions€forÐ %À Ðsummary€judgment.€€Ð  ¬ Ðò òó óà  àÌÌà  àOn€August€8,€2005,€the€Court€granted€Dan's€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€enteredÐ Õ"p! Ðjudgment€declaring€that€the€agreement€was€unenforceable.€€ò òó óOn€August€10,€Albert€filed€a€motion€forÐ Á#\" Ða€new€trial€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€2„533€and€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€judgment€pursuant€toÐ ­$H # ÐRule€2„534.€€The€basis€for€both€motions€was€a€failure€to€join€a€necessary€party.Ð ™%4!$ Ðà  àÌà  àOn€August€12,€prior€to€the€Circuit€Court's€ruling€on€his€motions,€Albert€filed€a€notice€ofÐ q' #& Ðappeal€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals.Ð ](ø#' Ðà  àÌà  àò òB.€€How€should€the€Circuit€Court€rule€on€Albert's€motions?€€Explain€your€answeró ó.Ð 5*Ð%) Ðà  àÌà  àò òC.€€In€light€of€Albert's€appeal,€does€the€Circuit€Court€have€jurisdiction€to€decideÐ ,¬'+ ÐAlbert's€motions?€€Explain€your€answer.Ð e ÐÓ  ÓÌREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1ó óÐ =Ø ÐÌÓ  Óà  àa.€€The€complaint€for€declaratory€judgment€is€proper€and€appropriate.€€ðð3-406€states€thatÐ ° Ð"any€person€interested€under€a....will...may€have€determined€any€question€of€...validity...andÐ  œ Ðobtain€a€declaration€of€rights".€€ðð3-408€states€that€"any€person€interest...may€have€a€declaration€ofÐ í ˆ Ðrights...in€respect€to€the€...estate€of€a€decedent€in€order€to€direct€the€personal€representative...toÐ Ù t Ðabstain€from€doing€any€particular€act...or€to€determine€any€question€arising€in€the€administrationÐ Å ` Ðof€the€estate."€€ðð3-409€states€that€"a€court€may€grant€a€declaratory€judgment...in€a€civil€case,€if€itÐ ± L  Ðwill€serve€to€terminate€the€uncertainty€or€controversy...if€(1)€an€actual€controversy€exists€or€(2)Ð  8  ÐAntagonistic€claims€are€present€between€the€parties€involved€which€indicate€imminent€andÐ ‰$  Ðinevitable€litigation€or€(3)€a€party€asserts€a€legal€right...and€this€is...denied€by€an€adversary€party,Ð u  Ðwho€also€...asserts€a€concrete€interest€in€it."€€Because€of€the€above€cited€law,€Dan's€complaint€isÐ aü  Ðappropriate.€€He€has€a€right€to€have€his€rights€declared,€and€a€declaratory€judgment€will€serve€toÐ Mè  Ðterminate€the€controversy.€€The€court€has€authority€to€make€such€judgments.€€Ð 9Ô  ÐÌà  àb.€€The€court€should€deny€both€motions.€€The€will€states€that€the€estate€shall€be€dividedÐ ¬ Ðequally€between€his€sons.€€Fred€only€had€two€sons.€€Both€were€parties€to€the€action.€€RuleÐ ý˜ Ð2-211(a)(1)€states€that€"a€person...shall€be€joined€as€a€party...€if€in€the€person's€absence...completeÐ é„ Ðrelief€cannot€be€granted."€€Rule€2-211(a)(2)€requires€a€party€if€"disposition€of€the€action€mayÐ Õp Ðimpair€or€impede€the€person's€...interest."€€ðð3-405€(a)(1)€states€that€if€declaratory€judgment€isÐ Á\ Ðsought,€a€person€who€has€claims€to€the€property€shall€be€made€a€party.€€Since€Dan€and€Albert€areÐ ­H Ðthe€only€two€who€have€an€interest€in€the€land€as€Fred's€heirs,€there€was€nobody€who€should€haveÐ ™4 Ðbeen€joined€according€to€the€above€stated€law.€€Beth€has€no€claims€to€the€property.Ð …  ÐÌà  àc.€€The€Circuit€Court€maintains€jurisdiction€over€the€motions€as€specified€in€Rule€8-202€Ð ]ø Ð(c),€which€states€in€pertinent€part€"a€notice€of€appeal€filed€before€the€withdrawal€or€disposition€ofÐ Iä Ð[motions€pursuant€to€Rules€2-533€or€2-534]€does€not€deprive€the€trial€court€of€jurisdiction€toÐ 5Ð Ðdispose€of€the€motion[s]."Ð !¼ ÐÌÌà@<<ìàò òREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2ó óˆÐ å!€  ÐÌà  àa.€€Pursuant€to€3-409(c)€a€declaratory€judgment€is€proper€in€this€case.€€The€issue€here€isÐ ½#X" Ðwhether€Albert€or€Dan€is€entitled€to€Fred's€interest€in€Blackacre.€€There€is€an€actual€dispute€thatÐ ©$D # Ðfalls€under€3-409(I)€because€Albert€claims€Fred's€interest€in€the€land€based€upon€an€oralÐ •%0!$ Ðagreement€made€with€Fred€in€violation€of€the€statutes€of€fraud.€€Albert€is€wearing€two€hatsÐ &"% Ðbecause€not€only€is€he€an€adversary€to€Dan€but€he€is€also€3-408€personal€representative€of€Fred'sÐ m'#& Ðestate.€€On€the€other€hand,€Dan's€interest€stems€from€the€Will.€€Granting€the€declaratory€judgmentÐ Y(ô#' Ðwill€resolve€the€controversy€that€exists€with€respect€to€the€legal€rights€of€both€parties.Ð E)à$( ÐÌà  àb.€€Albert€filed€the€motions€because€Beth,€since€she€is€a€tenant€in€common,€should€haveÐ +¸&* Ðbeen€joined€in€the€original€action.€€Beth€was€required€to€join€the€action€if€Albert€shows€that€in€herÐ  ,¤'+ Ðabsence€complete€relief€cannot€be€granted,€disposition€would€impede€her€rights,€and€may€leaveÐ e Ðthe€parties€in€the€action€to€inconsistent€litigation.€€Here,€Beth€is€not€a€necessary€party€to€the€actionÐ Qì Ðbecause€the€parcel€of€land€that€is€at€issue€is€Fred's€interest€in€the€land.€€Regardless€of€theÐ =Ø Ðoutcome,€Beth's€interest€will€not€be€impeded€because€she€will€still€have€an€interest€in€BlackacreÐ )Ä Ðas€a€tenant€in€common.€€In€addition,€Beth€is€not€needed€in€order€for€there€to€be€complete€reliefÐ ° Ðbecause€the€issue€is€only€with€respect€to€Fred's€interest.Ð  œ ÐÌà  àThus,€while€Albert€filed€his€motions€to€comply€with€the€2-533€and€2-534€10-dayÐ Ù t Ðrequirement,€his€motions€will€be€denied€because€there€are€no€additional€findings€or€facts€thatÐ Å ` Ðwould€warrant€amendment€of€the€prior€judgment.Ð ± L  ÐÌà  àc.€€The€Circuit€Court€has€jurisdiction€over€the€appeal€because€the€summary€judgment€wasÐ ‰$  Ða€final€decision€by€the€lower€court.Ð u  ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÐ  Mè  Ðà@%ìàò òQUESTION€5ó óˆÐ e Ðà  àÌà  àMr.€Big€is€a€notorious€gang€member€operating€in€Anne€Arundel€County,€Maryland.€€OnÐ =Ø ÐNovember€11,€2005,€Big,€Briscoe€and€Tew€Pak€were€in€a€Shadyside€alley€conducting€a€drugÐ )Ä Ðtransaction.€Big€was€unaware€that€Briscoe€and€Tew€Pak€were€undercover€police€officers.€BigÐ ° Ðbecame€suspicious€just€after€he€handed€over€a€large€amount€of€cocaine€to€Tew€Pak€in€exchangeÐ  œ Ðfor€$2,000.€€Big€pulled€out€a€gun€and€shot€at€both€Briscoe€and€Tew€Pak,€instantly€killing€Briscoe.€Ð í ˆ ÐBig€was€arrested€shortly€thereafter€and€Tew€Pak€filed€a€Statement€of€Charges€against€Big€forÐ Ù t Ðpossession€of€cocaine.€€Big€appeared€in€District€Court€for€Anne€Arundel€County€on€NovemberÐ Å ` Ð23,€2005,€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€possession€of€cocaine,€and€was€sentenced€to€one€year€in€jail.Ð ± L  ÐÌà  àOn€December€11,€2005,€the€Stateððs€Attorney€for€Anne€Arundel€County€obtained€anÐ ‰$  Ðindictment€against€Big€for€possession€of€cocaine,€distribution€of€cocaine,€distribution€of€cocaineÐ u  Ðto€Briscoe,€the€first€degree€assaults€of€Tew€Pak€and€Briscoe,€and€the€murder€of€Briscoe.€€BigððsÐ aü  Ðattorney€moved€to€have€the€indictment€dismissed,€but€his€motion€was€denied.€€Ð Mè  ÐÌò òà  àa.€On€what€grounds€may€Big€appeal€the€judgeððs€refusal€to€dismiss€any€portion€of€theÐ %À Ðindictment?€€Explain€your€answer.ó óÐ ¬ ÐÌà  àIn€January,€2006,€a€jury€found€Big€guilty€of€the€murder€of€Officer€Briscoe,€and€the€matterÐ é„ Ðwas€set€in€for€a€death€penalty€sentencing€hearing.€€On€the€morning€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€Mr.Ð Õp ÐBigððs€counsel€was€hospitalized€unexpectedly€for€an€emergency€medical€procedure.€€Ð Á\ ÐÌà  àCorrectional€officers€brought€Big€into€the€courtroom€in€handcuffs€and€leg€irons,€claimingÐ ™4 Ðconcern€that€the€notorious€Big€was€a€flight€risk.€€The€court€ordered€that€these€restraints€not€beÐ …  Ðremoved.€€Upon€learning€that€his€attorney€would€not€be€present,€Big€stated€in€open€court,€ð ðWell,€IÐ q  Ðwant€this€over€withðð€and€requested€that€the€hearing€proceed€in€the€absence€of€counsel.€Big€didÐ ]ø Ðnot€cross„examine€witnesses€presented€by€the€State,€nor€did€he€present€any€evidence.€€AfterÐ Iä Ðseveral€hours,€the€jury€brought€back€a€verdict€to€impose€the€death€penalty.Ð 5Ð ЀÌò òà  àb.€€On€what€grounds€can€Big€appeal€the€sentence?€€Explain€your€answer.ó óÐ  ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óò òÌREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1ó óÐ Ñ"l! ÐÓ  Ó€€€€€€à0  àà ° àà X àà ° à(A)€€Appealн#X"(#(# ÐÓ?+ÿÿ Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓÌà Ü àBig€can€appeal€the€judgeððs€refusal€to€dismiss€the€indictment€for€possession€of€cocaine€on€theÐ •%0!$ Ðgrounds€of€res€judicata€&€violation€of€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause.Ð &"% Ðà Ü àÌà Ü àAccording€to€these€provisions,€a€defendant€cannot€be€tried€twice€for€the€same€crime€arisingÐ Y(ô#' Ðout€of€the€same€transaction/occurrence.€€Big€was€already€charged€with€possession€of€cocaine,€andÐ E)à$( Ðpled€guilty€in€district€court.€€He€was€subsequently€sentenced€to€1€year€in€jail.€€Big€cannot€beÐ 1*Ì%) Ðcharged€again€for€this€crime,€as€a€court€with€proper€jurisdiction€has€already€entered€a€finalÐ +¸&* Ðjudgment€on€the€merits€of€the€case.Ð  ,¤'+ Ðà Ü àBig€can€argue€that€he€also€should€not€be€charged€with€distribution€of€cocaine€on€the€groundsÐ e Ðof€res€judicata.€€Big€can€argue€that€possession€&€distribution€are€essentially€the€same€crime,€orÐ Qì Ðthat€possession€is€a€lesser€crime€of€distribution.Ð =Ø ÐÌ€€€€€€€A€court€will€try€Big€on€both€charges€if€each€requires€proof€of€an€element€that€the€other€doesÐ ° Ðnot.€€Possession€of€cocaine€involves€exercising€control/dominion€over€cocaine€with€knowledgeÐ  œ Ðthat€the€substance€in€defendantððs€possession€is€in€fact€cocaine.€€Distribution€involves€possessionÐ í ˆ Ðof€cocaine,€knowledge€of€the€substanceððs€illegal€nature€&€intent€to€distribute€the€substance.€Ð Ù t ÐBecause€all€of€the€elements€of€possession€are€encompassed€within€the€crime€of€distribution,Ð Å ` Ðpossession€of€cocaine€is€a€lesser€crime€of€distribution€of€cocaine.€€Ð ± L  Ѐ€€Ð  8  Ðà Ü àBecause€Big€has€already€been€charged€with€the€lesser€crime,€and€convicted,€he€cannot€now€beÐ ‰$  Ðcharged€with€the€greater€crime€(distribution).Ð u  Ðà Ü àÌ€€€€€€(B)€Appeal€of€death€sentenceÐ Mè  ÐÌà Ü àBig€can€appeal€the€death€sentence€based€on€his€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€The€SixthÐ %À ÐAmendment€is€applicable€to€the€States€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€Due€Process€Clause.€Ð ¬ ÐBecause€the€death€penalty€deprives€a€defendant€of€his/her€life,€the€defendant€must€be€representedÐ ý˜ Ðat€the€sentencing€proceeding.€€Counsel€for€defendant€must€introduce€all€relevant€mitigatingÐ é„ Ðfactors€&€circumstances€to€the€jury.€€The€jury€must€weigh€the€mitigating€factors€against€anyÐ Õp Ðaggravating€factors,€and€only€sentence€defendant€to€death€if€the€aggravating€factors€outweigh€theÐ Á\ Ðmitigating€factors.Ð ­H Ðà Ü àÌà Ü àBecause€defendantððs€counsel€was€hospitalized€for€an€emergency,€the€court€should€haveÐ …  Ðpostponed€the€sentencing€proceeding.€Without€the€attorney€present€to€cross„examine€witnesses€orÐ q  Ðpresent€evidence,€Bigððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€was€violated.Ð ]ø ÐÌà Ü àBig€can€also€argue€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€by€the€presence€of€the€handcuffsÐ 5Ð Ð&€leg€irons.€€By€presenting€Big€to€the€jury€in€these€restraints,€their€views€were€likely€tainted.€Ð !¼ ÐBecause€Bigððs€appearance€likely€prejudiced€the€jury€to€an€unreasonable€degree,€his€due€processÐ  ¨ Ðrights€were€violated.€€Ð ù ” Ðò òÌÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2ó óÐ Ñ"l! ÐÓ–¢ÓA.Ð ½#X" Ðà Ü àBig€should€appeal€the€possession€of€cocaine€portion€of€the€Stateððs€Attorneyððs€indictment€onÐ ©$D # Ðthe€grounds€that€double€jeopardy€attached€to€that€charge€when€his€guilty€plea€was€accepted€onÐ •%0!$ ÐNovember€23òòrdóó,€and€that€bars€him€from€being€charged€with€that€crime€again.Ð &"% ÐÌà Ü àDouble€jeopardy€may€also€preclude€the€Stateððs€Attorney€from€proceeding€with€theÐ Y(ô#' Ðdistribution€charge€because€it€merely€involves€one€separate€element€from€the€charge€ofÐ E)à$( Ðpossession;€intent€to€distribute.€€Under€the€òòBlockburgeróó€double€jeopardy€test,€double€jeopardyÐ 1*Ì%) Ðprecludes€bringing€charges€that€were€previously€ruled€on€unless€the€two€crimes€each€have€aÐ +¸&* Ðseparate€element€that€the€other€does€not.€€Distribution€of€cocaine€involves€possession€and€Ð  ,¤'+ ЇÌdistributing€it€to€another.€€Possession€of€cocaine€does€not€involve€a€separate€element.€€Thus,€thoseÐ Qì Ðportions€of€the€second€indictment€should€be€barred.€€The€other€charges,€although€rising€from€theÐ =Ø Ðsame€incident,€should€be€permitted€because€double€jeopardy€has€not€attach€to€them.Ð )Ä ÐÌB.Ð  œ Ðà Ü àBig€can€appeal€his€death€penalty€sentence€on€the€grounds€that€his€appearance€in€theÐ í ˆ Ðcourtroom€without€an€attorney,€in€handcuffs€was€highly€prejudicial€to€his€case.€€A€defendant€in€aÐ Ù t Ðdeath€sentence€hearing€is€always€entitled€to,€and€strongly€recommended€to€have€an€attorneyÐ Å ` Ðrepresent€him€at€a€hearing.€€The€judge€should€have€recognized€Bigððs€waiver€of€counsel€asÐ ± L  Ðinadequate€based€on€his€reasoning,€ð ðI€want€to€get€this€over€with.ðð€The€stakes€were€too€high€forÐ  8  Ðsuch€a€casual€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel.€€Ð ‰$  ÐÌà Ü àThe€fact€that€Big€did€not€cross„examine€any€witnesses€or€present€mitigating€evidence€alsoÐ aü  Ðsupports€his€appeal,€although€the€State€may€argue€that€he€did€at€least€have€an€opportunity€toÐ Mè  Ðdefend.Ð 9Ô  ÐÌà Ü àFinally,€appeals€are€always€permitted€in€death€penalty€cases,€so€Bigððs€argumentsðð€that€theÐ ¬ Ðhandcuffs€were€unwarranted€and€extremely€prejudicial,€that€his€attorney€had€a€legitimate€excuseÐ ý˜ Ðfor€failing€to€appear,€and€that€his€casual€waiver€of€right€to€counsel€should€have€been€questionedÐ é„ Ðfurther€by€the€presiding€judge,€€should€be€sufficient€grounds€for€appeal.€Ð Õp ÐÓ  Óò òÐ  Á\ ÐQUESTION€6ó óÐ e ÐÌÓ  Óà Ü àBrian€and€Patti€were€married€in€Howard€County,€Maryland,€on€April€1,€1995.€€Patti€gave€birthÐ =Ø Ðto€a€son,€Kyle,€on€September€1,€1995.€€Ð )Ä ÐÌà Ü àBrian€was€employed€as€an€engineer€and€earned€an€annual€salary€of€$150,000.€He€worked€longÐ  œ Ðhours,€typically€12€hours€per€day.€€Patti€was€employed€as€a€bartender€and€earned€an€annual€salaryÐ í ˆ Ðof€$30,000.€She€generally€worked€from€8:00€p.m.€until€2:00€a.m.Ð Ù t ÐÌà Ü àBrian€and€Patti€gradually€became€disillusioned€with€marriage.€In€April€2003,€Brian€and€PattiÐ ± L  Ðseparated€and€Brian€moved€in€with€his€rich€girlfriend,€Nicole€Mitchie.€€Brian€and€Patti€enteredÐ  8  Ðinto€a€separation€agreement€that€provided€for€joint€custody€of€Kyle.€€Patti€maintained€physicalÐ ‰$  Ðcustody€of€Kyle,€while€Brian€enjoyed€liberal€visitation,€including€overnight€visitation.€€PursuantÐ u  Ðto€the€agreement€Brian€paid€Patti€alimony€and€child€support€in€amounts€consistent€with€MarylandÐ aü  Ðlaw.€On€April€17,€2005,€Brian€and€Patti€received€a€Judgment€of€Absolute€Divorce€from€theÐ Mè  ÐCircuit€Court€of€Howard€County,€Maryland,€into€which€their€separation€agreement€wasÐ 9Ô  Ðincorporated€and€merged.Ð %À ÐÌà Ü àA€few€months€later,€Brian€quit€his€job€because€he€wished€to€spend€time€with€Kyle€and€coachÐ ý˜ ÐKyleððs€sports€teams.€€He€also€knew€his€girlfriend,€Nicole€Mitchie,€could€afford€to€pay€all€ofÐ é„ ÐBrianððs€living€expenses.€€Ð Õp ÐÌà Ü àAfter€the€divorce,€Patti€informed€Brian€that€he€was€not€Kyleððs€biological€father.€€This€wasÐ ­H Ðconfirmed€by€a€subsequent€blood€test.Ð ™4 ÐÌà Ü àAlthough€distraught€by€the€unexpected€news,€Brian€loved€Kyle€and€wanted€to€stay€in€his€life.€Ð q  ÐBrian€decided€to€cease€all€alimony€and€child€support€payments€and€filed€a€motion€for€soleÐ ]ø Ðcustody€of€Kyle€and€termination€of€alimony.€€Patti€filed€an€opposition€and€a€motion€for€contempt.Ð Iä ÐÌà Ü àOn€May€1,€2006,€the€Circuit€Court€held€a€hearing€and€ruled€that€Brian€must€continue€theÐ !¼ Ðmonthly€alimony€payments,€and€granted€sole€custody€to€Patti€for€the€next€4€years,€at€which€timeÐ  ¨ Ðsole€custody€would€be€given€to€Brian.€€The€Court€also€found€Brian€in€contempt€and€ordered€thatÐ ù ” Ðhe€pay€all€arrears€for€alimony€and€child€support€immediately€or€be€jailed€with€the€purge€amountÐ å!€  Ðbeing€the€same€as€the€arrears.Ð Ñ"l! Ѐ€Ð ½#X" Ðà Ü àBrian€contacts€you,€a€Maryland€attorney,€from€jail€and€asks€if€there€are€any€grounds€to€appealÐ ©$D # Ðthe€Courtððs€decision,€and€what€counter„arguments€might€be€raised€by€Patti.€€What€would€youÐ •%0!$ Ðadvise?€€Discuss€fully.Ð &"% ÐÌò òÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1ó óÐ Y(ô#' ÐÓu¹ÓAlimonyÐ E)à$( ÐÌà Ü àA€court€will€modify€alimony€payments€at€its€discretion€in€the€event€of€a€substantial€change€inÐ +¸&* Ðconditions€(unless€the€merged€separation€agreement€states€otherwise).€€Brian€can€argue€thatÐ  ,¤'+ Ðpreviously€he€was€employed€as€an€engineer€making€$150,000€a€year;€however,€he€now€isÐ e Ðunemployed€and€thus€this€is€a€substantial€change€in€conditions€which€should€require€aÐ Qì Ðmodification€of€his€alimony€payments.€€Patti€will€argue€that€Brian€has€voluntarily€impoverishedÐ =Ø Ðhimself€by€quitting€his€job€and€simply€doesnððt€want€to€make€payments.€€Brian€will€counter€that€isÐ )Ä Ðnot€true,€he€quit€to€spend€more€time€with€Kyle€and€he€knew€his€girlfriend€could€afford€to€pay€hisÐ ° Ðliving€expenses.€€Patti€will€further€argue€that€she€only€makes€$30,000€as€a€bartender€and€was€usedÐ  œ Ðto€living€on€Brianððs€salary€combined€with€hers.€€Also€Brian€can€afford€payments€if€he€just€startsÐ í ˆ Ðworking€again.Ð Ù t Ðà Ü àÌÒ‘°Òà Ü àThere€are€no€facts€that€indicate€that€alimony€canððt€be€modified,€thus€court€can€do€it.Ð ± L  ÐÌCustodyÐ ‰$  ÐÌà Ü àThe€court€determines€custody€of€a€child€using€the€best€interest€of€the€child€standard.€€HereÐ aü  ÐBrian€can€argue€that€it€is€not€in€Kyleððs€best€interest€for€Patti€to€be€granted€sole€custody€becauseÐ Mè  Ðshe€works€late€hours€and€this€is€a€time€when€a€child€needs€adult€companionship€andÐ 9Ô  Ðsupervision.€€Further,€even€after€Brian€found€he€wasnððt€Kyleððs€biological€father€he€still€wantedÐ %À Ðto€stay€in€his€life€and€loves€Kyle.€€Patti€will€argue€that€she€should€not€be€penalized€for€trying€toÐ ¬ Ðmake€an€honest€living.€€She€has€maintained€physical€custody€since€they€separated€and€hasÐ ý˜ Ðallowed€Brian€to€visit.Ð é„ ÐÌà Ü àBrian€can€argue€that€the€separation€agreement€givens€them€joint€custody.€€It€was€mergedÐ Á\ Ðand€incorporated€into€the€divorce€judgment€and€therefore€he€should€have€joint€custody.€€BrianÐ ­H Ðmay€also€argue€that€it€is€in€Kyleððs€best€interest€for€him€to€keep€visiting€Kyle€even€if€Patti€hasÐ ™4 Ðsole€custody.€€Kyle€is€at€a€young€and€impressionable€age€and€itððs€important€to€have€a€fatherÐ …  Ðfigure€around.€€It€is€in€his€best€interest.Ð q  ÐÌChild€supportÐ Iä ÐÌà Ü àBrian€can€argue€that€since€Kyle€is€not€his€child€he€should€not€have€to€pay€child€support.€Ð !¼ ÐPatti€will€counter€all€parents€must€support€their€children€and€children€born€during€the€marriageÐ  ¨ Ðare€presumed€to€be€the€biological€child€of€the€marriage.€€Further,€it€is€in€Kyleððs€best€interestÐ ù ” Ðthat€Brian€help€support€him€since€Patti€only€makes€$30,000€a€year.Ð å!€  ЀÌContempt€of€courtÐ ½#X" ÐÌà Ü àBrian€can€argue€that€his€incarceration€violated€the€8òòthóó€Amendmentððs€ban€on€cruel€andÐ •%0!$ Ðunusual€punishment.€€He€merely€wanted€to€challenge€the€custody€and€alimony€agreement€andÐ &"% Ðwas€not€being€a€deadbeat€dad.€€The€court€will€probably€reject€this€argument€because€in€todayððsÐ m'#& Ðsociety€there€are€too€many€deadbeat€parents€who€try€to€evade€paying€child€support€and/orÐ Y(ô#' Ðalimony.Ð E)à$( Ðò òÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2ó óÐ 1*Ì%) ÐÓÆÇÓÌà Ü àThe€separation€agreement€was€merged€and€incorporated€into€the€absolute€divorceÐ  ,¤'+ Ðjudgment€and€is€thus€not€subject€to€modification.€€Brian€should€assert€that€the€term€thatÐ e Ðprovides€sole€custody€to€be€given€to€him€starting€in€four€years€is€invalid€as€it€violates€the€bestÐ Qì Ðinterests€of€the€child€standard€in€addition€to€their€separation€agreement.€€The€court€(if€itÐ =Ø Ðwanted€to€switch€custody)€should€have€assessed€what€was€in€Kyleððs€best€interests€at€that€time.Ð )Ä ÐÌà Ü àBrian€cannot€contest€the€courtððs€requirement€that€he€continue€the€alimony€and€childÐ  œ Ðsupport€payments,€just€because€the€blood€test€confirms€Kyle€is€not€his.€€The€child€born€duringÐ í ˆ Ðthe€marriage€is€presumed€the€husbandððs€and€a€blood€test€is€not€enough€to€remove€BrianððsÐ Ù t Ðobligations,€especially€considering€the€close€bond€between€Brian€and€Kyle.€€Patti€would€alsoÐ Å ` Ðassert€that€Brianððs€distress€over€this€is€not€enough€to€violate€their€separation€agreementÐ ± L  Ðregarding€alimony€payments.Ð  8  ÐÌà Ü àBrian€would€argue€that€giving€Patti€sole€custody€for€the€next€four€years€is€an€invalidÐ u  Ðmodification€of€their€agreement€and€that€Kyle€needs€Brianððs€continued€presence€in€his€life.€€HeÐ aü  Ðwould€also€note€that€if€Patti€was€still€bartending€those€hours€it€wouldnððt€be€in€Kyleððs€bestÐ Mè  Ðinterests€to€have€her€as€a€sole€caregiver€when€joint€custody€could€help.Ð 9Ô  ÐÌà Ü àPattie€would€argue€that€Brianððs€voluntary€impoverishment€was€not€valid€grounds€forÐ ¬ Ðalteration€of€alimony€payments€and€that€the€courtððs€decision€to€order€Brian€to€continue€payingÐ ý˜ Ðit€was€correct.€€Brian€could€assert€a€material€change€in€circumstances€warranting€the€changeÐ é„ Ðand€challenge€the€decision.€€He€would€say€it€was€not€voluntary€impoverishment€since€it€wasnððtÐ Õp Ðto€avoid€his€alimony€duties€but€was€to€become€more€involved€in€his€sonððs€life.€€The€courtÐ Á\ Ðwould€consider€this€and€see€if€it€was€done€in€good€faith.Ð ­H ÐÌà Ü àBrian€would€also€argue€that€his€being€put€in€jail€was€excessive€under€the€EighthÐ …  ÐAmendment,€as€his€ð ðbailðð€is€an€excessive€amount€€equaling€the€arrears.€€He€will€assert€a€betterÐ q  Ðchance€at€being€able€to€pay€if€he€is€released€and€able€to€work.€€Ð ]ø ÐÌÑÈÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÑ8€ õÌ XXdìdÈ8ÑÐ  5Ð ÐQUESTION€7Ð e ÐÑ  ÑÌBusiness€AssociationsÐ =Ø ÐÓ  Óó óÌÓ XÓGreenacre,€Inc.,€a€Maryland€corporation,€is€a€land€developer€in€Maryland.€€Dirt€Cheap,Ð ° ÐInc.,€another€Maryland€corporation,€has€held€title€since€2000€to€land€known€as€Dreamview€inÐ  œ ÐAnne€Arundel€County,€Maryland.€€All€the€stock€in€both€companies€is€held€by€Ryan.€Ð í ˆ ÐGreenacre€owns€all€the€equipment€used€by€both€corporations,€€hires€all€employees,€€andÐ Ù t Ðmanages€the€payroll€and€employment€matters€for€both€corporations.€€The€two€corporationsÐ Å ` Ðhave€the€same€directors€and€hold€joint€board€meetings€in€which€any€matters€of€eitherÐ ± L  Ðcorporation€are€discussed.€€Ð  8  ÐÐ ‰$  ÐIn€January,€2005,€Ryan,€the€president€of€Greenacre€and€Dirt€Cheap,€sought€investmentÐ u  Ðfunding€from€Carter€on€behalf€of€Greenacre.€€€Documentation€provided€to€Carter€for€reviewÐ aü  Ðstated€that€Dirt€Cheap€was€a€corporation€owned€by€Ryan€and€it€held€title€to€Dreamview.€€€AfterÐ Mè  Ðreviewing€the€documentation,€Carter€preliminarily€€agreed€to€loan€Greenacre€$450,000€to€beÐ 9Ô  Ðrepaid€in€one€year€with€interest.€Just€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€agreement,€Carter€stated€€hisÐ %À Ðconcern€to€Ryan€that€Greenacre€€would€not€have€the€funds€to€repay€the€loan€at€the€end€of€theÐ ¬ Ðone€year€period.€€Ryan€stated€to€Carter€that€ð ðwe€own€Dreamview€and€it€would€generate€enoughÐ ý˜ Ðcash€for€the€repayment€within€the€one€year€period.ðð€Carter€loaned€Greenacre€$450,000.€€€RyanÐ é„ Ðas€president€of€Greenacre,€Inc.,€signed€a€confessed€judgment€promissory€note€for€$450,000Ð Õp Ðpayable€to€Carter€in€one€year.€€Ð Á\ ÐÐ ­H ÐAt€the€end€of€the€one€year€period,€Greenacre€did€not€have€funds€to€repay€the€loan.€€€Ð ™4 ÐGreenacre€had€had€several€financial€setbacks€and€Ryan€had€turned€to€and€used€Dirt€Cheap,€Inc.Ð …  Ðfor€other€development€projects.€€Carter€sued€on€the€promissory€note€and€€obtained€a€confessedÐ q  Ðjudgment€against€Greenacre,€Inc.€for€$450,000€in€Anne€Arundel€County,€Maryland.Ð ]ø ÐÐ Iä ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÓÓCarter€wants€to€attach€and€sell€Dreamview€to€satisfy€his€judgment€against€Greenacre,Ð 5Ð ÐInc.Ð !¼ ÐÓ0ÜÓÓ ¨ýXÓÓ °ÓÓ<(` ` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ÿÿÜŒX<ÓÓÓò òÐ  ¨ Ð1.à ` àBased€on€the€given€facts,€can€Carter€successfully€attach€and€sell€Ð õ  ÐÓ ¨ýÓÓ °ÓÓB+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ` ` ` ŠXBÓDreamview€for€the€payment€of€its€judgment€against€Greenacre,€Inc.?€€Provide€a€detailedÐ á!|  Ðanalysis.Ð Í"h! ÐÑ  ÑÌÑ  ÑÓ XÓ2.à ` àBased€on€the€given€facts,€can€Carter€obtain€a€judgment€against€Ryan?€€Ð ¥$@ # ÐProvide€a€detailed€analysis.Ð ‘%,!$ ÐÑ  ÑÐ }&"% ÐÑ  ÑÓ XÓó óÌÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€GOOD€ANSWER€1Ð U(ð#' Ðó óÌÓ  Óà  àa)à ` àThe€issue€here€is€that€Carter€has€a€judgment€against€Greenacre€but€title€toÐ -*È%) ÐDreamacre€is€held€by€ð ðanother€Maryland€corporationðð,€Dirt€Cheap,€Inc.€(DCI).€To€successfullyÐ +´&* Ðattach€Dreamacre,€Carter€would€need€to€advance€a€piercing„the„corporate„veil€argument,€allegingÐ , '+ Ðthat€one€corporation€was€a€ð ðmere€instrumentalityðð€of€the€other€in€order€to€work€a€fraud€or€grossÐ ñ,Œ(, Ðinequity,€so€that€the€court€should€set€aside€the€corporate€form€and€treat€DCI€and€GI€as€a€singleÐ e Ðbusiness€entity.Ð Qì ÐÌà  àMaintenance€of€corporate€formalities€will€help€to€defeat€a€piercing€argument.€Here,€theÐ )Ä Ðcorporations€held€ð ðjoint€board€meetingsðð€where€ð ðany€matters€of€either€corporationðð€are€discussedÐ ° Ðwhich€tends€to€show€they€were€not€truly€separate€entities.€The€mere€fact€of€overlapping€orÐ  œ Ðidentical€shareholders€(in€this€case€Ryan),€is€not€very€significant€to€the€analysis.€The€fact€that€GIÐ í ˆ Ðð ðowns€all€equipmentðð€and€manages€all€operations€for€both€entities€does€suggest€DCI€may€be€anÐ Ù t Ðinstrumentality€of€GI.€However,€the€standard€for€piercing€is€extraordinarily€high€and€there€isÐ Å ` Ðinsufficient€evidence€that€the€corporate€form€was€used€to€perpetrate€a€fraud.€Thus,€Carter€will€notÐ ± L  Ðsucceed€on€a€piercing€argument.Ð  8  ÐÌà  àAs€an€alternative,€Carter€may€attempt€an€òòestoppelóó€argument.€When€he€questioned€GIððsÐ u  Ðability€to€pay,€Ryan,€as€agent/president€of€GI,€said€ð ðwe€own€Dreamviewðð,€and€Carter€relied€on€thisÐ aü  Ðrepresentation€to€his€detriment.€However,€Ryan€may€not€impoverish€one€corporation€he€controls,Ð Mè  Ðto€meet€the€obligations€of€another.€Thus€this€agreement€also€will€not€succeed.Ð 9Ô  ÐÌÑ  Ñà  àb)à ` àòòJudgment€against€Ryanóó€ð!ðÐ ¬ ÐÑ  ÑÌÑ  Ñà  àà ` àòòRyan€as€shareholderóó€ð!ð€Shareholders€are€not€liable€for€corporate€debts€except€underÐ é„ Ða€piercing€theory,€which€will€fail€against€Ryan€for€the€same€reasons€listed€above€in€the€horizontalÐ Õp Ðpiercing€case.Ð Á\ ÐÑ  ÑÌÑ  Ñà  àà ` àòòRyan€as€directoróó€ð!ð€Directors€of€corporations€are€not€personally€liable€to€corporateÐ ™4 Ðcreditors.€Here€Ryan€is€the€President€of€G.I.€and€is€not€personally€liable€for€corporate€debts€suchÐ …  Ðas€Carterððs€loan€to€G.I.òòÐ q  ÐÑ  ÑóóÓ  Óà  àÌò òÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€GOOD€ANSWER€2òòÐ Iä ÐÓÌêÓÑ  ÑÌÑ  ÑóóÓ  Óà  àó óa)€€€€€€€€No,€Carter€cannot€successfully€attach€and€sell€Dreamview€for€payment€of€hisÐ !¼ Ðjudgment€against€Greenacre.€Dirt€Cheap€is€a€separate€corporate€entity€from€Greenacre.€Dirt€CheapÐ  ¨ Ðholds€title€to€Dreamview.€To€attach€real€estate€owned€by€the€judgment€debtor,€it€must€be€exactlyÐ ù ” Ðthat€owned€by€the€judgment€debtor.€Here,€Greenacre€does€not€own€Dreamview.€It€does€not€matterÐ å!€  Ðthat€Greenacre€and€Dirt€Cheap€share€a€common€stockholder/president€in€Ryan.€The€loan€by€CarterÐ Ñ"l! Ðwas€given€to€Greenacre.€Moreover,€Ryan€signed€a€confessed€judgment€promissory€note€to€CarterÐ ½#X" Ðfor€$450,000€as€president€of€Greenacre.€He€did€not€sign€it€as€president€of€Dirt€Cheap.€Ryan€alsoÐ ©$D # Ðsought€the€loan€for€Greenacre€not€Dirt€Cheap.€Moreover,€Carter€knew€Ryan€was€owner€of€twoÐ •%0!$ Ðseparate€corporate€entities€based€on€the€documentation€provided€to€Carter€to€review.€Therefore,Ð &"% Ðthe€loan€and€confessed€judgment€were€all€done€in€the€name€of€Greenacre.€Carter€may€argue€thatÐ m'#& ÐRyan€and€Greenacre€should€be€estopped€from€making€this€argument€based€upon€the€fact€that€RyanÐ Y(ô#' Ðtold€Carter€ð ðwe€own€Dreamview€and€it€would€generate€enough€cash€for€the€repaymentðð.€CarterÐ E)à$( Ðmay€also€argue€this€was€a€misrepresentation€which€he€was€induced€to€rely€on€and€that€he€did€relyÐ 1*Ì%) Ðon€it€before€giving€the€loan€based€on€his€concerns.€However,€Carter€entered€into€the€loan€knowingÐ +¸&* Ðit€was€for€Greenacre€and€that€Ryan€had€signed€the€note€as€president€of€Greenacre.€Since€GreenacreÐ  ,¤'+ Ðdid€not€own€Dreamview,€and€Carter€knew€this€despite€Ryanððs€statement,€Carter€is€estopped€Ô_ÔfromÐ õ,(, Ðmaking€such€a€claim.€He€should€have€secured€the€loan€with€Ô_ÔDreamviewÔ_Ô.Ð e ÐÌà  àb.€€It€is€unlikely€Carter€can€obtain€a€judgment€against€Ryan.€Ryan€is€both€a€stockholder€andÐ =Ø Ðan€officer€of€Ô_ÔGreenacreÔ_Ô€and€Dirt€Cheap.€As€such,€his€liability€is€limited€with€regard€to€the€debtsÐ )Ä Ðof€either€corporation.€This€is€the€liability€protection€one€receives,€as€a€stockholder€and€an€officerÐ ° Ðof€a€corporation.€Here,€Carter€cannot€sue€Ryan€for€breach€of€a€fiduciary€duty€because€Ryan€owesÐ  œ Ðhis€duties€to€the€Corporations€ð!ð€not€to€Carter.€Ryan€has€not€breached€the€duty€of€care€and€loyaltyÐ í ˆ Ðto€his€corporation.€Carterððs€best€chance€would€be€to€try€to€pierce€the€corporate€veil€at€Ô_ÔGreenacreÔ_ÔÐ Ù t Ðto€reach€its€stockholder€Ryan.€The€court€will€only€pierce€to€avoid€fraud€or€enforce€a€paramountÐ Å ` Ðequity.€Courts€are€generally€hostile€to€doing€so.€Here,€Carter€will€argue€a€fraud€has€beenÐ ± L  Ðcommitted€based€upon€Ryanððs€€statement€that€ð ðwe€own€Ô_ÔDreamviewÔ_Ôðð.€€A€court€is€not€likely€toÐ  8  Ðpierce€here€because€Carter€knew€that€was€not€true.€He€had€all€the€information€before€making€theÐ ‰$  Ðloan.€He€knew€Dirt€Cheap€owned€Ô_ÔDreamviewÔ_Ô.€Moreover,€a€court€will€not€find€a€paramount€equityÐ u  Ðto€enforce.€Here,€there€is€no€evidence€that€Ô_ÔGreenacreÔ_Ô€was€not€observing€corporate€formalities€orÐ aü  Ðthat€it€was€under€funded€when€it€was€formed.€Moreover,€there€is€no€evidence€of€alter€ego.€RyanÐ Mè  Ðwasnððt€using€the€corporation€as€his€alter€ego.€Although,€it€may€be€an€issue€that€the€corporationsÐ 9Ô  Ðwere€holding€joint€meetings,€this€doesnððt€seem€to€be€sufficient€to€pierce€the€corporate€veilÐ %À Ðespecially€when€Carter€had€the€information€beforehand.€Thus,€Carter€will€not€be€able€to€obtainÐ ¬ Ða€judgment€against€Ryan.Ð ý˜ ÐÌÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÐ  ÕpL Ðò òQUESTION€8ó óÐ e ÐÓ  Óà  àÌà  àAbel€buys€and€sells€stolen€goods.€€Baker€is€an€undercover€police€officer€who€hasÐ =Ø Ðrecently€infiltrated€Abelððs€business€and€gained€Abelððs€confidence.€€Several€years€ago€Charlie,Ð )Ä Ða€mob€ð ðhit€manðð,€was€convicted€of€a€firearm€violation€and€incarcerated€€as€the€result€ofÐ ° Ðinformation€provided€to€the€police€by€Abel,€who€was€then€acting€as€an€informant.Ð  œ ÐÌÔ‡Š ªˆXXõÌÔà  àAs€Abel€is€getting€into€his€car€after€a€meeting,€Baker€tells€Abel€that€Charlie€hasÐ Ù t Ðbeen€released€from€prison€and€intends€to€get€even€with€Abel.€€Baker€offers€to€provideÐ Ù t ÐAbel€with€a€handgun€for€protection.€€Abel€at€first€refuses,€stating€Ô#†XõÌXˆŠ ªký#Ôð ðI€have€never€carried€aÐ Ù t  Ðgun€and€donððt€intend€to€start€now.ðð€€Baker€places€the€handgun€visibly€on€the€front€seat€ofÐ Ù t  ÐAbelððs€car€and€tells€Abel€that€Charlie€intends€to€kill€Abel€that€night.€€Abel€is€convinced€thatÐ Å`  ÐBaker€is€telling€him€the€truth.€€As€Abel€starts€his€car,€Abel€sees€Charlie€standing€across€theÐ ±L  Ðstreet.€Charlie€points€at€Abel€and€makes€a€threatening€gesture.€€Abel€reaches€for€the€handgunÐ 8  Ðand€tells€Baker€that€ð ðI€would€never€take€this€except€for€your€advice€and€unless€it€was€necessaryÐ ‰$  Ðfor€my€own€protectionÔ‡Š ªˆXXõÌÔðð€and€speeds€away.Ð u ÐÌÔ#†XõÌXˆŠ ª[#Ôà  àAs€Abel€drives€away,€Baker€calls€a€uniformed€officer€and€tells€the€officer€to€interceptÐ u Ðand€arrest€Abel€for€possession€of€the€handgun.€€Several€miles€away€Abel€is€lawfully€arrestedÐ aü Ðand€found€to€be€in€the€unlawful€possession€of€a€handgun€as€the€result€of€a€lawful€and€properÐ Mè Ðsearch€and€seizure.€Abel€tells€the€arresting€officer,€ð ðI€only€had€the€gun€because€I€had€no€otherÐ 9Ô Ðmeans€to€protect€myself€from€Charlie.ððÐ %À ÐÌà  àò òWhat€defense(s)€can€be€raised€by€Abel€on€the€charge€of€unlawful€possession€of€aÐ ý˜ Ðhandgun?ó óÐ é„ ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€GOOD€ANSWER€1Ð Á\ ÐÓsÓÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àAbel€may€first€argue€that€he€was€entrapped€by€the€police.€€Baker€had€already€gained€AbelððsÐ ™4 Ðconfidence€in€his€capacity€as€an€undercover€officer.€€Abel€acted€in€part€based€on€his€confidenceÐ …  Ðin€Baker,€and€certainly€would€not€have€thought€that€after€acting€as€an€informant€the€police€wouldÐ q  Ðturn€on€him.€He€would€not€have€taken€the€gun€but€for€Bakerððs€handing€it€to€him.Ð ]!ø ÐÌà  àThe€state€will€likely€counter€that€Abel€already€has€a€disposition€to€commit€the€offense.€Ð 5#Ð! ÐDisposition€is€in€fact€the€reason€that€entrapment€defenses€usually€fail.€€However,€€Abel€has€a€goodÐ !$¼" Ðresponse€to€this€argument.€€When€offered€the€gun,€he€insisted€that€he€did€not€want€it€and€that€heÐ  %¨ # Ðnever€possessed€one€before.€€Baker€coaxed€him€at€that€point€by€telling€him€that€Charlie€intendedÐ ù%”!$ Ðto€kill€him.€€Baker€assured€him€that€he€would€not€take€it€but€for€that€threat.€€Thus,€Abel€may€beÐ å&€"% Ðable€to€craft€an€argument€that€he€legitimately€was€entrapped.Ð Ñ'l#& ÐÌà  àAbel€may€also€claim€necessity€or€self„defense.€€A€necessity€argument€would€not€succeedÐ ©)D%( Ðsince€that€is€typically€reserved€for€cases€where€natural€forces€are€at€issue,€or€someone€takes€theÐ •*0&) Ðlife€of€another€to€save€the€group,€etc.€€Self„defense€will€also€be€a€difficult€argument€to€make.€Ð +'* ÐWhile€Abel€may€have€feared€Charlie,€there€does€not€appear€to€be€an€urgent€or€immediate€dangerÐ m,(+ Ðthat€would€prevent€Able€from€going€through€the€process€of€lawfully€obtaining€a€handgun€orÐ e Ðseeking€police€protection.Ð Qì ÐÌà  àFinally,€Abel€may€argue€that€he€does€not€posses€the€requite€€mental€state€(i.e.€intent)€to€beÐ )Ä Ðguilty€of€violating€the€statute.€€This€argument€is€also€a€weak€one.€€Abel€intended€to€retainÐ ° Ðpossession€of€the€gun,€and€was€fully€aware€that€what€he€possessed€was€a€handgun.€€Mistake€of€lawÐ  œ Ðwould€be€no€defense,€nor€would€the€fact€that€someone€else€gave€him€the€gun.Ð í ˆ ÐÌà  àOverall,€Abelððs€best€argument€on€these€facts€would€be€entrapment.Ð Å ` ÐÌòòÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€GOOD€ANSWER€2Ð  8  ÐÌó óóóÓ  Óà  àAbelððs€best€defense€against€the€charge€of€unlawful€handgun€possession€is€entrapment.€€TheÐ u  Ðentrapment€defense€is€available€if€a€defendant€is€induced€to€commit€a€crime€by€the€state€that€heÐ aü  Ðhad€no€propensity€to€commit€without€the€stateððs€action.€€€Baker,€as€an€undercover€police€officer,Ð Mè  Ðis€clearly€a€state€actor€whether€Abel€knew€it€or€not,€and€his€action€induced€Abel€to€take€possessionÐ 9Ô  Ðof€the€gun.€€Baker€offered€to€give€the€gun€to€Abel,€told€him€that€Charlie€was€about€to€kill€him,€andÐ %À Ðdid€this€in€a€place€where€both€men€could€see€each€other.€€Baker€obviously€acted€in€such€a€way€asÐ ¬ Ðto€maximize€the€chance€that€Abel€would€take€the€gun.Ð ý˜ ÐÌà  àAbel€has€not€in€the€past€shown€any€propensity€for€handgun€ownership€or€any€sort€ofÐ Õp Ðviolent€crime.€€In€the€past€he€has€bought€and€sold€stolen€goods,€a€crime€that€has€little€relevanceÐ Á\ Ðto€a€propensity€for€handgun€possession.€€€Moreover,€Abel€repeatedly€tells€Baker€he€does€not€wantÐ ­H Ðto€own€a€handgun,€and€only€takes€it€reluctantly€because€it€is€necessary€for€his€own€protection.€Ð ™4 ÐBecause€Abel€was€induced€to€take€the€handgun€by€a€police€officer,€and€had€no€propensity€toÐ …  Ðcommit€this€crime,€he€can€successfully€assert€a€defense€of€entrapment.Ð q  ÐÌà  àAbel€could€raise€a€defense€of€self„defense,€but€this€would€likely€be€unsuccessful.€€Self„Ð Iä Ðdefense€requires€the€use€of€force€in€response€to€an€immediate€danger.€€Despite€the€fact€that€AbelÐ 5Ð Ðbelieves€that€Charlie€will€kill€him€that€night,€and€this€likely€is€reasonable,€this€probably€still€doesÐ !¼ Ðnot€qualify€as€imminent€enough.€€More€importantly,€because€handgun€possession€is€a€statutoryÐ  ¨ Ðcrime€with€a€common€law€equivalent,€it€is€not€clear€that€self„defense€is€ever€available€as€aÐ ù ” Ðdefense.Ð å!€  ÐÌà  àA€more€appropriate€defense€might€be€necessity€which€justifies€the€commission€of€a€lesserÐ ½#X" Ðcrime€in€order€to€avert€a€greater€harm.€€Certainly,€Abelððs€possession€of€a€€handgun€is€a€lesserÐ ©$D # Ðcrime€than€the€murder€of€Abel€by€Charlie.€€However,€this€defense€may€not€be€available€to€CharlieÐ •%0!$ Ðif€the€threat€to€him€was€reasonable€but€not€real€(this€is€not€clear€from€the€facts).€€NecessityÐ &"% Ðinvolves€a€balancing€test€that€Abel€may€or€may€not€succeed€at.€€The€defense€of€entrapmentÐ m'#& Ðprovides€him€with€a€much€better€chance€of€success.Ð Y(ô#' ÐÌà@{{){àˆÐ  1*Ì%) ÐÔ_Ôà@${àò òQUESTION€9ˆÐ e Ðó óÌà  àHarry€Holder€is€a€screen€writer.€€He€gives€a€check€for€$5,000€to€ABC€Bank's€teller,€TessaÐ =Ø ÐTeller,€to€cash.€€The€check€is€written€by€Chuck€Noll€for€services€that€Holder€provided.€€Chuck€hasÐ )Ä Ðan€account€with€ABC€Bank.€€Holder€signs€the€back€of€the€check€as€requested€by€Tessa€Teller.€Ð ° ÐTeller€also€requests€a€driverððs€license€from€Holder,€which€Holder€provides.€€Teller€then€takes€theÐ  œ Ðcheck€and€puts€it€into€her€computer€which€prints€the€deposit€account€number€and€date€on€the€backÐ í ˆ Ðof€the€check.€€Teller€puts€a€hold€on€Chuck€Nollððs€account€in€the€amount€of€$5,000.€€Just€as€TellerÐ Ù t Ðis€about€to€make€payment€to€Holder,€she€asks€Holder€if€he€is€a€customer€of€ABC€Bank.€€HolderÐ Å ` Ðreplies€that€he€is€not.€€Teller€then€gives€back€the€check€to€Holder€and€requests€that€he€place€hisÐ ± L  Ðthumbprint€signature€on€the€check€before€itððs€cashed€in€accordance€with€the€bankððs€policy.€Ð  8  ÐHolder,€however,€refuses€to€do€so.€€Teller€advises€that€as€a€result,€ABC€will€not€cash€the€check.€Ð ‰$  ÐHolder€argues€with€Teller,€but€she€refuses€to€pay€the€check€without€the€thumb€print.Ð u  ÐÌà  àBecause€of€ABC€Bankððs€refusal€to€cash€the€check,€Holder€has€suffered€damages.€HolderÐ Mè  Ðcomes€to€you€a€Maryland€lawyer,€regarding€his€rights€under€Maryland€commercial€law€against€theÐ 9Ô  Ðbank.Ð %À Ðò òÌà  àDoes€Harry€have€any€rights€under€Maryland€commercial€law€with€respect€to€ABCÐ ý˜ ÐBankððs€refusal€to€pay€the€check?€€Discuss€fully.Ð é„ ÐÌà@Ë Ë {àREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1ˆÐ Á\ Ðó óÌòòHolder€v.€ABCóóÐ ™4 ÐABC€is€not€liable€unless€it€accepted€the€check.€€Thus,€the€question€is€whether€ABC€accepted€theÐ …  Ðcheck€when€Teller€printed€the€account€info€on€the€computer.€€Acceptance€means€ABCððs€signedÐ q  Ðagreement€to€pay€a€draft€as€presented.€€It€must€be€written€on€the€draft€and€may€consist€of€theÐ ]ø Ðdraweeððs€signature€alone.€€ABC€was€not€required€to€accept€the€check.€€Ð Iä ÐHolder€will€argue€that€because€Teller€put€the€account€number€on€the€check€in€the€machine,€thatÐ 5Ð Ðthe€bank€accepted€the€check.€€The€Court€will€find€that€Nollððs€account€info€is€not€ABCððs€signedÐ !¼ Ðagreement€to€pay.€€In€addition,€acceptance€only€becomes€good€when€the€bank€notifies€that€it€hasÐ  ¨ Ðmade€acceptance.€€Here,€Teller€told€Holder€specifically€that€ABC€would€not€accept€the€checkÐ ù ” Ðunless€he€put€his€print€on€the€check.€€Banks€have€the€need€to€assure€the€identity€of€non„customersÐ å!€  Ðto€prevent€fraud.€€Without€acceptance€Holder€cannot€make€ABC€liable€for€refusing€to€pay.Ð Ñ"l! ÐòòÌHolder€v.€NollóóÐ ©$D # ÐBecause€ABC€did€not€accept€the€check,€Noll€is€not€discharged€of€his€obligations€to€Harry.€€€Noll,Ð •%0!$ Ðhowever,€has€an€argument€that€he€has€fulfilled€his€obligation€to€Holder,€since€the€check€was€notÐ &"% Ðdishonored€by€ABC.€Ð m'#& ÐÓ  Óò òÌREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2Ð E)à$( Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àA€person€is€not€liable€on€an€instrument€unless€the€person€signs€the€instrument.€€€AÐ +¸&* ÐSignature€may€be€made€manually€or€by€means€of€a€device€or€machine€with€present€intention€toÐ  ,¤'+ Ðauthenticate€the€writing.€€A€bank€does€not€become€liable€for€refusing€to€pay€a€check€unless€itÐ õ,(, Ðaccepts€it.€€Although€Teller€put€Nollððs€account€info€on€the€check,€it€was€not€intended€to€be€aÐ e Ðsignature€of€ABC.€€Even€if€it€was€a€signature,€under€3„409,€acceptance€does€not€become€effectiveÐ Qì Ðunless€the€bank€gives€notification.€€Here,€ABC€€told€Holder€that€they€would€not€accept€the€checkÐ =Ø Ðunless€he€provided€his€thumb€print,€which€he€refused€to€do.€€So,€under€either€case,€ABC€did€notÐ )Ä Ðaccept€the€check€and€is€not€liable€for€refusing€to€pay€the€check€unless€Holder€provided€his€thumbÐ ° Ðprint.€€Ð  œ ÐÌà  àHolder€does€not€have€a€claim€against€Noll€either€because€the€check€was€not€dishonoredÐ Ù t Ðby€ABC.€€If€the€court€determines€that€ABC€did€in€fact€accept€the€check€then€Noll€would€beÐ Å ` Ðdischarged.€Ð ± L  ÐÌÐ  ‰$  Ðò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€10ó óÐ e ÐÌÓ XÓÓ  ÓAngelina€unloaded€grocery€bags€from€her€minivan€in€front€of€her€house€one€afternoonÐ =Ø Ðwhen€she€was€approached€by€Mr.€Meanor.€€He€brandished€a€handgun€and€told€Angelina€he€wasÐ )Ä Ðtaking€the€van.€€Mr.€Meanor€jumped€into€the€van€and€drove€off.Ð ° ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓAs€Mr.€Meanor€turned€onto€Main€Street€he€noticed€a€police€car€in€his€rear€view€mirrorÐ í ˆ Ðtraveling€towards€him€on€Main€Street.€€Mr.€Meanor€secreted€a€bag€of€powder€cocaine€he€wasÐ Ù t Ðcarrying€under€the€driverððs€seat€of€the€van.€€He€prudently€pulled€into€the€flow€of€traffic€on€MainÐ Å ` ÐStreet€traveling€at€the€posted€speed€limit€but€forgot€to€use€his€turn€signal.€€After€a€few€blocks€theÐ ± L  Ðpolice€car€turned€on€its€emergency€lights€and€siren€and€stopped€Mr.€Meanor.Ð  8  ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓOfficers€Law€and€Mann€approached€the€van,€and€Officer€Mann€asked€Mr.€Meanor€whereÐ u  Ðhe€was€going.€€Mr.€Meanor€replied€ð ðthatððs€none€of€your€business€pig.ðð€€Officer€Law€was€familiarÐ aü  Ðwith€Mr.€Meanor,€having€arrested€him€several€times€in€the€past€year€on€drug€charges.€€He€orderedÐ Mè  ÐMr.€Meanor€out€of€the€van€and,€on€a€hunch,€searched€it.€€He€found€a€marijuana€cigarette€in€theÐ 9Ô  Ðconsole€between€the€driverððs€and€passengerððs€seats.€Mr.€Meanor€then€was€arrested.Ð %À ÐÐ ¬ ЀUpon€arrest,€a€9mm€handgun€was€recovered€from€Mr.€Meanorððs€waistband.€€The€van€wasÐ ý˜ Ðimpounded€in€the€evidence€control€garage€where€it€was€searched€further.€€Officers€at€the€garageÐ é„ Ðfound€a€bag€of€cocaine€under€the€driverððs€seat.€€They€also€cataloged€other€personal€effects€foundÐ Õp Ðin€the€van€belonging€to€Angelina.Ð Á\ ÐÐ ­H ÐÑ  ÑWhile€at€the€station,€Officers€Law€and€Mann€received€word€that€the€van€Mr.€Meanor€wasÐ ™4 Ðdriving€was€stolen€earlier€in€the€day.€€The€officers€brought€Angelina€to€the€police€station€andÐ …  Ðwalked€her€past€an€office€where€she€could€see€Mr.€Meanor€seated€alone€and€handcuffed.€€WhenÐ q  Ðshe€saw€Mr.€Meanor,€Angelina€blurted€out€ð ðthatððs€the€creep€who€took€my€van!ðð€€Mr.€Meanor€wasÐ ]ø Ðcharged€with€several€felony€and€misdemeanor€offenses€including€the€carjacking€of€AngelinaððsÐ Iä Ðvehicle,€theft,€possession€of€controlled€dangerous€substances,€and€handgun€offenses.Ð 5Ð ÐÓ XÓÌÓ XÓò òYou€represent€Mr.€Meanor€and€you€want€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€all€evidenceÐ  ¨ Ðobtained.€€Without€discussing€any€possible€charges€which€may€be€brought€against€Mr.Ð ù ” ÐMeanor,€what€issues€would€you€raise€in€the€suppression€motion?€€How€do€you€believe€theÐ å!€  ÐCourt€will€rule€on€each€issue?€€Discuss€fully.Ð Ñ"l! ÐÓ XÓÌòòÌóóÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1Ð •%0!$ ÐÓ  ÓòòÌó óThe€Stop:óóà ` àI€will€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€initial€stop€of€the€car€M€was€driving€as€beingÐ m'#& Ða€violation€of€Mððs€Fourth€Amend€right€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€€ThisÐ Y(ô#' Ðmotion,€however,€will€be€denied€because€the€Police€witnessed€him€make€an€illegal€turn.€€Thus,Ð E)à$( Ðthere€was€probable€cause€for€the€stop.€Ð 1*Ì%) ÐÌòòThe€Search:óóà ` àClearly€Officer€Law€did€not€have€probable€cause€to€search€the€van€withoutÐ  ,¤'+ Ðconsent€or€a€warrant€based€on€a€hunch.€€The€problem€is€that€M€stole€the€car€and€probably€doesÐ õ,(, Ðnot€have€standing€in€the€ownerððs€car€to€assert€a€violation€of€the€4òòthóó€amend.€€So€the€Court€willÐ e Ðprobably€deny€my€motion€on€this€ground€and€the€recovery€of€the€joint€will€be€admissible.Ð Qì ÐÌÌòòThe€Arrestóó:à ` àBecause€the€Police€had€probable€cause€to€arrest€M€once€they€found€the€drugsÐ ° Ðon€him,€the€gun€that€was€found€is€ok€because€it€is€a€result€of€a€search€incident€to€a€lawfulÐ  œ Ðarrest.Ð í ˆ ÐÌòòThe€Cocaine:óóà ` àPolice€may€take€apart€a€vehicle€for€purposes€of€an€auto€inventory.€€Thus,€hereÐ Å ` Ðthe€CDS€that€was€found€will€be€admissible€because€it€was€found€pursuant€to€an€inventoryÐ ± L  Ðsearch.€€I€still€will€be€able€to€argue€that€my€client€did€not€have€possession€over€the€hidden€CDSÐ  8  Ðbecause€it€was€not€his€car.Ð ‰$  ÐÌòòThe€ID:óóà ` àI€think€the€court€will€grant€my€motion€to€suppress€Angelaððs€ID€at€the€stationÐ aü  Ðbecause€it€was€overly€suggestive.€€M€was€at€the€police€station,€handcuffed€in€a€room€when€theÐ Mè  Ðpolice€took€Angelina€past€him.€€It€would€have€been€different€if€this€was€a€show€up€at€the€sceneÐ 9Ô  Ðof€the€incident€immediately€following€the€theft€and€if€M€was€not€handcuffed.Ð %À ÐÌÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2Ð ý˜ ÐÓ  ÓòòÌÓ XÓó óóóI€would€argue€the€officers€had€no€reasonable€suspicion€or€probable€cause€to€stop€myÐ Õp Ðclient.€€Any€evidence€recovered€from€my€client€after€the€illegal€stop€must€be€excluded.€€TheÐ Á\ Ðcourt€would€deny€my€motion.€€My€client€made€a€turn€without€using€his€turn€signal,€a€violationÐ ­H Ðof€the€Maryland€traffic€code€providing€probable€cause€for€the€stop€of€the€van.Ð ™4 ÐÓ XÓà  àÌà  àI€would€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€marijuana€the€officers€found€in€the€console.€TheÐ q  Ðofficers€had€no€probable€cause€to€search€the€van.€€Meanorððs€statement€that€his€destination€wasÐ ]ø Ðnone€of€the€officerððs€business€was€insufficient€to€support€a€search€of€Meanor€or€the€van.€TheÐ Iä Ðcourt€would€deny€my€motion€because€Meanor€stole€the€van€and€was€not€in€lawful€possessionÐ 5Ð Ðof€it,€so€he€did€not€have€standing€in€its€contents.Ð !¼ Ðà  àÌà  àI€would€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€handgun€because€after€ordering€my€client€fromÐ ù ” Ðthe€vehicle€the€officers€did€not€observe€any€further€conduct€that€provided€probable€cause€for€aÐ å!€  Ðsearch.€€The€court€would€deny€my€motion.€€The€marijuana€was€properly€seized€and€the€officersÐ Ñ"l! Ðwere€justified€in€arresting€Meanor€and€the€gun€was€recovered€in€a€search€incident€to€the€arrest.Ð ½#X" Ðà  àÌà  àI€would€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€cocaine€because€the€cocaine€was€recoveredÐ •%0!$ Ðduring€a€search€which€was€not€supported€by€probable€cause€or€a€warrant.€€The€court€wouldÐ &"% Ðdeny€my€motion.€€After€the€van€was€taken€to€the€evidence€control€garage€the€officers€wereÐ m'#& Ðjustified€in€conducting€an€inventory€search€of€the€contents.€€Ð Y(ô#' ÐÓ XÓÐ E)à$( ÐI€would€file€a€motion€to€suppress€the€identification€because€the€officers€broughtÐ 1*Ì%) ÐAngelina€to€the€station€and€walked€her€past€an€office€where€my€client€was€seated€alone€andÐ +¸&* Ðhandcuffed.€The€court€is€likely€to€grant€my€motion.€€The€court€would€look€at€the€entire€i.d.Ð  ,¤'+ Ðprocedure€and€decide€whether€the€procedure€was€unreasonably€suggestive.€€The€officersÐ õ,(, Ðintended€for€Angelina€to€see€Meanor€and€identify€him,€making€the€identification€procedureÐ e Ðunreasonably€suggestive€and€prejudicial.Ð Qì ÐÐ  =Ø Ðà@íí${àò òQUESTION€11ó óˆÐ e ÐÐ Qì ÐAt€the€time€of€his€death€on€April€1,€2002,€Amos€owned,€individually€in€fee€simple,€aÐ =Ø Ð200„acre€farm€on€the€Potomac€River€in€Charles€County,€Maryland.€€His€will€admitted€toÐ )Ä Ðprobate€in€that€county€contained€the€following€provision:€Ð ° Ðð ðI€devise€my€farm,€livestock€and€all€farm€equipment€to€my€daughter€Beth€and€herÐ  œ Ðhusband€Clem€as€joint€tenants€with€the€right€of€survivorship.ððÐ í ˆ ÐÐ Ù t ÐThe€deed€from€the€personal€representative€of€the€estate,€recorded€on€July€15,€2002,Ð Å ` Ðconveyed€the€real€property,€together€with€the€livestock€and€equipment,€to€ð ðBeth€and€Clem,Ð ± L  Ðhusband€and€wifeðð.€€The€deed€made€no€mention€how€title€was€to€be€held€by€them.€€€Ð  8  ÐÐ ‰$  ÐBeth€and€Clem€lived€on€the€farm€until€June€3,€2003€when€they€separated.€€They€agreedÐ u  Ðthat€Beth€would€continue€to€live€at€the€farm€and€Clem€would€continue€to€farm€the€land€andÐ aü  Ðprovide€support€to€Beth€by€sharing€with€her€a€portion€of€the€income€from€farm€operations.€Ð Mè  ÐÐ 9Ô  ÐOn€January€5,€2004,€Clem€defaulted€on€a€loan€he€had€obtained€from€Penny€Bank€ofÐ %À ÐLaPlata€in€September€2002,€and€for€which€he€had€individually€signed€a€confessed€judgmentÐ ¬ Ðnote.€€Penny€Bank€obtained€a€judgment€by€confession€against€Clem€on€February€15,€2004€andÐ ý˜ Ðhad€it€recorded€and€indexed€in€Charles€County€as€prescribed€by€the€Maryland€Rules.€Ð é„ ÐÐ Õp ÐOn€April€3,€2005€Clem€entered€into€a€60„day€option€contract€with€Builder€to€sell€theÐ Á\ Ðfarm€subject€to€Builderððs€obtaining€favorable€zoning€approval€to€build€townhouses.€€On€MayÐ ­H Ð20,€2005€Builder€elected€in€writing€not€to€exercise€the€option.€€Ð ™4 ÐÐ …  ÐClem€and€Beth€were€divorced€on€May€15,€2005.€€Clem€was€fatally€injured€at€the€farmÐ q  Ðon€June€30,€2005€when€his€tractor€overturned.€€He€died€intestate€on€July€2,€2005.€€He€isÐ ]ø Ðsurvived€by€Beth€and€one€son,€Kurt.€€€Ð Iä ÐÐ 5Ð ÐPenny€Bank€claims€a€lien€on€the€property€based€on€its€judgment.€€Evaluate€the€BankððsÐ !¼ Ðclaim.€Ð  ¨ ÐÐ ù ” Ðò òÓ  ÓREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€€1€ó óÐ å!€  ÐÓÌSÓÐ Ñ"l! ÐThe€issue€is€what€form€of€co„tenancy€was€the€farm€being€upon€the€death€of€Clem.€Ð ½#X" ÐHere,€there€is€a€conflict€between€Amosðð€Will€and€the€deed€conveying€the€property€to€Beth€andÐ ©$D # ÐClem.€€In€general,€property€conveyed€to€husband€and€wife€in€Maryland€is€presumed€to€be€aÐ •%0!$ Ðtenancy€by€the€entirety.€€As€such,€the€husband€and€wife€have€an€undivided€interest€in€theÐ &"% Ðwhole.€€The€four€unities€of€time,€title,€interest€and€possession€must€be€met,€as€well€as€the€factÐ m'#& Ðthat€they€are€married.€€Thus,€a€deed€to€ð ðBeth€and€Clem,€husband€and€wifeðð€would€suggest€aÐ Y(ô#' Ðtenancy€by€the€entirety.€However,€the€language€in€Amosðð€Will€is€very€specific€and€uses€theÐ E)à$( Ðcorrect€legal€term€ð ðjoint€tenants€with€the€right€of€survivorship.ðð€€That€is€not€a€favored€co„Ð 1*Ì%) Ðtenancy€in€Maryland,€courts€will€honor€the€intent€of€the€grantor.€€Here,€the€language€in€theÐ +¸&* ÐWill€is€very€specific€while€the€language€in€the€deed€does€not€mention€how€title€will€be€held.€Ð  ,¤'+ ÐTherefore,€the€language€in€the€Will€prevails.€€Ð õ,(, ЇA€joint€tenancy€with€the€right€of€survivorship€includes€the€same€unities€as€a€tenancy€byÐ e Ðthe€entirety€except€for€the€fact€of€marriage€of€the€co„tenants.€€However,€it€is€not€as€protected€asÐ Qì Ða€tenancy€by€the€entirety€because€it€may€be€severed€unilaterally€by€one€of€the€joint€tenants.€Ð =Ø ÐBeth€will€argue€that€it€was€a€joint€tenancy€and€was€not€severed€upon€divorce€(as€would€be€theÐ )Ä Ðcase€with€a€tenancy€by€the€entirety€which€would€become€a€tenancy€in€common).€€She€willÐ ° Ðfurther€argue€that€the€loan€by€the€bank€did€not€sever€the€tenancy€as€a€severance€does€not€occurÐ  œ Ðuntil€the€Sheriff€actually€executes€the€writ.€€Moreover,€she€will€argue€that€the€sixty€day€optionÐ í ˆ Ðwould€not€sever€the€joint€tenancy€because€Builder€elected€on€May€20,€2005€not€to€execute€theÐ Ù t Ðoption.€€The€option€must€be€exercised€in€order€for€the€joint€tenant€to€be€severed€and€thenÐ Å ` Ðbecome€a€tenancy€in€common.€€Furthermore,€she€will€argue€that€the€divorce€did€not€changeÐ ± L  Ðjoint€tenancy€because€it€would€only€have€affected€a€tenancy€by€the€entirety.€€Since€that€is€notÐ  8  Ðwhat€she€and€Clem€were€holding,€it€is€not€affected.€€Married€couples€may€hold€a€joint€tenancy.€Ð ‰$  ÐTherefore,€she€will€claim€that€when€Clem€died€on€June€30,€2005€she€had€survivorship€rightsÐ u  Ðand€became€owner€of€the€farm€in€fee€simple€absolutely.€€Had€the€estate€been€held€as€a€tenancyÐ aü  Ðin€common,€Kurt€would€have€inherited€Clemððs€half€interest€as€a€tenant€in€common.€€However,Ð Mè  Ðsince€the€Court€will€likely€find€Amosðð€intent€was€to€create€a€convey€a€joint€tenancy,€Kurt€hasÐ 9Ô  Ðno€interest.€€Ð %À ÐÝ‚$ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÔ€ôË1òXXõÌÔÔ€ôË1òòôË1ÔÔ€ôË1òòôË1ÔÔ€ôË1òòôË1ÔÔ€ôÑòòôË1ÔÔ€ôÑòòôÑÔÔ€ôÑòòôÑÔÔ€ô£äòòôÑÔÝ  ÝÔ‡Xew Xòô£äÔÔ#†XõÌX XXew=#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÓ XÓò òÝ‚$ÿÿÿ`ÝÝ  Ýó ó݃$ÿÿ`°a݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà  àUnder€Maryland€law,€a€lien€has€the€effect€of€severing€a€joint€tenancy€and€turning€it€intoÐ ý˜ Ða€tenancy€in€common.€€Here,€Penny€Bank€will€claim€that€is€the€case€with€regard€to€theÐ é„ Ðjudgment.€€However,€under€Maryland€law,€the€joint€tenancy€will€not€be€severed€until€theÐ Õp ÐSheriff€executes€a€writ€of€attachment€upon€the€property.€€Here,€the€judgment€has€beenÐ Á\ Ðrecorded€but€the€facts€do€not€indicate€that€the€Sheriff€executed€the€attachment.€€As€such,€theÐ ­H Ðproperty€remains€a€joint€tenancy€and€the€bank€has€no€interest€until€the€writ€is€executed.€€UnderÐ ™4 Ðthese€facts,€Beth€became€the€sole€owner€of€the€property€immediately€upon€the€death€of€Clem.€Ð …  ÐÌÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€€2ó óÐ ]ø ÐÌÓ  ÓPart€(a)€Ð 5Ð ÐÌà  àThe€intent€of€the€grantor€will€control€when€dealing€with€conveyance€of€properties.€€€Ð  ¨ ÐÌà  àA€joint€tenancy€with€right€of€survivorship€requires€the€4€unities€of€time,€title,€interestÐ å!€  Ðand€possession.€€Ð Ñ"l! ÐÌà  àA€tenancy€by€the€entirety€can€only€be€held€by€a€husband€and€wife,€and€requires€the€5Ð ©$D # Ðunities€of€marriage,€time,€title,€interest€and€possession.€Ð •%0!$ ÐÌà  àHere,€Amos€devised€his€farm€and€equipment€to€Beth€and€Clem€as€joint€tenants€with€theÐ m'#& Ðright€of€survivorship.€€However,€when€the€deed€was€actually€written€it€conveyed€the€propertyÐ Y(ô#' Ðto€Beth€and€Clem,€husband€and€wife.€€A€language€that€uses€ð ðhusband€and€wifeðð€will€beÐ E)à$( Ðdeemed€to€be€a€tenancy€by€the€entirety,€and€can€therefore€not€be€conveyed€without€bothÐ 1*Ì%) Ðparties.€€However,€because€the€intent€of€the€grantor€is€controlling,€and€Amos€devised€theÐ +¸&* Ðproperty€as€joint€tenants,€Beth€and€Clem€own€the€property€as€joint€tenants.€€Ð  ,¤'+ ÐÐ õ,(, Ðà  àAs€joint€tenants,€either€party€could€unilaterally€sever€the€tenancy€by€entering€into€aÐ e Ðlease€or€mortgage€(because€Maryland€is€a€title€theory€state)€or€contract€for€sale.€€Here,€ClemÐ Qì Ðentered€into€an€option€contract€with€Builder,€which€if€completed€would€sever€the€jointÐ =Ø Ðtenancy.€€However,€because€builder€declined€the€option,€the€joint€tenancy€was€never€severed.€Ð )Ä ÐÌà  àTherefore,€Clem€and€Beth€still€owned€the€property€as€joint€tenants,€and€upon€ClemððsÐ  œ Ðdeath€on€June€30,€2005,€Beth,€through€her€right€of€survivorship,€obtained€a€100%€interest€inÐ í ˆ Ðthe€property.€€The€fact€that€they€were€already€divorced€does€not€matter€because€a€joint€tenancyÐ Ù t Ðhas€nothing€to€do€with€marriage.€€Ð Å ` ÐÌòòPart€(b)€€Ð  8  ÐóóÌà  àA€judgment€dies€if€not€executed€within€the€lifetime€of€the€debtor.€€Here,€Penny€BankÐ u  Ðreceived€a€judgment€against€Clem,€and€properly€recorded€it€in€the€land€records€of€CharlesÐ aü  ÐCounty.€€However,€the€act€was€only€half€the€battle.€€€Ð Mè  ÐÌà  àWhile€the€judgment€attached€to€the€land,€upon€recordation,€without€executing€theÐ %À Ðjudgment,€by€having€a€sheriff€put€a€levy€on€the€property,€Penny€Bank€lost€the€opportunity€toÐ ¬ Ðexecute€the€judgment€after€Clem€died.€ò òÐ ý˜ ÐÌÐ  Õp Ðà@íí${àQUESTION€12ó óˆÐ e ÐÌà  àDon€purchased€a€five„acre€tract€of€land€in€Carroll€County,€Maryland€on€which€heÐ =Ø Ðplanned€to€create€a€subdivision.€€Included€within€the€description€of€the€tract€was€anÐ )Ä Ðunimproved€road€at€some€time€used€for€the€removal€of€timber.€€Ð ° ÐÌÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew€a#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿJrÝÝ  ÝDon€filed€a€subdivision€plan€as€required€by€the€County€Planning€and€Zoning€Department.€TheÐ í ˆ Ðplan€included€a€layout€of€six€lots€adjacent€to€the€road€which€is€identified€as€a€ð ð30€foot€privateÐ Ù t Ðright€of€wayðð.€€Ýƒ#ÿÿJres݌РŠ` ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewFs#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿduÝÝ  Ý݃#ÿÿduv݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÌÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew`v#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿpwÝÝ  Ýà  àAfter€approval€of€the€subdivision€plan,€Don€engaged€Bob,€a€real€estate€broker,€toÐ ‰$  Ðpublicize€and€sell€the€lots.€€The€promotional€material€represented€that€water,€electric€and€sewerÐ u  Ðsystems€were€available€at€each€lot.€€Bob€showed€the€lots€to€Paul€who€signed€a€standardÐ aü  Ðcontract€to€purchase€Lot€1€for€$35,000.€€The€contract€described€the€lot,€identified€the€price€andÐ Mè  Ðset€a€closing€date.€€It€was€signed€by€Don€and€Paul.€€Ýƒ#ÿÿpw‹x݌Р9Ô  ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewlx#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿ{ÝÝ  Ý݃#ÿÿ{¨|݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew‰|#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿ˜}ÝÝ  Ýà  àPrior€to€signing€the€contract,€while€he€was€inspecting€the€property,€Paul€inquired€aboutÐ ¬ Ðthe€road€and€was€told€by€Bob€that€the€road€would€be€paved€and€curbed€as€soon€as€a€house€wasÐ ý˜ Ðbuilt€in€the€subdivision.€€Neither€the€contract€nor€the€deed€made€any€mention€of€BobððsÐ é„ Ðstatement.€€The€deed€gave€Paul,€his€successors€and€assigns,€the€nonexclusive€right€to€use€theÐ Õp Ðroad€for€ingress€to€and€egress€from€his€lot.€€€Ýƒ#ÿÿ˜}³~݌РÁ\ ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew”~#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿ¯ÝÝ  Ý݃#ÿÿ¯Ê‚݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew«‚#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿºƒÝÝ  Ýà  àSix€months€after€Paulððs€house€was€built€no€effort€had€been€made€by€Don€to€pave€andÐ ™4 Ðcurb€the€road.€€During€construction,€the€road€deteriorated€and€became€difficult€to€traverse.€Ð …  ÐDon€now€denies€that€he€obligated€himself€to€improve€the€road.€€He€refers€to€the€subdivisionÐ q  Ðplan€and€plat€which€do€not€show€paving€or€other€road€improvements.€€Ýƒ#ÿÿºƒÕ„݌Р]ø ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew¶„#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿu‡ÝÝ  Ý݃#ÿÿu‡ˆ݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewqˆ#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿ€‰ÝÝ  Ýà  àPaul€files€suit€against€Don,€for€breach€of€contract.€€ò ò݃#ÿÿ€‰›ŠÝŒÐ 5РЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew|Š#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿä‹ÝÝ  Ý݃#ÿÿä‹ÿŒ݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewàŒ#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿïÝÝ  Ýà  àAs€Paulððs€attorney€what€defenses€should€you€anticipate?€€How€should€the€courtÐ  ¨ Ðrule€on€them?€Ýƒ#ÿÿï ݌Рù ” ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewëŽ#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝòŒò݃#ÿÿ¨‘݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew‰‘#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÓ  ÓÝ‚#ÿÿÿ›’ÝÝ  ÝREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€1݃#ÿÿ›’“݌РÑ"l! ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓ¶“ÓÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXew—“#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿí”ÝÝ  ÝòŒò݃#ÿÿí”–݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝóŒóóŒóÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewé•#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÓ  ÓÝ‚#ÿÿÿ—ÝÝ  Ýà  àó óClearly€there€was€a€contract€between€Paul€and€Don.€€€There€was€an€offer€by€Paul€to€buyÐ ©$D # ÐDonððs€lot€for€$35,000€and€it€was€accepted€by€Don.€€There€was€bargained€for€consideration€as€well.€Ð •%0!$ ÐThe€basis€for€the€breach€claim€by€Paul€is€that€the€contract€included€a€plan€to€pave€the€curbed€roadÐ &"% Ðor€alternatively€that€there€would€at€least€be€a€useable€road.€€€Ýƒ#ÿÿ—(˜ÝŒÐ m'#& ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewý—#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿäšÝÝ  Ý݃#ÿÿäšÿ›݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÌÑ  ÑÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewà›#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿüœÝÝ  Ýà  àThe€first€defense€Don€will€make€to€the€breach€claim€is€that€the€contract€did€not€includeÐ 1*Ì%) Ðany€mention€of€a€paved€road.€€Furthermore,€a€paved€road€is€a€material€issue.€€Ýƒ#ÿÿüœžÝŒÐ +¸&* ЌԀXõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ‚#ÿÿÿÝÑ  ÑÓÓÓ€ÓÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€X1 XXXõÌÔÔ€Xew X XX1 ÔÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÔ#†XõÌX XXewø#ÔÔ‡XõÌXXXõÌÔÝ‚#ÿÿÿâŸÝÝ  Ýà  à݃#ÿÿâŸý ݌̌Ô€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÔ€XõÌXXXõÌÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àPaul€will€try€to€argue€that€the€contract€was€in€writing€but€there€was€an€additional€Ô_ÔmatterÐ õ,(, Ðthat€was€also€part€of€the€contract.€€Paul€will€try€to€use€Bobððs€promise€as€evidence€of€this.€€Don€willÐ e Ðchallenge,€arguing€its€parole€evidence,€which€does€not€allow€for€information€that€is€not€in€theÐ Qì Ðcontract€itself.€€However,€Paul€will€argue€this€was€a€collateral€matter€and€that€he€relied€on€it€whenÐ =Ø Ðmaking€his€decision.€€The€court€may€allow€Paul€to€include€Bobððs€statement.€€Ð )Ä ÐÌà  àDon€will€counter€that€by€arguing€that€paving€the€road€is€a€material€issue€and€as€such,€theÐ  œ Ðagreement€needed€additional€consideration.€€If€Paul€argues€that€he€detrimentally€relied€on€BobððsÐ í ˆ Ðpromise€for€a€paved€road,€he€would€need€to€show€a€promise,€reasonable€expectation€of€reliance,Ð Ù t Ðand€that€it€is€in€the€interest€of€justice€to€compensate€Paul€for€this€reliance.€€However,€Don€canÐ Å ` Ðargue€that€this€oral€element€of€the€contract€violates€the€statute€of€frauds€since€it€is€not€in€writing.€Ð ± L  ÐBut€this€oral€promise€probably€does€not€fall€in€the€statute€of€frauds.€€Itððs€not€goods,€at€best€it€is€aÐ  8  Ðservice€contract€to€build€a€road€and€that€can€be€completed€within€a€year.€€Ð ‰$  ÐÌDon€will€also€argue€that€Bob€authorized€the€agreement,€not€him.€In€land€deals€an€agent€can€onlyÐ aü  Ðobligate€the€party€he€represents€in€the€signed€authorization.€€However,€this€isnððt€really€a€land€deal.€Ð Mè  ÐDon€may€be€liable€for€his€agent,€Bobððs€oral€agreement,€if€Paul€can€show€that€Bob€was€actingÐ 9Ô  Ðwithin€the€scope€of€his€role€as€Donððs€agent€and€that€he€relied€on€Bobððs€statements.€€Don€may€tryÐ %À Ðto€argue€that€Bobððs€statements€were€a€misrepresentation,€but€at€best€this€would€only€allow€DonÐ ¬ Ðto€collect€damages€from€Bob.€€Ð ý˜ ÐÌà  àThe€key€to€Paulððs€success€here€is€his€ability€to€admit€into€evidence€his€deal€with€Bob.€€IfÐ Õp Ðit€is€an€exception€to€the€parole€evidence€rule,€the€court€will€likely€either€reform€the€contract€toÐ Á\ Ðmeet€with€the€agreement€Paul€thought€he€was€signing€or€more€likely€award€damages.€€The€courtÐ ­H Ðcould€also€rule€that€Paulððs€wish€to€include€the€oral€agreement€was€something€he€detrimentallyÐ ™4 Ðrelied€on€and€grant€relief.Ð …  ÐÌà  àDon€has€one€other€argument,€Ô_ÔunilateralÔ_Ô€mistake.€€A€mistake€by€one€party€does€not€usuallyÐ ]ø Ðallow€for€that€party€to€collect€damages.€€Don€will€try€to€argue€that€Paul€made€a€mistake€and€didÐ Iä Ðnot€understand€the€terms€of€the€contract,€and€he€is€not€liable€for€his€mistake.Ð 5Ð ÐÌà  àHowever,€as€stated€above,€Parole€Evidence€here€will€be€the€key€issue.€€If€Paul€can€admitÐ  ¨ Ðinto€evidence€his€deal€with€Bob,€then€unilateral€mistake€will€not€be€a€successful€Ô_Ôdefense.Ô_ÔÐ ù ” ÐÌÓ  Óò òREPRESENTATIVE€ANSWER€2€ó óÐ Ñ"l! ÐÌÓ  Óà  àPaulððs€case€hinges€on€whether€parole€evidence€of€the€agreement/express€assurance€ofÐ ©$D # ÐDon€to€pave€the€road€is€admissible€and,€furthermore,€whether€a€valid€oral€contract€existed.€€Ð •%0!$ ÐÌòòà  àOral€contract€to€Daveóó:€€Paul€argues€that€he€and€Don€had€a€valid€oral€contract,€PaulÐ m'#& Ðwould€buy€if€Don€paved€the€road.€€Don€will€argue€(1)€that€there€was€no€contract€because€PaulÐ Y(ô#' Ðand€Don€signed€a€contract€to€sell€the€land,€not€pave€a€road,€and€that€none€of€the€documents€inÐ E)à$( Ðthe€chain€of€title,€including€the€recorded€subdivision€plat€and€all€deeds,€mention€anÐ 1*Ì%) Ðimproved/paved€road.€€Furthermore,€Don€will€argue€that€no€contract€can€exist€because€thereÐ +¸&* Ðwas€no€consideration€for€such€a€contract.€€Paul€will€counter€that€he€definitely€relied€on€BobððsÐ  ,¤'+ Ðexpress€assurance€that€the€road€would€be€paved€once€a€house€was€built€on€one€of€the€plots.€Ð õ,(, ÐThis€detrimental€reliance€acts€as€a€consideration€or€substitute€creating€a€valid€oral€contractÐ e Ðsince€Paul€did€buy€the€land€and€built€a€house.€€€Thus,€a€court€will€likely€rule€that€a€valid€oralÐ Qì Ðcontract€existed€between€Paul€and€Bob€and€Don.€€€Ð =Ø ÐÌà  àDon€then€argues€that€Bob€had€no€authority€to€make€such€a€contract€and€therefore€DonÐ ° Ðis€not€liable.€€But€since€Don€hired€Bob€to€promote€and€sell€the€lots,€and€Bobððs€promise€that€theÐ  œ Ðroad€would€be€paved€post„construction€was€made€within€the€scope€of€his€agency,€Don€isÐ í ˆ Ðbound€by€that€contract€as€a€disclosed€principle€(disclosed€because€Don€signed€the€saleÐ Ù t Ðcontract,€so€Paul€knew€Bob€worked€for€Don).€€A€court€will€likely€rule€that€Bob€was€actingÐ Å ` Ðwithin€the€scope€of€his€agency€and€that€Don€is€liable.€€Ð ± L  ÐòòÌà  àStatute€of€Fraudsóó:€€Don€will€argue€that€the€oral€contract€violates€the€statue€of€fraudsÐ ‰$  Ðbecause€it€is€not€in€writing.€€However,€an€exception€exists€for€task€contracts€ð!ð€serviceÐ u  Ðcontracts€for€a€single€task€need€not€be€in€writing€because€they€can€ideally€be€performedÐ aü  Ðinstantaneously€with€unlimited€resources.€€Thus,€a€contract€will€likely€rule€out€a€Statute€ofÐ Mè  ÐFrancs€defense.€€Ð 9Ô  ÐÌà  àDon€will€then€say€that€Paul€cannot€admit€evidence€of€the€oral€contract€because€theyÐ ¬ Ðhad€a€signed,€valid€land€sale€contract€that€was€completely€integrated.€€It€was€in€writing,€signedÐ ý˜ Ðby€Don€and€described€the€land€and€the€price.€€It€made€no€mention€of€any€road€improvements,Ð é„ Ðand€thence€road€improvements€were€not€part€of€the€land€sale€contract.€€Paul€will€contend€thatÐ Õp Ðparole€evidence€is€admissible€to€prove€conditions€precedent€to€a€contract,€subsequent€oralÐ Á\ Ðmodification€of€a€contract,€and€collateral€agreements€to€a€contract.€€The€agreement€to€pave€theÐ ­H Ðroad€is€arguably€a€condition€precedent€(if€Paul€would€not€have€entered€the€contract€without€theÐ ™4 Ðagreement);€a€subsequent€modification€to€the€contract€that€should€have€been€incorporated€intoÐ …  Ðthe€agreement,€or€a€collateral€agreement€because€it€touched€tangentially€on€the€sale€of€the€land.€Ð q  ÐA€court€will€likely€find€that€evidence€of€the€agreement€will€be€admissible€as€a€conditionÐ ]ø Ðprecedent,€but€not€as€a€subsequent€modification€(because€the€contract€to€sell€the€land€hadnððtÐ Iä Ðyet€been€entered).€€Paul€will€therefore€be€able€to€admit€evidence€of€the€agreement,€and€willÐ 5Ð Ðlikely€win€the€case€for€breach.