WPC\ tuO \ z6ITX=}`pٌ?32H_ė@U /״X`qg^_^UwRvscѱ}d>'hCiR!,";KHXA/$[w˧":E$khX yEu52cO]}O9Bv6g3@ijQ&;6}|/$vc~đ~1N#$2@KZd<V*^i~ƫ\KdT+ŊWZ:^+8hUa%fU6> 0 >d 0< 0-< 0: 0T 0n 0lG 0Fn 0B! 0<c 0U)F_ 0 D+v AwM 0e B6 D3SUFU6 0 0(r AQUFUF4U*zUFUgJ"4"V B+x 0 CS$] (9}+."1"11Gd6:"="=">"">"D>"f>">">v>"BF"dFF"M"MGM"T"2TUFTT"T"T 0:T B-VEV 0UV# WUNX %YM Y($YNLY^ NYwZY4^YrY mtYtYtYtYtYtYtYtYtY<YYYYYU>[U6\UF;\\  `&Times New Roman'  Training0Training .   6o 4Heading 1XXX   5+ ` hp x (#5     bXX` hp x (#b <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref:8Page Number0A .Footer (#A7X` hp x (#A< :Endnote TextXXX: 8Body Text 3&&&< :Body Text InXXX<:Footnote Re1< :Footnote Tex  P'..      LXLXL  _   '  -   cSO~ p X@Eoo-  XXXĔXXX '?+ ` hp x (#X?R+ZXXĔ+Z R (2P$ Jt!..      LXLXL  .\  `.Times New Roman TUR(2P$ Jt!..      LXLXL  'dxdo&"D&raw Object Text <C HKKKK C P"..      LXLXL  K(XK   $XXXXXXX (2P$ Jt!..      LXLXL    d'dxd7\  `.Times New Roman TUR<6X9`(Courier New  P)..      LXLXL  _WGCz h : p @X@Eo:U "=o   %%                     %%   RI^I^I^RI^ (2P$ Jt!..      LXLXL  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($C<< c  P"..      LXLXL  _ (#X       ݌̌ X(#   ?+ ` hp x (#X? \  `.Times New Roman TURI\  `.Times New Roman TUR%2A`Arial@\  `.Times New Roman TURkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols          'Single1 d($      Jt!..      LXLXL  <( ` hp x (#X<          XXXXXX   1  GJ  Allpartiestothetransactionwererepresentedbycounsel:theCountywasrepresentedby  RobertOstromofKnight,Manzi,Brennan,Ostrom&Ham,anditalsoretainedPiper&  Marbury,nowPiperRudnickLLP,($XXXX AXXX$X Piper$XXXX @XXX$X )toactasbondcounseltoPrinceGeorge$XXXX =XXX$X s | County;theBorrowerwasrepresentedbyGrossbergYochelson;andtheoriginalTrustee d retainedJessamy,Fort&Botts.XX  I Jt!..      LXLXL  <( ` hp x (#X<          XXXXXX   2  GJ  NationsBankwastheoriginalTrusteeforthebondholders;however,TheBankofNew  YorkbecameTrusteewhenitpurchasedNationBank$XXXX =XXX$X strustdepartmentinDecember1995.XX  S Jt!..      LXLXL   ` $X          XXXXXX   3  )J  $XXXX AYXXX$X the[Borrower]shallkeep,record,andfile,attheexpenseofthe[Borrower],allnecessary  financingstatementsandcontinuationstatementsorotherrenewalsthereof$XXXX Y@$sVX$X$sV   / Jt!..      LXLXL   ` $X          XXXXXX   4  )J  $XXXX AYXXX$X TheBorrowersshallkeep,record,andfileattheexpenseoftheBorrowers,allnecessary  financingstatementsandrenewalsthereof$XXXX Y@$sVX$X$sV    Jt!..      LXLXL   ` $X          XXXXXX   5  )J  $XXXX AYXXX$X theBorrowersshallfilesuchcontinuationstatementsasmayberequired$XXXX Y@$sVX$X$sV             v Jt!..      LXLXL  <( ` hp x (#X<          XXXXXX   6  GJ  Piperdraftedandcirculatedinteralia:adetailedClosingIndexinwhichitassignedtoitself  the$XXXX AXXX$X Responsibility$XXXX @XXX$X forthefinancingstatements;theMarylandfinancingstatements;  financingstatementsforfilinginBaltimoreandPrinceGeorge$XXXX =XXX$X sCounty;andClosing ~ InstructionSheets.XX  = Jt!..      LXLXL  <( ` hp x (#X<          XXXXXX   7  GJ  Thedocumentsprovidedthat$XXXX AXXX$X [n]oeffectivefinancingstatementorotherinstrument  similarineffectcoveringanyReceivable$XXXX YXXX$X isonfileinanyrecordingoffice,exceptthosefiled  infavorof[Daiwa]relatingtotheAgreement.$XXXX @XXX$X 4/3/97AgreementatIII2.XX   Jt!..      LXLXL  <( ` hp x (#X<          XXXXXX   8  GJ  PlaintiffsalsocontendthattheTrusteedidnotrevieworanalyzethedraftDaiwa  agreement,althoughPlaintiffsdonotdisputethatitwassentacopyoftheagreement.XX                                          l Jt!..      LXLXL  ?+ ` hp x (#X?        XXXXXX   9  >J  XXAscounselfortheDefendantsstatedattheMotionsHearingonthismatteronJuly15,2003,$sV A$sV [t]heofficial  statementsaysPiper&MarburyisbondcounseltoPrinceGeorge$sV =$sV sCounty.Idon$sV =$sV tknowhow[the  Plaintiffs]couldhavethoughtsomethingelsewhentheywerebuyingthesebonds.That$sV =$sV swhattheywere W told.Attheendoftheday,whoourclientwas,that$sV =$sV sarelationshipformedbycontract,andthetermsof h thatcontractaredefinedbytheparties,thereisunanimityaboutwhotheclientwas.Onethingisabsolutely ) clear,weweren$sV =$sV trepresentingthem.$sV @$sV TranscriptofProceedingsatM7.TheCourtagreesXXXXXX.XX             Jt!..      LXLXL  ?+ ` hp x (#X?          XXXXXX   10  JJ  Inafootnote,theFlahertyCourtstated,$XXXX AXXX$X Othertheories,lesswellaccepted,includethe  assumptionofdutytheory$XXXX YXXX$X Undertheassumptionofdutytheory,onceanattorney  gratuitouslypromisestoactforthebenefitofanotherandheactuallyundertakestofulfill  thatpromise,theattorneyisheldtoadutyofcareinfulfillingthatpromise.Toestablisha f dutybetweentheattorneyandathirdparty,thethirdpartyplaintiffmustshowthatan L attorneyundertookanactionandthatthethirdparty$XXXX =XXX$X sinjurieswereaforeseeableresultof 2  thenegligentperformanceofthataction.Thistheory,however,hasevidentlynotbeen  j adoptedbyanyjurisdictioninthecontextofattorneymalpractice.$XXXX @XXX$X Flaherty,303Md.at123.  P ThisCourtagrees.XX            = Jt!..      LXLXL  ?+ ` hp x (#X?          XXXXXX   11  JJ  TheoutofstatecasesofferedbyPlaintiffsinclude:Schwartzv.Greenfield,Stein&  Weisinger,90Misc.2d882,396N.Y.S.2d582(1977);Kremserv.Quarles&Brady,L.L.P.,201  Arix.413,36P.3d761(2002);Collinsv.Binkley,750S.W.2d737(Tenn.1988);Burkev. | Frabizzio,1982WESTLAW593177(Del.Super.Nov.3,1982);Simmersonv.Blanks,149Ga. b App.478,480,254S.E.2d716,717718(1979);Stewartv.Sbarro,142N.J.Super.581,588,362 H A.2d581,588(1976);andLawallv.Groman,180Pa.532,54037A.98,99(1897).Intheir . ~ ReplyMemorandumofLawinSupportofDefendants$XXXX =XXX$X MotionforSummaryJudgment,  d DefendantsarguethatthesecasesdonotsupportPlaintiffs$XXXX =XXX$X claims.XX           2\  `.Times New Roman TUR          (2+$ Jt!..      LXLXL  X  0  )Hairline d#|x(t$..      L;XLX;L;HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLXz/ h. pR U 2 P"..      LXLXcL  _K(XK  0Op x (#X0d+ZcQGGG__Ԉ     E+ ` hp x (#OpXEdXĔXd+ZeXXXdXĔ    \  `&Times New Roman<6X9`(Courier New7\  `.Times New Roman TUR Jt!..      LXLXL  _        8dd8  -  ^aQM~1@ p @X@EH +H +-  XXXXXXINTHECIRCUITCOURTFORPRINCEGEORGE'SCOUNTY,MARYLAND c XXXX      ݌̌XXXX  THEBANKOFNEWYORKetal.    : p     ?+ ` hp x (#X?: p     X ?+ ` hp x (#X?Plaintiffs    : p   ~  X ?+ ` hp x (# X?: p   d  v. `     h     : p  ] XX! ]   ]!f ! ]CaseNo.:CAL0221119#! ] !f#!XX ! ]XXX!X  J  ` 0 0 % %0h%%0h%h%0%%0p%%[2003_MDBT_Ԁ9]Vp%p%  &q %XX   P  XX %&q: p  P݌ <  ЌXXXX     ` ?+h ` hp x (#X?: p  "    ` ?+ ` hp x (#hX?RONALDSHEFFetal. h     : p  k   : p  Q   Defendants.    : p &q %XX"& % %&q 7   "X X %"& XX X"X X   XXXX   ?+ ` hp x (#X?    X&     fXX#ff OPINIONANDORDEROFCOURT a   / Ԍ  Ќ   XX#XX#f  #XXX#X   ?+ ` hp x (#X?    s   B  #fX#X#f#f OPINIONANDORDEROFCOURT  C  s ݌̌   XX#XX#f  XXX#X XXXX     >  'U  >݌̌XXXX  XBeforetheCourtareDefendantsRonaldSheff,KimiMurakami,andPiperRudnick  LLP$XXXX=XXX$Xs($XXXXAXXX$XDefendants$XXXX@XXX$X)MotionForSummaryJudgment,filedonJune5,2003,andPlaintiffsThe P BankofNewYorkasTrustee,EatonVanceMunicipalBondFund,NationalMunicipals   Portfolio,HighYieldMunicipalsPortfolio,andMarylandMunicipalsPortfolio$XXXX=XXX$Xs($XXXXAXXX$XPlaintiffs$XXXX@XXX$X) O Oppositionthereto,filedonJuly3,2003.ThisCourtheardoralargumentsonDefendants$XXXX=XXX$X   MotiononJuly15,2003. !  XXXX  X     FACTS h݌ #X ЌXXXX  ' l<`  %& XXXX   4   4n݌ S'#  %& % &% &  ьXXXX  X   <( ` hp x (#X<OnMay13,1993,PrinceGeorge$XXXX=XXX$XsCounty($XXXXAXXX$XTheCounty$XXXX@XXX$X)issued$50millionintax c _exemptrevenuebonds.TheCountyactedasaconduitinthetransactionandissuedthebonds 3  toraisefundsforaprivateborrower,GreaterSoutheast($XXXXAXXX$XTheBorrower$XXXX@XXX$X).  ) (  1     2J  hX,TheCounty$sV=$sVsrolein   thetransactionwasmerelytoaffordtheBorrowerandBondholdersthebenefitofataxexemption.TheBorrower,  l inexchange,assumedallresponsibilitytorepaythebondholders,ofwhomTheBankofNewYorkbecame M Trustee.  *0 (  2     J  Ascollateral,theBorroweragreedtogranttheTrusteeasecurityinterestinitsreceipts,includingits h  accountsreceivable. I   XX   ` $` X   XXXXInorderforthebondholders$XXXX=XXX$XԀsecurityinteresttohavepriorityoverotherpotential d  creditors,itwouldhavetobeperfected.PerfectionrequiresthefilingofUCC1statementsin 4  theappropriatejurisdictions,aswellasthefilingofcontinuationstatements,ifnecessary.The c parties,afternegotiations,determinedthattheBorrowerwouldbeartheburdenoffilingall / necessaryfinancingstatements,includingcontinuationstatements.Thisdecisionwas   memorializedinthreeofthefinaltransactiondocuments,theMasterTrustIndenture  + (  3     +J  hX,,theLoan d Agreement  , (  4     ( J  ,andtheIndentureofTrust  - (  5      J  ,allofwhichexpresslyplacedtheobligationtofilefinancingstatements c  andcontinuationstatementsXXXXXXsolelyupontheBorrower. ݌ ~ ЌXX  XX  J ./ XXXX   #  <( ` hp x (#` <Asignificantamountofworkwasrequiredbeforethesetransactiondocumentswerefinalized. y  Piper,actingasbondcounsel,draftedandcirculatedmostofthedocumentswhicharenow E relevanttotheresolutionofthepresentdispute.  0h (  6     $   hX,Inaddition,Pipereitherfiledorcausedtobefiled   financingstatementsinMaryland(specifically,inBaltimoreandPrinceGeorge$sV=$sVsCounty),butdidnotfile z  financingstatementsintheDistrictofColumbia.Thus,theBondholdershadaperfectedsecurityinterestin _  Maryland,butnoperfectedsecurityinterestinD.C.ForreasonstherelianceuponwhichPlaintiffsand z  Defendantswouldlaterdisagree,noonewhowasapartytothesetransactionswouldnoticeinasufficientamount [ oftimethatperfectionwasnotcompletedinD.C. #>#݌ v ЌXX  XX XX   (  XXXXMeanwhileinthefouryearsfollowingtheclosingofthebondtransactions,the W Borrower,whichwasinfinancialdistress,sold$15millionofitsaccountsreceivableto # anothercompany,DaiwaHealthco2,LLC($XXXXAXXX$XDaiwa$XXXX@XXX$X).AsanincentiveforDaiwatoparticipate  inthetransaction,Daiwarequiredthatitbeallowedtoobtainafirstprioritysecurityinterestin \ theDistrictofColumbiareceivables.Thisrequirementwasevidencedintransaction  (  ./ . /. /  documentswhichweresentbyDaiwatoTheBankofNewYorkweeksbeforeclosing.  1 (  7     ,   hX, c PlaintiffsbelievedatthattimethattheTrusteehadnodiscretiontoapproveordisapprovethissaletoDaiwa,soit /  didnothingandthesalewentthroughasplanned.  2h (  8     I.   DaiwaquicklyperfecteditssecurityinterestinD.C. ((݌  J Ќ   XX   o/  XXXXTheBorrowercontinuedtoexperiencefinancialproblems.In1998,theBorrower +  issueditsauditedfinancialstatementsforthecalendaryear1997whichdisclosedthesaleof   certainreceivablestoDaiwa.PlaintiffscontendthatthisdisclosurepromptedEatonVanceto `  inquireaboutthissale.Plaintiffsfurthercontendthat,inDecemberof1998orJanuary1999, ,  PlaintiffslearnedthattheTrustee$XXXX=XXX$XssecurityinterestwasnotperfectedinD.C.,andthatDaiwa [  didhaveaperfectedsecurityinterestinthesamecollateralinD.C.Despiteeffortstoreplace +  thecollateralsoldtoDaiwa,allnegotiationsfailedandonMay26,1999,TheBankofNew  YorkissuedaNoticeofDefault.Almostimmediately,theBorrowerinitiatedbankruptcy ` proceedingsintheDistrictofColumbia. o//݌ , ЌXX  XX [ 34 XXXX   4  TheBankruptcyCourtwitnessedabattlebetweenDaiwaandPlaintiffsoverwhohadapriority ' andaperfectedsecurityinterestintheD.C.accountsreceivable.Daiwaarguedthatitheldthe  onlyperfectedsecurityinterestbecauseitwastheonlypartytohavefiledfinancingstatements !\  34 3 43 4  inD.C.PlaintiffsarguedthatDaiwawasnotentitledtohaveprioritybecauseithad c knowledgewhenitenteredintotheagreementwiththeBorrowerthattheTrusteehadmadea /  goodfaithmistakeinnotfilingthefinancingstatementsinD.C.Daiwa,inturn,arguedthat   evenifthegoodfaithexceptionapplied,theTrustee$XXXX=XXX$Xsprioritylapsedwhennocontinuation  d statementswerefiledonorbeforeMay13,1998.TheBankruptcyCourtultimatelyagreed 4 withPlaintiffsthatthegoodfaithexceptionapplied,however,itadoptedDaiwa$XXXX=XXX$Xsargument c  thatthePlaintiffslosttheirprioritystatuswhentheyfailedtofilecontinuationstatements. 44݌ 3  ЌXXXX   XXXX   :  Subsequentto,andperhapsatleastinpartbecauseof,theBankruptcyCourt$XXXX=XXX$Xsruling,   thepartiessettled.Thesettlementincludedthegrantingofareleaseofliabilityastothe l partiesinvolvedinthebankruptcyproceedingsandtheircounsel.Piperwasnotinvolvedin 8 thebankruptcyproceedings. ::݌ g ЌXXXX   XXXX   <  PlaintiffscontendthattherecordoftheBankruptcyproceedingsmakesitclearthat 3 PiperwastoblameforthefailuretotimelyperfectthesecurityinterestofthePlaintiffsinthe  DistrictofColumbia.OnNovember23,2001,PlaintiffssuedPiperandRudnick,LLP,and h twoattorneysthatworkedatPiperatthetimeofthebondtransaction,RonaldSheffandKimi  4 Murakami.TheD.C.SuperiorCourtdismissedthesuit,andPlaintiffsrefiledtheinstantcase c" intheCircuitCourtforPrinceGeorge$XXXX=XXX$XsCounty,MarylandinAugust2002,allegingattorney /$  malpractice. <#=݌ %" ЌXXXX   'h $ 56 XXXX   @   ` $` XOnJune5,2003,DefendantsmovedforSummaryJudgmentarguingthatalloftherelevant c transactiondocumentsspecifythattheBorrower,nottheDefendants,wasresponsibleforfiling /  allnecessaryfinancingstatements.TheDefendantsalsocontendthattherecordofthiscase   beforetheCourtshowsthatthereisnodisputethatPlaintiffswereonnoticeoftheirpotential  d claimmorethanthreeyearsbeforetheybroughtit;andthatPlaintiffs$XXXX=XXX$XԀhypotheticaldamages 0 scenariocouldnottakeplace.Althoughthiscasecanbedecidedsolelyontheissueofwhether c  DefendantsowedadutytoPlaintiff,theCourtalsoconcludesthattheStatuteofLimitations /  barsthePlaintiffsfromrecoveryinthiscase. @@݌   ЌXXXX   XXXX  X <( ` hp x (#` < E   EE݌̌XXXX   XXXX   $F   $F^F݌̌XXXX  XXXX   B+ ` hp x (#` X(#B    &  F  STANDARDSFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTFG leQGԌ 0 Ќ  ! ` X(#X!XXXX  XXXX   B+ ` hp x (#` X(#B    kH  B  STANDARDSFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT HC  kHI݌̌  ! ` X(#X!XXXX   XXXX  X I  SummaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedifDefendantsprove$XXXXAXXX$Xthatthereisnogenuine _ disputeastoanymaterialfactandthat[theyare]entitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.$XXXX@XXX$XԀ G MarylandRule2501(a).Inaddition,summaryjudgmentisacriticaltoolforcontrolling / complexlitigation,and$XXXXAXXX$Xatrialcourtshouldnotbereluctanttograntamotionforsummary  judgmentinanappropriatecase.Bondv.NIBCO,Inc.,96Md.App.127,623A.2d731,735  (1993).Regardingtheissueofduty,thisCourtholdsthatthereisnodisputeastoanymaterial  factandthatthiscasemaybedecidedasamatteroflaw.'wG IEJ݌ f ЌXXXX   XXXX  X eN   eNN݌̌XXXX   XXXX     O  DISCUSSION OVO݌  2 ЌXXXX   XXXX  X   O  Plaintiffscontendthatthereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactastotheidentityof {! Defendants$XXXX=XXX$XԀclient,offeringthepropositionthatDefendantsdidnotrepresenttheCountyonly, a" but$XXXXAXXX$Xratherrepresentedthetransaction$XXXX@XXX$XԀ$XXXXAXXX$Xasbondcounsel.$XXXX@XXX$XԀPlaintiffstakethispositionbasedon I# theopinionsofbothlaywitnessesandexpertwitnessescitedonpages2123ofthePlaintiffs 1$  MemorandumofLawinOppositiontoDefendants$XXXX=XXX$XԀMotionforSummaryJudgment.Thus, %! Plaintiffsarguewithoutcitinganyauthorityotherthanthelayandexpertopinionsreferenced, %" supra,thatthereisadisputedissueofmaterialfactastowhetherDefendantsowedadutyof &# caretoPlaintiffsarisingoutofDefendants$XXXXAXXX$Xneutralrepresentationofthetransaction.$XXXX@XXX$XԀ O1P݌ 'h $  56 5 65 6  ьXXXX   c 78 XXXX   V  ThisCourtholdstothecontraryforthesamereasonsandgroundsasrecentlycitedbythe I CourtofAppealsonJune16,2003inSuzetteHemmingsv.PelhamWoodLimitedLiability /  LimitedPartnershipetal.,375Md.522,535,826A.2d443(2003),$XXXXAXXX$X[W]hetheronepartyowed   adutytoanotherrequiresalegaldeterminationbasedonstatutes,rules,principles,and   precedents.ItisordinarilyfortheCourt,ratherthanthejurytodecide.$XXXX@XXX$XԀ(Emphasisadded).It   is$XXXXAXXX$Xentirelyaquestionoflaw,tobedeterminedbythisCourtbyreferencetothebodyof  h statutes,rules,principles,andprecedentswhichmakeupthelaw$XXXXYXXX$X.$XXXX@XXX$XԀId.,citingW.Page  P Keeton,etal.Prosser&KeetononTorts$XXXX'XXX$XԀ37,at236(5thed.,1984)(emphasisadded).Itis, 8 therefore,notanissueoffactatalland,forthatreason,nottobedecidedbyafactfinderbased    ontheopinionsofwitnesseswhethertheybelaywitnessesorexpertwitnesses. VW݌ i  ЌXXXX   XXXX   j]  PlaintiffsfurthercontendthatthisCourtneednotdeterminetheidentityofDefendants$XXXX=XXX$X O  clientsincetheDefendants$XXXXAXXX$XundertookadutyforthebenefitoftheBondholdersrelatedtothe 7  financingstatements.$XXXX@XXX$XԀTheydosobasedauthoritycitedinMarylandcasesinvolvingclaimsof   negligentrepresentation(notpleadinthecasesubjudiceandcasesfromotherjurisdictions.   Thesecasesareeithereasilydistinguishedand/ornotapplicable. j]]݌   ЌXXXX   XXXX   `  PlaintiffswouldhavethisCourtholdthatDefendantsowedPlaintiffsadutyofcare p becausethereisasufficiently$XXXXAXXX$Xintimatenexus$XXXX@XXX$XԀbetweentheparties.Id.,citing,interalia, V Weismanv.Connors,312Md.428,446448,540A.2d783,792793(1998).Unfortunately, > Plaintiffstheoryisawaitingauthoritytosupportit,anditsfactsareawaitingatheorytofit $ them.ThisCourtdeclinestoholdasurgedbythePlaintiffsasamatteroflaw. `!a݌ m  ЌXXXX   XXXX   0d  AstheCourtofAppealshasstated,$XXXXAXXX$Xregardlessofwhetheraplaintiffbringsanattorney S malpracticeactionincontractortort,hemustallegeandprovetheexistenceofadutybetween ; theplaintiffandthedefendantinthefirstinstance.Oncetheplaintiffsatisfiesthisthreshold ! requirement,hemustthenallegeandprovetheremainingelementsofeachtheoryofrecovery  toestablishliability.$XXXX@XXX$XԀFlahertyv.Weinberg,303Md.116,134,492A.2d618,627(1985). 0djd݌  ЌXXXX   XXXX   g  Generally,allaplaintiffmustshowtoprovethatadutyexistedisthatanattorneyclient r relationshipexistedbetweentheparties.Fergusonv.Cramer,116Md.App.99,112,695A.2d X 603,609(1997),aff$XXXX=XXX$Xd,349Md.760,709A.2d1279(1998).However,nonclientsmayrecover  > forattorneymalpracticeundercertaincircumstances,but$XXXXAXXX$Xiftheriskcreatedbynegligent !& conductismerelyoneofeconomicloss,$XXXX>XXX$Xnotortdutywillbefoundabsentashowingofprivity q" oritsequivalent.$XXXX=@XXX$XԀNoblev.Bruce,349Md.730,740,709A.2d1264,1269(1998)citing Y# Jacquesv.FirstNat$XXXX=XXX$XlBank,307Md.527,537,515A.2d756,761(1986). gg݌ A$  ЌXXXX   XXXX   yl  Asageneralrule,Marylandadherestothestrictprivityruleinattorneymalpractice )%! casestodeterminewhetheradutyexisted.Thesoleexceptiontotheruleisthethirdparty &" beneficiarytheory.Flaherty,303Md.116at130. yll݌ &# ЌXXXX  InFlaherty,theCourtofAppealssummarizedthelawinMarylandasfollows: 'x $  78 7 87 8  X X ` (#` X(#$XXXXYXXX$XMaryland,asageneralrule,adherestothestrictprivityruleinattorney c malpracticecases.Thesoleexceptionthatwehaverecognizedtothisruleisthe K thirdpartybeneficiarytheory$XXXXYXXX$XThus,toestablishadutyowedbytheattorneyto 1  thenonclient,thelattermustallegeandprovethattheintentoftheclientto   benefitthenonclientwasadirectpurposeofthetransactionorrelationship.In   thisregard,thetestforthirdpartyrecoveryiswhethertheintenttobenefit   actuallyexisted,notwhethertherecouldhavebeenanintenttobenefitthethird  h party.Ifthethirdpartyallegesandprovestheremainingelementsofa  N negligencecauseofaction,hecanrecoveragainsttheattorneyinnegligence. 4  X <+ ` hp x (#` (#<  Flaherty,303Md.at130131. c   X9:  ItisapparentfromtherecordthatDefendants$XXXX=XXX$XԀclientwasPrinceGeorge$XXXX=XXX$XsCounty,not /  thePlaintiffsinthissuit.  ; (  9     puX  Indeed,thereisnocompetentevidencetothecontrary,and   therefore,nodisputeastothatfactbasedontherecordinthiscase.UnderFlaherty,absent h strictprivitybetweenPlaintiffsandDefendants,thenonclientPlaintiffsmustallegeandprove 4 thattheintentofPrinceGeorge$XXXX=XXX$XsCounty(theclient)tobenefitthePlaintiffs(nonclients)wasa c directpurposeofthebondtransaction.Id.IfPlaintiffscanshowthisintent,thentheywillfall 3 intothethirdpartybeneficiaryexceptiontostrictprivityassetforthinFlaherty.Id.Unless  thePlaintiffsareabletoassertthirdpartybeneficiarystatus,thentheywillnothavefulfilled h theirburdenofestablishingthatDefendantsowedthemaduty.Id.Absentthisduty,Plaintiffs  4 areunabletosustainanactionfornegligence.ThisCourtholdsthatsuchisthecasehere. c"  9 :  9 :9 :  AtthehearingontheMotionforSummaryJudgment,thismemberoftheCourtasked c theattorneyforPlaintiffs,Mr.WilliamA.Davis,Esquire,whetherhisclientsfallintothethird /  partybeneficiaryexceptiontothestrictprivityrule:    X X ?+` ` hp x (#X?THECOURT:Isyourclientathirdpartybeneficiaryalternatively,orotherwise?  d MR.DAVIS:Ithinkweprobablyare,YourHonor,butthereasonwehaven$XXXX=XXX$Xt  J pushedithereisbecausewethinktheothertheoriesaremuchstronger.Wethink 2 [Defendants]haveundertakendirectlyto[performaduty],andsogoingthis {  securitiesrouteofthirdpartybeneficiarydidn$XXXX=XXX$Xtmakeanysensetous. a  TranscriptatM81. I  <= X B+ ` hp x (#` X(#BBecausetheComplaintdoesnotsetforthallegationsthatPlaintiffswerethirdparty   beneficiariesandbecausePlaintiffshavenotpursuedeitherintheirpleadingsorevenintheir ~  argumentsinoppositiontothisMotionthetheorythattheyarethirdpartybeneficiaries,this J CourtseesnoneedtofurtheranalyzeordiscusswhetherPlaintiffsfallintothethirdparty y beneficiaryexceptiontothestrictprivityrule. E  XThe$XXXXAXXX$Xothertheories$XXXX@XXX$XԀassertedbyPlaintiffstosupportthefindingofanexistenceofa  dutyarenotrecognizedbyMarylandlawincasesallegingattorneymalpracticeasthesole ~ routetorecovery.Asdiscussedsupra,PlaintiffsarguethatDefendants$XXXXAXXX$Xassumedaduty$XXXX@XXX$XԀto J Plaintiffs,andthatasufficientintimatenexusexistedbetweenthepartiestosupportthefinding }! thatsuchadutyexisted.Asisevidencedbythefinaltransactiondocuments,thedutytofile I# financingstatementsandcontinuationstatementswasexpresslyassignedtotheBorrower. %! Plaintiffscontend,however,thatDefendants$XXXX=XXX$XԀactionswerecontrarytotheobligations &~#  < =  < =< =  andresponsibilitiessetforthinthesedocuments,andtherefore,Defendantsassumedtheduty c tofilefinancingstatementsinallnecessaryjurisdictionssincetheycausedthefilingstobe /  madeinMaryland.ThisCourtobviouslydoesnotreachthefactualissueofwhether   DefendantsassumedthisdutyindecidingthisMotionforSummaryJudgment.TheCourtdoes  d holdthateveniftheydid,thetheorythatthiswouldaffordthePlaintiffsabasisfortherelief 0 theyarerequestinghastodatebeenrejectedbytheCourtofAppealsinfavorofthestrict _  privityrule.  > (  10     OX  Flaherty,303Md.at123. +  ?@Inaddition,theCourtofAppealshasalsomadeitclearthat,althoughthe$XXXXAXXX$Xintimate   nexus$XXXX@XXX$XԀtheoryisapplicableincertaincases,iftheriskcreatedbynegligentconductismerely d oneofeconomicloss,strictprivityoritsequivalentisrequiredinordertomaintainalegal 4 malpracticecase.Noble,349Md.at740.Indeed,thiscaseofattorneymalpracticeis c concernedsolelywitheconomiclosssustainedbythePlaintiffssostrictprivityorits / equivalentisrequiredhere.ThisCourtholdsthat,basedontherecordofthiscase,thereisno  evidencebeforetheCourtofeitherstrictprivityoritsequivalentbetweenPlaintiffsand d  ? @  ? @? @  Defendants.Therefore,asamatteroflaw,itisundisputedthatnosuchrelationshipexisted c betweenthepartiesinthiscase. /  PlaintiffsarguethatMarylandlawhasnotspecificallyspokenontheissuesofdutythat   ariseinthiscaseandthatthefactsasallegedheresupportthefindingthatadutyexisted  d betweentheparties.TranscriptatM80.ThisCourtdisagreesandfindsthatMarylandlawis 0 clearontheissueofanattorney$XXXX=XXX$Xsdutytoanonclientandthatthereexistednodutybetween _  PlaintiffsandDefendantsinthiscase.BecauseMarylandlawisclear,thisCourtdeclinesto /  discussthecasesofferedbythePlaintiffsthathavebeendecidedinotherjurisdictions.  A (  11     ӑX     BCFromallaccounts,itwasthedutyoftheBorrowertofilefinancingstatementsand d continuationstatementsinallnecessaryjurisdictions.ThefactthatDefendantscaused 0 financingstatementstobefiledinMarylanddoesnotnegatethedutyoftheBorrowertofile _ financingstatementsorcontinuationstatementsinD.C.Inaddition,noattorneyclient + relationshipexistedbetweenPlaintiffsandDefendantsandtherewasnostrictprivitybetween  theparties.TherealsohasbeennoshowingthatPlaintiffsareabletoutilizethethirdparty `  B C  B CB C  beneficiaryexceptiontothestrictprivityrule.SincePlaintiffshavenotshownthatstrict c privityoritsequivalentexisted,DefendantsowednodutytoPlaintiffsregardingthefilingof /  financingstatements.Absenttheexistenceofthisduty,Plaintiffsareunabletomaintaina   negligenceaction.Inaddition,asnotedearlier,thisCourtholdsforthereasonsstatedin  d DefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgmentandinOralArgumentbeforethisCourtthatthe 0 PlaintiffsclaimsarebarredbytheapplicableStatuteofLimitations,MarylandCode(1974, _  2002Repl.Vol.),Courts&JudicialProceedingsArticle,$XXXX'XXX$XԀ5101. +   HavingfoundthatDefendantsowednodutytoPlaintiffswithrespecttothefilingof   financingstatementsintheDistrictofColumbiaandthatthePlaintiffs$XXXX=XXX$XԀclaimsarebarredbythe d applicableStatuteofLimitations,itisthis10thdayofSeptember,2003,intheCircuitCourtfor 4 PrinceGeorge$XXXX=XXX$XsCounty c  ORDERED,thatDefendants$XXXX=XXX$XԀMotionforSummaryJudgmentbeandherebyis 3 GRANTED;anditisfurther   ORDERED,thatthiscaseisclosedstatistically. l  hX   ____/s/_____________________ (#   8  `     h      p JudgeStevenI.Platt !  h CopiesmailedbytheCourtto: M#  &q %XXD&q % %&qWilliamA.Davis,Esquire %! DavidT.Shapiro,Esquire %" NoamB.Fischman,Esquire &\# Mintz,Levin,Cohn,Ferris, '/ $ EFGlovskyandPopeo,P.C. e(!%  E F  E FE F  701PennsylvaniaAvenue,N.W.,Suite900 c  Washington,D.C.20004 6  KevinJ.McCarthy,Esquire  y McCarthy&Costello,L.L.P.  L OneTownCenter   4201NorthviewDrive,Suite410 U  Bowie,Maryland207162668 (  GersonA.Zweifach,Esquire k  JosephG.Petrosinelli,Esquire >  WilliamsandConnolly,LLP t  72512thStreet,N.W. G  Washington,D.C.20005   GregoryKeithWells,Esquire ]  1801McCormickDrive,Suite160 0  Largo,Maryland20774 f  ___/s/____________________9/10/03   SaraBaldwin    h Date | D %D&qDExecutiveAdministrativeAide O