ÿWPC7; @¡`½3˜ç;:ë÷Çæõ¶_Nf1g‡¶>Ê‚°ì²>:ÊñÇê•ȰÁ*Ç ‚ó–\àÃàVÚ€ðë•À"/R#àÆS1Ìôkûß`™Ån§?ÝšPt<žÎ)ˆOüŸà’äUwGfá4qÑvÅy:÷ôé©Ýú’Z®JçI”ÊË­½Æ~¢8_&jQ¦uáKÿ¾Ž|:«ÿþ[~rr5v#]5Ï{©Þ€4Ôtû¶(› œÂIGWº‚ŽæáíxÍ—æL!H)ÃQB›Ü•½`&ò¬Ç#ßj9-Ââ M‡°™Ý~dÝÿÎf`íUšTö´qȨj>ºQá”3OZ©ëBÓ¬ŽïÁ;gZ Ÿ6sGÐsŸ¼ ë@ ¹ñH„8Ž0µN-J!ᅃݶpOè:♢΢ÁD7Hδ#iàPcÌŒ!¢)ÄÆÕˇt7–X<ƒŒ…I~NÄ:¬éVW©´­…0 ¬”ûŒ`óv‡Fu1fZÄÅ–oŽÏ¸$ýòNynñÊmÔÁ^™ Ìó dO޽a"$#³?z²…woK–lcéVÔn<' á³²‰Éýió˜øaÎq±YÿvТÕv#l7rÄ»bÍýãTÇ’Ý¡·Z#ÉìUžNµ % 0( 0U1 w† 4Š ž ­ Nµ ^ · à mÅ Ü 0Ýä 0 lÁ 0D- 0¿q 0¹0 0³é 0­œ 0§I 0¡ð 0›‘ 0¿, 0Ëë 0­¶ 0§c 0¡  0›« 0•F 0Û 0‡j 0¼ñ 0È­ 0ªu 0¤ 0žÃ 0˜a 0’ù 0Œ‹ 0„! 0<›! 0N×! 0%# 0B%$ B-g$-”$UoNÁ$U@%-O%9|%µµ&U>j(¨( 1u®) 72#*ˆU*Ý+â+ 0fç,ç,ç,ç, 0DM. 0Y‘. ê. ü. x//Š/ 0N›1é1é1é1é1 1eë2ë2ë2©P3P3P3P3Zù6ù6ÇS8S8S8 B;˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCLÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÆl·.(3|x¦x2 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ OTWinegardnerHammonsArundelRutland SGTMcCoyJessupRoseblatt INDMazzaMcKownCriserJanosCHANDONNETRobesonAssocsPumphreyPeltonC.I.T.HacknerKennonRATTA uncontrovertedBavisCharkatzl]iquidationAssnsGraverstine E.L. ULPARULPA UPA H.B.ServsBancoporationLindoeTolerNatlPshipMeadowoodw]here BancorporationBewaytextwritersMRUPA RUPA cmtChristoffShopfStockgrowers KanHarnettMardonValeereHelferstayKrupnickegAegonBuxtonawardableLipman SDATMRULPA MUPANCCUSLWarfield*D+D ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*5+5 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓ  Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓ ` Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÓ ¸ Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÓ  Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓDDœôL¤ÓÓ h Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓœœôL¤ÓÓ À Ó*#+# ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ ôôL¤ÓÓ  Ó*>> ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ  Ó*DD ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*55 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓ  Ó*22 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓ ` Ó*// ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÓ ¸ Ó*,, ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó ììDœôL¤ ÓÓ  Ó*)) ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓDDœôL¤ÓÓ h Ó*&& ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓœœôL¤ÓÓ À Ó(## ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó ôôL¤ÓÓ  Ó(>> ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ  Ó(DD ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(55 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓ  Ó(22 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓ ` Ó(// ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÓ ¸ Ó(,, ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÓ  Ó()) ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓDDœôL¤ÓÓ h Ó(&& ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓœœôL¤ÓÓ À Ó&## ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ ôôL¤ÓÓ  Ó<ÿÿ:Default Para:ŠŠÿÿ8Body Text 2Ñ  ÑÓ X ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ X ÓÓ  Ó<bbÿÿ:footnote texÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÑ  ÑÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ<ÿÿ:footnote refòòóó)Hairline d #Ñ#€1Xÿÿd#Ñ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  #Ñ#€1Xÿÿd#Ñ /Ý ƒA¯&ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡1X½@XXXÔAs€the€term€ð ðfair€valueðð€is€not€defined,€the€court€must€€look€beyond€the€statute€to€determine€theÐ  Ðlegislatureððs€intent.ò ò€[add€statutory€construction€discussion]ó óÔ#†X½@XX1X½@+#Ô «Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôTòXXÔ€Although€the€date€of€valuation€is€September€29,€2002,€the€original€appraisal€was€completed€August€19,Ð ° Ð2002€using€a€date€of€value€of€July€20,€2002.€€However,€Mr.€Lipman€testified€that€the€September€29,€2002€valueÐ tÄ Ðwould€have€been€the€same.Ô#†X½@XòôTS#Ôô\  `‹&Times New Roman üÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡ôTòXXÔThere€are€no€Maryland€cases€discussing€the€meaning€of€ð ðfair€valueðð€in€the€context€of€LLCððs.€Ô#†X½@XòôTT#Ô€3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)8i) ~Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôTòXXÔ€The€òòadmissibilityóó€of€the€tax€assessment€was€not€raised€as€an€issue€in€this€case.€However,€the€authoritiesÐ ° Ðcited€above€establish€that€assessment€figures€have€limited€use€in€determining€the€value€of€property.Ô#†X½@XòôTS#Ô4 ûÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôTòXXÔAll€statutory€references€are€to€the€Corporations€and€Associations€Article€unless€otherwise€indicated.€Ô#†X½@XòôTS#Ô<••ÿÿ:Body Text InÑ  ÑÓ X ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓÓÓÓÔ‡XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÓÓÑ  ÑÓÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ X ÓÓ  Ó(3¯$¦¦Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÿÿSDU_45ÿÿStarPageÿÿciteas((Cite as: 359 Md. 238, *252, 753 A.2d 501, **508) Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡ôTòXXÔAs€was€previously€determined€by€this€Court€and€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€it€Ñ @ ÑÑ @ ÑÑ @ ÑÑ @ ÑÓ<(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤°œX<ÓÔ‡6ôTòòôTÔdoes€not€apply€in€thisÐ ° ÐÔ#†ôTòò6ôT/#ÔÔ‡6ôTòòôTÔcase.€Ô#†ôTòò6ôTœ#ÔÔ#†X½@XòôTT#Ô(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=162&SerialNum=1987039064&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=388&AP= ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. ŸÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡ôTòXXÔUnder€Rule€2(g)€of€the€Ohio€Supreme€Court€Rules,€an€unpublished€opinion€is€not€controlling€authority€inÐ ° ÐOhio.€òòSee€also€óóMd.€R.€1„104€(stating€that€unreported€opinions€of€Marylandððs€appellate€courts€are€neither€precedentÐ œì Ðnor€persuasive€authority).€Ð `° Ðà  àòòShopf€v.€Marina€Del€Ray€Partnershipóó,€549€So.€2d€833€(La.€1989),€also€relied€on€by€Ô‡1ôTòòôTÔDefendantÔ#†ôTòò1ôT#Ôs€is€likewiseÐ $t Ðunpersuasive.€The€statute€analyzed€in€that€case€uses€the€expression€ð ðvalueðð€which€the€Louisiana€court€determined€toÐ è8 Ðmean€fair€market€value.€For€the€reasons€discussed€by€this€Court,€fair€market€value€is€not€the€proper€standard.Ô#†X½@XòôTT#Ô PÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôTòXXÔ€This€language€was€in€the€NCCUSLððs€draft€of€ULPA€from€its€inception,€but€was€not€contained€inÐ ° ÐMarylandððs€initial€adoption€of€the€law.Ô#†X½@XòôTS#Ô×ÃV×× C × ½Ý ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€2001,€the€National€Conference€of€Commissioners€on€Uniform€State€LawsÐ ° Ð(ð ðNCCUSLðð)€adopted€a€new€version€of€the€Uniform€Limited€Partnership€Act,€which€has€not€beenÐ œì Ðadopted€in€Maryland.€The€new€version€revises€a€partnerððs€right€to€withdraw€from€a€limitedÐ ˆØ Ðpartnership€and€provides€that€the€withdrawing€partner€is€not€entitled€to€any€payout€for€theirÐ tÄ Ðpartnership€interest,€but€rather€that€the€person€becomes€a€mere€transferee€of€its€own€transferableÐ `° Ðinterest.€€ULPA,€€ðð€602€(3)€(2001).€€€€€€ dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÑ8€½@XXdìdÈ8ÑBARBARA€A.€LARKIN,€et€al.,€€€€€€€€à@ºº*ìà*ˆà  àIN€THEÐ ° Ѐ€€€€€€Ð œì Ѐ€€€€€€PLAINTIFFS€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ºº*ìà*ˆà  àCIRCUIT€COURTÐ ˆØ ÐÌv.à@ºº*ìà*ˆà  àFORÐ `° ÐÌJOSEPH€M.€DELLA€RATTA,€et€al.,€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ºº*ìà*ˆà  àANNE€ARUNDEL€COUNTYÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌ€€€€€€€DEFENDANTS€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à@ºº*ìà*ˆà  àCASE€NO.:€€€C„2002„80480.BCÐ  ` ÐÌà@ºº*ìà*ˆà  àà p àÐ è 8  Ð*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€€*€Ð Ô$  Ðó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòÌÓÓà@  !ìàò òóóMEMORANDUM€OPINIONòòˆÐ ¬ü  Ðóóà@%ìàBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ „Ô  Ðà  àThe€liability€phase€of€this€case€was€tried€in€January€2003.€Following€an€adverse€judgment,Ð \¬ ÐDefendants€appealed€and€the€Maryland€Court€of€Appeals€issued€a€writ€of€òòcertiorari.€óóIn€òòÔ‡2X½@XXXÔDellaÐ 4„ ÐRatta€v.€Larkinóó,€382€Md.€553€(2004Ô#†X½@XX2X½@ì#Ô),€the€Maryland€Court€of€AppealsÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€held€that€Plaintiffs,€whoÐ  \ Ðwere€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@#ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ôfour€limited€partners€of€East€Park€Limited€Partnership€("East€Park"),€had€properly€exercisedÐ ä4 Ðtheir€right€under€Md.€Code€Ann.,€Corps€&€Assððns,€ðð€10„603€(b)Ô#†X½@XX2X½@#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô׃<×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ù#ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ô€to€withdraw€from€theÐ ¼  Ðpartnership.€€The€Court€also€held€that,€pursuant€to€Ô#†X½@XX2X½@#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@/#ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ô€10„604Ô#†X½@XX2X½@u#ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ô,€Ô#†X½@XX2X½@¾#ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ô€Ô#†X½@XX2X½@ #ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔPlaintiffs€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@E #ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ôwere€entitled€to€receive€Ð ”ä Ðthe€"fair€value"€of€their€partnership€interests€in€East€Park,€as€of€the€date€of€withdrawal,€based€onÐ l¼ Ðtheir€respective€rights€to€share€in€distributionsÔ#†X½@XX2X½@’ #ÔÔ‡2X½@XXX½@Ôòòóó€from€the€limited€partnership,€and€the€case€wasÐ D!” Ðremanded€back€to€this€Court.à  àà h àÐ #l! Ðà  àThe€relief€phase€of€this€case€was€tried€before€this€Court€on€February€9,€2005€and€theÐ ô$D # Ðmatter€was€taken€under€advisement€to€consider€the€evidence€and€the€arguments€presented.Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àÐ ¤(ô#' Ðò òà@ˆˆ%ìàDISCUSSIONòòó óˆÐ ° Ðóóà  àÔ#†X½@XX2X½@¬ #Ôò òòòóóó óòòóóIn€order€to€establish€the€amount€of€distribution€that€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔPlaintiffs€are€entitled€to€under€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ #ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@y #ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„Ð ˆØ Ð604Ô#†X½@XX1X½@¿ #Ô,€€the€court€must€first€determine€the€value€of€the€entity€itself.€Thereafter,€the€court€mustÐ `° Ðdetermine€the€ð ðfair€valueðð€of€the€withdrawing€partnersðð€interests.€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àBesides€cash€on€hand,€East€Park€has€only€one€asset;€namely,€the€shopping€center€propertyÐ  ` Ðthat€is€the€subject€of€these€proceedings.€€Thus,€the€value€of€the€entity€consists€of€the€value€of€theÐ è 8  Ðproperty€plus€€cash€on€hand,€less€partnership€liabilities.€Ð À  Ðòòò òà  àA.€€Valuation€of€the€Propertyó óÐ ˜è  Ðóóà  àThe€value€of€the€property€is€determined€by€utilizing€the€commonly€accepted€concept€ofÐ pÀ Ðfair€market€value,€that€is€the€price€that€a€willing€seller€and€willing€buyer,€without€beingÐ H˜ Ðcompelled,€would€agree€upon€for€the€property€in€the€open€market.òòò ò€€ó óSee,€e.g.,€Bern„Shaw€Ltd.Ð  p ÐPððship€v.€Mayor€of€Baltimore,€óó377€Md.€277,€302„03€(2003);€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€597€(6òòthóó€ed.Ð øH Ð1990).€€Ð Ð  Ðà  àTo€establish€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property,€Plaintiffs€presented€the€testimony€of€Ð ¨ø ÐM.€Ronald€Lipman€during€the€trials€of€both€phases€of€this€case.€€Mr.€Lipman€is€an€experiencedÐ €Ð Ðreal€estate€appraiser€with€significant€expertise€€in€valuing€similar€commercial€properties.€€HeÐ X ¨ Ðserves€on€the€Board€of€Trustees€of€Mid„Atlantic€Realty€Trust€(ð ðMARTðð),€an€entity€that€owns€aÐ 0"€  Ðnumber€of€shopping€centers€and€is€regularly€engaged€in€the€sales€and€acquisitions€of€commercialÐ $X" Ðproperties.€€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àMr.€Lipman€prepared€a€comprehensive€report€appraising€the€fair€market€value€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðproperty€as€of€the€relevant€date€which€is€September€29,€2002òòóó.€€In€conducting€the€appraisal,€Mr.Ð )à$( ÐLipman€appropriately€compared€the€results€of€three€methods€of€valuation€to€arrive€at€an€opinionÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€fair€market€value.€€Ð ° Ðà  àThe€primary€purpose€of€the€property€is€production€of€income.€€Therefore,€Mr.€LipmanÐ ˆØ Ðutilized€the€income€approach€to€valuation.€€He€did€that€by€conducting€both€a€direct€capitalizationÐ `° Ðanalysis€and€a€discounted€cash€flow€analysis.€€In€addition€to€the€income€approach,€Mr.€LipmanÐ 8 ˆ Ðperformed€an€analysis€of€comparable€sales.€€Thereafter,€he€reconciled€the€three€values€to€arrive€atÐ  ` Ðhis€conclusion€of€the€fair€market€value.€€In€Mr.€Lipmanððs€original€appraisal,€the€results€of€€hisÐ è 8  Ðcalculations€were:€€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àDirect€Capitalization€Methodà0 À àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à$20,000,000.00Иè p(#p(# Ðà  àà ` àDiscounted€Cash€Flow€Methodà0  àà0p(#(#à$19,150,000.00ÐpÀp(#p(# Ðà  àà ` àSales€Comparison€Methodà0 À àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à$19,500,000.00ÐH˜p(#p(# Ðà  àMr.€Lipman€noted€that€the€property€had€€surplus€land€which€could€result€in€someÐ  p Ðadditional€development€potential.€He€recognized€that,€as€of€the€date€of€valuation€one€could€notÐ øH Ðquantify€a€precise€value€for€the€surplus€land€since€the€prospect€of€future€development€wasÐ Ð  Ðuncertain.€However,€Mr.€Lipman€concluded€that€a€prospective€purchaser€would€find€the€potentialÐ ¨ø Ðof€development€an€attractive€feature,€and€therefore,€would€purchase€the€property€at€the€higher€endÐ €Ð Ðof€the€range€of€values.€Thus,€after€reconciling€the€three€valuation€approaches,€Mr.€LipmanððsÐ X ¨ Ðreached€a€the€conclusion€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€was€$19,500,000.Ð 0"€  Ðà  àDuring€a€subsequent€deposition,€Mr.€Lipman€learned€that€one€of€the€two€anchor€tenants,Ð $X" ÐGiant€Food,€had€mistakenly€overpaid€percentage€rent,€thereby€inflating€the€results€of€his€originalÐ à%0!$ Ðincome€analysis.€Mr.€Lipman€issued€a€supplemental€report€dated€January€14,€2003€in€€which€heÐ ¸'#& Ðrecalculated€the€income€approach€values.€His€revised€appraisal€yielded€the€following:Ð )à$( Ðà  àà ` àDirect€Capitalization€Methodà0 À àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à$19,650,000.00Ðh+¸&*p(#p(# Ðà  àà ` àDiscounted€Cash€Flow€Methodà0  àà0p(#(#à$18,770,000.00аp(#p(# Ðà  àà ` àSales€Comparison€Methodà0 À àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#à$19,500,000.00ЈØp(#p(# Ðà  àMr.€Lipmanððs€final€reconciliation€of€valuation€remained€at€$19,500,000.00.€When€askedÐ `° Ðwhy€he€arrived€at€the€same€final€value€despite€having€reduced€the€values€reached€via€the€incomeÐ 8 ˆ Ðapproach,€Mr.€Lipman€testified€credibly,€that€between€the€time€of€his€initial€appraisal€and€theÐ  ` Ðsupplemental€report,€one€of€Mr.€Lipmanððs€staff€members€spoke€with€a€representative€of€AnneÐ è 8  ÐArundel€County,€and€obtained€specific€information€about€negotiations€between€the€County€andÐ À  Ðthe€property€owners€for€development€of€the€surplus€land.€This€information€was€more€concreteÐ ˜è  Ðthan€what€was€known€previously€and€justified€increased€€optimism€as€to€the€potential€ofÐ pÀ Ðdeveloping€the€surplus€land,€thereby€supporting€the€conclusion€that€the€property€was€worthÐ H˜ Ð$19,500,000.€€Ð  p Ðà  àWhether€or€not€that€development€potential€will€ultimately€come€to€fruition€has€no€bearingÐ øH Ðon€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€as€of€September€29,€2002.€€All€that€matters€is€whether€theÐ Ð  Ðinformation€that€was€then€available€and€the€reasonable€assumptions€that€would€have€been€madeÐ ¨ø Ðby€a€hypothetical€buyer€would€have€stimulated€a€premium€price€for€the€property€as€of€theÐ €Ð Ðvaluation€date.€€In€the€context€of€a€fair€market€value€analysis,€a€prospective€purchaser€must€makeÐ X ¨ Ðreasonable€assumptions€about€the€future.€€The€purchaser€will€not€have€the€benefit€of€hindsight€toÐ 0"€  Ðdetermine€whether€his€assumptions€turn€out€to€be€correct.€€Ð $X" Ðà  àThe€Court€finds€that€the€income€assumptions€and€projections€utilized€by€Mr.€Lipman€areÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€result€of€an€accurate€and€thorough€analysis€of€the€information€that€was€then€available.€Mr.Ð ¸'#& ÐLipman€properly€quantified€the€value€of€the€property€by€reconciling€the€three€relevant€approachesÐ )à$( Ðto€valuation.€€A€prospective€purchaser€attempting€to€determine€the€fair€market€value€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðproperty€would€have€been€likely€to€follow€a€similar€method€and€would€have€been€likely€to€reachÐ ° Ðsimilar€conclusions€as€Mr.€Lipman€from€the€information€that€was€then€available.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àGenerally,€the€income€approach€and€particularly€a€discounted€cash€flow€analysis€is€givenÐ `° Ðgreater€weight€than€a€comparable€sales€approach€in€valuing€commercial€real€estate.€€However,€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðaddition€to€the€consideration€of€the€surplus€land€described€above,€there€is€another€strong€piece€ofÐ  ` Ðevidence€that€supports€Mr.€Lipmanððs€ultimate€conclusion€that€€the€fair€market€value€of€the€subjectÐ è 8  Ðproperty€was€$19.5€million.€Ð À  Ðà  àAt€the€original€trial,€Plaintiffs€produced€testimony€and€documentary€evidence€establishingÐ ˜è  Ðthat€MART€had€been€attempting€to€buy€this€property€over€the€course€of€nearly€a€decade€and€hadÐ pÀ Ðmade€prior€offers€to€purchase€which€were€rejected.€€The€most€recent€attempt€to€purchase€theÐ H˜ Ðproperty€occurred€in€August€2002,€within€close€proximity€to€the€date€of€valuation.׃5×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€that€time,€Ð  p ÐMART€issued€a€Letter€of€Intent€offering€to€purchase€the€property€for€€$19,500,000.€€CarlÐ øH ÐRobinson,€Executive€Vice„President€of€MART,€testified€credibly€that€he€had€carefully€analyzedÐ Ð  ÐMr.€Lipmanððs€appraisal,€prior€to€making€the€offer.€€Mr.€Robinson,€who€had€significant€experienceÐ ¨ø Ðand€sophistication€in€determining€reasonable€values€for€shopping€centers,€applied€his€ownÐ €Ð Ðindependent€judgment€and€concluded€that€Mr.€Lipmanððs€valuation€was€fair€and€reasonable.€Ð X ¨ ÐFurthermore,€in€offering€$19,500,000,€Mr.€Robinson€recognized€that€the€seller€would€most€likelyÐ 0"€  Ðdemand€a€higher€price€and€that€further€negotiation€might€result€in€a€price€greater€than€thatÐ $X" Ðoffered.€€While€MARTððs€offer€is€certainly€not€proof€of€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property,€it€isÐ à%0!$ Ðhighly€persuasive€evidence€that€€corroborates€the€reasonableness€of€Mr.€Lipmanððs€opinion.€€Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àDefendants€expressed€suspicion€of€Mr.€Lipmanððs€appraisal€because€he€was€serving€onÐ ° ÐMARTððs€€Board€of€Trustees€at€the€time€of€the€most€recent€€offer€to€purchase.€But,€under€theÐ ˆØ Ðprocedures€that€were€ordinarily€followed€by€MART€in€determining€whether€to€make€an€offer€toÐ `° Ðpurchase€property,€Mr.€Lipman€would€not€have€been€aware€of€MARTððs€impending€offer.€Indeed,€Ð 8 ˆ ÐMr.€Lipman€testified€quite€credibly€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€MARTððs€intent€to€make€an€offerÐ  ` Ðto€purchase€the€property€when€he€prepared€his€initial€appraisal€and€that€later,€when€he€preparedÐ è 8  Ðthe€supplemental€report,€the€offer€had€no€affect€on€his€opinion.€€If,€for€the€sake€of€argument,€Mr.Ð À  ÐLipman€were€to€€have€fashioned€€his€appraisal€to€benefit€MART,€logic€dictates€that€he€wouldÐ ˜è  Ðhave€òòunderstatedóó€the€value€of€the€property€rather€than€inflated€the€price.€Ð pÀ Ðà  àOn€the€other€hand,€if€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔDefendantÔ#†X½@XX1X½@è6#Ôs€are€suggesting€that€Mr.€Robinsonððs€offer€was€merely€aÐ H˜ Ðsubterfuge€to€support€Mr.€Lipmanððs€appraisal,€the€evidence€would€disprove€such€a€theory.€€AsÐ  p Ðmentioned€above,€MART€had€been€pursuing€acquisition€of€this€property€for€approximately€tenÐ øH Ðyears.€€It€had€made€prior€offers€to€purchase,€which€had€been€rejected.€€During€the€pertinent€timeÐ Ð  Ðframe,€the€availability€of€real€estate€that€would€meet€MARTððs€portfolio€requirements€was€limitedÐ ¨ø Ðand,€according€to€Mr.€Lipmanððs€uncontroverted€testimony,€ð ðthe€marketplace€was€chasing€the€fewÐ €Ð Ðdeals€that€were€available.ðð€E€„€244.€The€Court€is€convinced€that€Mr.€Robinsonððs€letter€of€intentÐ X ¨ Ðwas€a€òòbona€fideóó€offer€to€purchase€the€property€for€$19,500,000.Ð 0"€  Ðà  àMr.€Lipmanððs€uncontroverted€testimony€also€established€that,€during€the€relevant€timeÐ $X" Ðperiod,€the€mortgage€market€was€excellent€for€buyers€as€interest€rates€were€at€an€all€time€low.Ð à%0!$ ÐFurthermore,€aside€from€MART,€there€was€a€very€ready€market€for€such€property€and,€to€quoteÐ ¸'#& ÐMr.€Lipman,€ð ð...€if€this€property€had€been€offered€for€sale,€it€would€have€been€sold€very€quicklyÐ )à$( Ðprobably€in€excess€of€my€$19,500,000.ðð€Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àDefendants€did€not€produce€an€appraisal€to€contradict€Mr.€Lipmanððs.€€Instead,€they€reliedÐ ° Ðon€the€property€tax€assessment€set€by€the€State€Department€of€Assessments€and€TaxationÐ ˆØ Ð(ð ðSDATðð).€€The€statement€of€proposed€tax€assessment€for€tax€year€starting€July€1,€2002€indicatedÐ `° Ðan€assessment€of€$17,668,600.€€However,€according€to€Mr.€Lipmanððs€uncontroverted€testimony,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€assessment€did€not€include€the€free€standing€pad€sites€located€on€the€subject€property.€€E„242.€Ð  ` ÐThose€pad€sites€represent€a€significant€additional€value€to€the€property€which€was€not€factoredÐ è 8  Ðinto€SDATððs€assessment.€€Ð À  Ðà  àDefendants€challenged€the€initial€assessment.€After€providing€certain€financialÐ ˜è  Ðinformation€to€the€assessor,€Defendants€succeeded€in€having€the€assessment€reduced€toÐ pÀ Ð$13,895,500.€€The€assessorððs€income€worksheets,€which€were€introduced€into€evidence€at€trial,Ð H˜ Ðhad€handwritten€income€figures€that€were€provided€by€Defendants€in€support€of€their€appeal€ofÐ  p Ðthe€initial€assessment.€€Based€on€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€this€Court€concludes€that€theÐ øH Ðincome€€figures€provided€by€Defendants€to€the€assessor€significantly€understated€the€netÐ Ð  Ðoperating€income€from€the€property.€€Furthermore,€the€figures€provided€by€Defendants€failed€toÐ ¨ø Ðaccount€for€all€of€the€reimbursable€items€which€should€have€been€credited€to€the€partnership€andÐ €Ð Ðwhich€would€have€demonstrated€that€the€income€generated€by€the€property€was€greater.€TheseÐ X ¨ Ðerrors€would€have€caused€the€assessment€to€understate€the€value€of€the€property.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àIn€calculating€the€assessment,€the€assessor€utilized€the€direct€capitalization€method€whichÐ $X" Ðis€not€as€accurate€as€the€discounted€cash€flow€method.€€The€former€takes€a€snapshot€in€time€as€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€date€of€valuation€and€capitalizes€the€income€at€a€selected€rate.€€By€contrast,€the€discountedÐ ¸'#& Ðcash€flow€method€projects€the€propertyððs€income€over€a€period€of€time,€thus€yielding€a€moreÐ )à$( Ðrealistic€estimate€of€present€value.Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€Court€recognizes€that€tax€assessors€conduct€assessments€on€a€large€volume€basis€for€aÐ ° Ðspecific€purpose,€namely,€collection€of€taxes.€€The€assessor€must€balance€the€interest€of€the€StateÐ ˆØ Ðin€obtaining€all€of€the€taxes€to€which€it€is€entitled€while€at€the€same€time€accommodating€theÐ `° Ðindividual€citizen€who€owns€the€property.€€Final€tax€assessments€for€commercial€properties€areÐ 8 ˆ Ðquite€often€the€result€of€a€negotiated€compromise€between€the€assessor€and€the€taxpayer€and€theyÐ  ` Ðdo€not€necessarily€reflect€true€fair€market€value.€€The€Court€does€not€find€the€tax€assessment€to€beÐ è 8  Ða€persuasive€indicator€of€fair€market€value€in€this€case,€particularly€when€compared€to€aÐ À  Ðcomprehensive€appraisal€that€thoroughly€analyzed€the€income€flow€and€which€more€accuratelyÐ ˜è  Ðtakes€into€consideration€the€marketplace€as€was€done€by€Mr.€Lipman.Ð pÀ Ðà  àThe€utilization€of€tax€assessments€for€the€purpose€of€determining€fair€market€value€of€realÐ H˜ Ðproperty€was€discussed€in€òòGraverstine€v.€Graverstineóó,€58€Md.€App.€158,€172€(1984),€whichÐ  p Ðstated€the€general€rule€that€ð ðthe€value€of€the€property€cannot€be€proven€by€assessments€made€forÐ øH Ðtax€purposes.ðð€€òòSee€also€E.L.€Gardner,€Inc.€v.€Bowie€Joint€Ventureóó,€64€Md.€App.€302€(1985),€inÐ Ð  Ðwhich€the€court€states€that€ð ðgenerally,€in€and€of€itself,€assessed€valuation€is€not€admissible€asÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€of€valuation€for€purposes€other€than€taxation.ððòòòòò òóóóóó ó׃:×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×à p à€Ð €Ð Ðà  àFor€these€reasons,€the€Court€finds€that€as€of€September€29,€2002,€the€fair€market€value€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€real€property€owned€by€the€limited€partnership€was€$19,500,000.00.€€à  àÐ 0"€  Ðòòò òà  àB.€€Valuation€of€the€Entityó óóóÐ $X" Ðà  àThe€Defendants€urge€the€Court€to€consider€the€partnershipððs€book€value€in€determiningÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€value€of€the€entity.€However,€the€book€value€offers€no€meaningful€assistance€in€this€case.€Ð ¸'#& ÐBook€value€is€an€accounting€concept€€which€takes€into€consideration€the€òòcostóó€value€of€assets,€lessÐ ° Ðaccumulated€depreciation,€plus€any€cash€on€hand.€From€that€subtotal,€the€entityððs€liabilities€areÐ ˆØ Ðdeducted€to€arrive€at€the€book€value.€This€is€a€particularly€inappropriate€method€to€determine€fairÐ `° Ðmarket€value€of€this€entityððs€primary€asset,€namely€the€real€property.€Cost€has€little€relation€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðincome€stream,€which€is€the€true€component€of€value€for€this€property.òòóó€Furthermore,€by€deductingÐ  ` Ðfor€accumulated€depreciation€of€the€improvements,€the€book€value€ignores€reality€which€is€that,Ð è 8  Ðalthough€the€improvements€may€physically€depreciate€over€time,€the€property€as€a€whole€has,€inÐ À  Ðfact,€appreciated.Ð ˜è  Ðà  à€Plaintiffs€produced€William€Bavis,€C.P.A.,€a€qualified€expert€in€business€valuation€toÐ pÀ Ðtestify€regarding€the€value€of€the€entity€as€a€going€concern.€€Mr.€Bavis€utilized€the€partnershipððsÐ H˜ Ðfinancial€statement€as€of€September€29,€2002€(Exhibit€74),€which€he€adjusted€to€more€accuratelyÐ  p Ðreflect€the€value€of€the€assets.€€He€calculated€what€he€described€as€the€ð ðadjusted€net€book€valueððÐ øH Ðby€utilizing€the€value€of€$19,500,000€for€the€fixed€assets€instead€of€the€depreciated€cost€figureÐ Ð  Ðcontained€in€the€original€financial€statement.€€To€the€fixed€assets€he€added€the€cash€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðpartnership€and€then€deducted€the€liabilities.€The€result€of€this€calculation€is€a€€net€value€ofÐ €Ð Ð$14,643,606.€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àAs€the€Court€has€concluded€that€the€fair€market€value€of€the€property€as€of€the€date€ofÐ 0"€  Ðvaluation€was€indeed€$19,500,000,€the€Court€likewise€finds€that€the€net€value€of€the€limitedÐ $X" Ðpartnership€as€a€going€concern€on€September€29,€2002€was€$14,643,606.€€Ð à%0!$ Ðòòò òà  àC.€€€Fair€value€of€the€Plaintiffsðð€Partnership€Interestsó óóóÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àThe€Courtððs€task€in€this€case€is€to€determine€the€ð ðfair€valueððòòóó€of€the€Plaintiffsðð€partnershipÐ )à$( Ðinterests€pursuant€toòòóó€ðð€10„604,€òòóóÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÑ€0zfÑÑ€3zfÑwhich€provides:€Ó SÓÔ‡1ôTòX1X½@ÔÔ#†ôTòò1ôT’X#ÔÔ‡6ôTòòôTÔÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ3zf Ñâ 3âÑ8€1½@1XXdìXXdì8Ñâ 3âÑ  ÑÓ€ M (ÿÿ038ÓÓ?+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °œX?ÓÓÓÔ#†6X½@Xò6ôTùX#ÔÔ#†X½@XX6X½@;Y#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓExcept€as€otherwise€provided€in€this€subtitle,€on€withdrawal€any€withdrawing€partnerÐ ° Ðis€entitled€to€receive€any€distribution€to€which€the€partner€is€entitled€under€theÐ œì Ðpartnership€agreement€and,€if€not€otherwise€provided€in€the€partnership€agreement,Ð ˆØ Ðthe€partner€is€entitled€to€receive,€within€a€reasonable€time€after€withdrawal,€the€fairÐ tÄ Ðvalue€of€the€partner's€partnership€interest€in€the€limited€partnership€as€of€the€date€ofÐ `° Ðwithdrawal,€based€on€the€partner's€right€to€share€in€distributions€from€the€limitedÐ L œ Ðpartnership.Ô#†X½@XX6X½@öZ#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÐ 8 ˆ Ð¹Ó X#[ÓÓ X[ÓÔ#†X½@XX6X½@ä]#ÔÓ1[ÓÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÓÓà  àSection€10„604€is€a€part€of€Marylandððs€Revised€Uniform€Limited€Partnership€ActÐ c ³ Ð(ð ðMRULPAðð),€adopted€by€Maryland€in€1982€and€codified€in€ðð€10„101€et€seq.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@q^#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€€MRULPA€is€theÐ ;‹  ÐUniform€Limited€Partnership€Act€(ð ðULPAðð)€as€drafted€by€National€Conference€ofÐ c  ÐCommissioners€on€Uniform€State€Laws€(ð ðNCCUSLðð),€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@‰_#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôwith€some€revisions.€òò€óóAs€the€Court€ofÐ ë;  ÐAppeals€has€determined€in€this€case,€Marylandððs€Uniform€Partnership€Act€(ð ðMUPAðð)€applies,Ð Ã Ðexcept€to€the€extent€that€its€provisions€are€inconsistent€or€modified€by€MRULPA.€òò€óóðð€10„108;Ð ›ë ÐòòDella€Ratta,€óó382€Md.€at€568.€€Since€MRULPA€has€a€provision€dealing€with€the€valuation€of€aÐ sà Ðwithdrawing€partnerððs€interest,€€the€Court€does€not€need€to€look€to€MUPA.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@`#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôà x à€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Áb#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÐ K› Ðà  àÔ#†X½@XX6X½@c#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔThere€is€no€definition€of€ð ðfair€valueðð€provided€by€Marylandððs€partnership€statutes€orÐ vÆ Ðanywhere€else€in€the€Annotated€Code.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@sc#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ô€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@Md#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ô€The€Court€must€therefore€determine€the€meaning€of€theÐ Nž Ðterm.€The€legislative€intent€should€be€ascertained€from€the€statutory€language,€reading€pertinentÐ &v Ðparts€of€the€legislative€language€together,€giving€effect€to€all€of€those€parts€if€possible,€andÐ þ N Ðrendering€no€part€of€the€law€surplusage.Ô#†X½@XX6X½@d#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ô€€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@0f#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔòòAdamson€v.€Corr.€Med.€Servs.,€Inc.€óó359€Md.€238,€251„Ð Ö"&  Ð52€(2000)Ô#†X½@XX6X½@tf#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ô.€€€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@g#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔIf€the€Legislatureððs€intentions€are€evident€from€the€text€of€the€statute,€the€inquiryÐ ®$þ" Ðnormally€ceases€and€the€Ô% ‡C ÔÔ#†X½@XX6X½@Tg#ÔÔ%†CøgÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôplain€meaning€of€the€statute€will€govern.€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@9h#ÔòòÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔId.€óó€The€court€can€look€toÐ †&Ö!$ Ðlegislative€history€or€other€Ô% ‡D ÔÔ#†X½@XX6X½@¨h#ÔÔ%†DiÔÔ% ‡E ÔÔ%†EWiÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôsources€for€a€more€complete€understanding€of€what€the€GeneralÐ ^(®#& ÐAssembly€intended€when€it€enacted€particular€legislation.€€€òòId.€óó€òòÔ#†X½@XX6X½@ui#ÔóóÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔIn€so€doing,€the€court€ð ðmay€alsoÐ 6*†%( Ðconsider€the€particular€problem€or€problems€the€legislature€was€addressing,€and€the€objectives€itÐ ,^'* Ðsought€to€attain.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€252.€€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@Vj#ÔòòóóÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ô€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@vk#ÔòòÓ?+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX?ÓòòóóÔ4‚IÝ .ÔÔ5  ÔÝ‚BÿÝòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝóóÝ‚BÿÿÿlƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝòòóóÝ‚BÿÝòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ6lÔÝ‚HÍOÿÿÿÿlÐÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý .lÔòòÓ SÓÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôóó€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@*m#ÔòòÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÐ ° Ðà  àóóÔ#†X½@XX6X½@sm#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔThe€Court€finds€that€the€meaning€of€ð ðfair€valueðð€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@Ùm#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôis€not€clear€on€the€face€of€the€statute€andÐ ˆØ Ðthat€it€must€look€beyond€the€statute€to€ascertain€the€meaning€of€the€phrase.€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@Rn#ÔÓ?+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °°ŒX?ÓÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôò òÔ€;Ü2,Ôó ó€Upon€adoptingÐ `Ü ÐRULPA,€the€Maryland€Legislature€recognized€that€the€ð ðdetermination€of€fair€value€of€theÐ 8 ´  Ðwithdrawing€partnerððs€interest€may€be€difficult.ðð€€1981€Md.€Laws,€ch.€801,€at€3042.€€In€1998,Ð  Œ  ÐMaryland€added€to€ðð€10„604€that€the€value€is€to€be€ð ðbased€upon€the€partnerððs€right€to€share€inÐ è d  Ðdistributions€from€the€partnership.ðð€1998€Md.€Laws,€ch.€758€(adopting€H.B.€1381€(1998)).€€TheÐ À< Ðcomments€indicate€the€language€was€added€to€provide€a€basis€for€determining€the€fair€value€of€aÐ ˜ Ðpartnership€interest.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Bill€Analysis€for€House€Bill€1381€(1998)€indicates€that€the€additionalÐ pì Ðlanguage€was€added€to€parallel€Marylandððs€Limited€Liability€Company€(ð ðLLCðð)€Act,€which€statesÐ HÄ Ðthat€if€a€member€of€an€LLC€ceases€to€be€a€member,€the€LLC€may€elect€to€pay€that€person€the€fairÐ  œ Ðvalue€of€that€personððs€interest€in€the€LLC€on€the€date€the€person€ceased€to€be€a€member€basedÐ øt Ðupon€the€personððs€right€to€share€in€distribution€from€the€LLC.€€òòSee€óóEconomic€Matters€Committee,Ð ÐL ÐBill€Analysis,€H.B.1381,€òòlocated€in€óóCommittee€House€File€(1998€H.B.€1381);€ðð€4A„606.1€(a)(1).׃7×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¨$ ÐThere€is€no€other€information€in€either€MarylandððsÔ#†X½@XX1X½@`o#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€or€the€NCCUSLððs€legislative€history€offeringÐ €ü Ðmore€guidance€on€the€definition€of€ð ðfair€valueðð€as€used€in€ðð€604.€€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Üu#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ X Ô! Ðà  àBy€adding€the€phrase€ð ðbased€on€the€right€to€share€distributionsðð,€the€Legislature€did€notÐ 0"¬ # Ðintend€to€change€the€calculation€of€the€amount€that€a€withdrawing€partner€is€entitled€to€receive.Ð $„"% ÐThe€purpose€of€the€statute€is€to€indemnify€the€withdrawing€partners€for€the€interests€that€they€areÐ à%\$' Ðgiving€up€upon€withdrawal,€in€the€same€proportion€as€the€partner€would€participate€inÐ ° Ðdistributions€from€the€partnership.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àIt€is€clear€that€òòfÔ#†X½@XX1X½@¯v#Ôair€valueóó€is€a€legal€concept€which€differs€from€òòfair€market€valueóó,€the€latterÐ `° Ðbeing€a€term€which€has€a€well€understood€meaning.€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Ex€Parte€Baron€Servs.,€óó874€So.€2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð545,€549€(Ala.€2003);€òòPueblo€Bancorporation€v.€Lindoe,€Inc.,€óó37€P.3d€492,€495€(Colo.€Ct.€App.Ð  ` Ð2001).€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Ôy#Ô€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔHad€the€legislature€intended€the€term€ð ðfair€valueðð€to€mean€ð ðfair€market€valueðð,€it€wouldÐ è 8  Ðhave€used€the€latter€term,€which€is€a€clearly€understood€expression€defined€by€countless€cases€andÐ À  Ðfound€throughout€the€Annotated€Code.€òòSee€Toler€v.€Motor€Vehicle€Admin.,€óó373€Md.€214,€235Ð ˜è  Ð(2003)€(stating€that€when€the€legislature€uses€different€words,€especially€in€the€same€section€orÐ pÀ Ðpart€of€the€statute€that€deals€with€the€same€subject,€it€usually€intends€different€things)€(òòciting€óó2AÐ H˜ ÐNorman€J.€Singer,€Sutherland€Statutes€&€Statutory€Construction€ðð€46.06€(6òòthóó€ed.€2000)).€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ßz#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ  p Ðà  àTÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Û}#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôhe€only€Maryland€appellate€decision€to€discuss€ðð€10„604€is€the€one€in€this€very€case.€Ð øH ÐThere,€the€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†X½@XX1X½@?~#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€stated:€ð ðThe€distribution€upon€withdrawal€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ #ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôreferred€to€in€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@z#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Ë#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„604Ð Ð  Ðwould€be€paid€by€the€partnership,€not€by€a€third„€party€purchaser€or€individual€partners....Ð ¨ø ÐHarmonized,€€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@€#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@í€#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@3#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„603€&€10„604€essentially€allow€a€partner€to€ððcash€outðð€his€or€her€equityÐ €Ð Ðbefore€the€partnership€terminates.ðð€òòDella€Ratta,€óó382€Md.€at€576.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@y#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€The€Court€of€Appeals€drew€aÐ X ¨ Ðdistinction€between€the€right€to€ð ðcash€outðð€under€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@l‚#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@ƒ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„604€and€other€provisions€contained€in€EastÐ 0"€  ÐParkððs€Partnership€Agreement€[Ô#†X½@XX1X½@]ƒ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@„#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@I„#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€11(d),€11(f),€11(k)€and€13],€where€a€partner€would€receiveÐ $X" Ðpayment€from€a€third€party€or€from€other€partners.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@„#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔThis€language€leads€to€the€conclusion€€that€itÐ à%0!$ Ðwould€be€erroneous€to€view€the€valuation€of€a€withdrawing€partnerððs€interest€€from€theÐ ¸'#& Ðperspective€of€a€third€party€such€as€would€be€done€in€a€fair€market€value€analysis.€€Instead,€theÐ )à$( Ðvaluation€must€be€viewed€from€the€perspective€of€the€withdrawing€partners€who€are€surrenderingÐ h+¸&* Ðtheir€interests€back€to€the€partnership.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@T…#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ ° Ðà  àAbsent€a€clear€definition€of€ð ðfair€valueðð€in€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@X‡#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@î‡#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„604€or€elsewhere€in€the€statute€or€the€caseÐ ˆØ Ðlaw€of€limited€partnerships,€the€Court€can€presume€that€the€Legislature€intended€the€expression€toÐ `° Ðhave€the€same€meaning€as€it€has€in€similar€statutes.€€òòSee€Natððl€Corp.€for€Housing€Pððship,Ð 8 ˆ ÐMeadowood€Townhouse,€Inc.€v.€Keller,€óóò òòòóóó ó353€Md.€171,€185€(1999)€(ð ð[w]here€the€same€language€isÐ  ` Ðused€in€different€clauses€of€[statute]€upon€the€same€or€similar€subjects,€it€must€receive€the€sameÐ è 8  Ðconstruction,€unless€[there€is]€some€particular€reason€to€the€contraryðð).€€òòóóò òó óOne€such€statutoryÐ À  Ðscheme€in€Maryland€that€uses€the€term€ð ðfair€valueðð€is€found€in€ðð€3„202,€et€seq.€(hereinafterÐ ˜è  Ðð ðDissenting€Shareholder€Statuteðð).€€This€statute€relates€to€valuation€of€the€interests€ofÐ pÀ Ðshareholders€who€withdraw€from€a€corporation€that€has€engaged€in€a€merger€contrary€to€theÐ H˜ Ðminority€shareholdersðð€wishes.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@4ˆ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ԀР p Ðà  àThe€Dissenting€Shareholder€Statute€provides€that€a€dissenting€stockholder€has€the€right€toÐ øH Ðdemand€and€receive€payment€of€the€ð ðfair€valueðð€of€his/her€stock.€€ðð€3„202.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ŸŒ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€€ð ðÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Å#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔDissentingÐ Ð  Ðshareholder€statutes€are€designed€to€provide€a€limited€remedy€that€puts€the€dissenting€minorityÐ ¨ø Ðshareholders€in€the€position€they€would€have€been€in€had€the€corporation€been€dissolved.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐòòPueblo€Bancorporation,€óó37€P.3d€at€496;€òòaccord,€Warren€v.€Baltimore€Transit€Co.,€óó220€Md.€478,Ð X ¨ Ð483€(1959).€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ Ž#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôòòóó€This€prevents€minority€shareholders€from€being€forced€to€sell€at€unfairly€low€valuesÐ 0"€  Ðwhile€allowing€the€majority€to€proceed€as€it€desires.€€òòPueblo€Bancorporation,€óó37€P.3d€at€496.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Ý#Ôò òó óÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ $X" Ðà  à€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ø#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔFair€value,€in€the€dissenting€shareholder€context,€has€been€stated€to€require€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdissenting€shareholder€be€paid€for€his€or€her€proportionate€interest€in€a€going€concern,€or€theÐ ¸'#& Ðintrinsic€value€of€the€shareholderððs€economic€interest€in€the€corporate€enterprise.€€òòFriedman€v.Ð )à$( ÐBeway€Realty€Corp.,€óó661€N.E.2d€972,€976€(N.Y.€1995).€€The€determination€should€be€made€byÐ h+¸&* Ðtaking€the€going€concern€value€of€the€corporation€as€a€whole,€as€opposed€to€the€value€of€theÐ ° Ðindividual€€shares.€€òòId.óó€€The€purpose€of€the€statute€is€to€save€the€dissenting€stockholder€from€anyÐ ˆØ Ðloss€by€reason€of€the€change€in€the€nature€of€the€business.€€òòId.€óó€The€dissenting€shareholder€statuteÐ `° Ðshould€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€dissenting€shareholder.€€òòLawson€Mardon€Wheaton€Inc.€v.Ð 8 ˆ ÐSmith,€óó734€A.2d€738,€748€(N.J.€1999).€€ð ðThe€very€nature€of€the€term€ððfair€valueðð€suggests€thatÐ  ` Ðcourts€must€take€fairness€and€equity€into€account€in€deciding€whether€to€apply€a€discount€to€theÐ è 8  Ðvalue€of€the€dissenting€shareholderððs€stock[.]ðð€òòId.€óóÐ À  Ðà  à€€A€Maryland€case,€which€both€parties€cite€for€its€discussion€of€ð ðfair€valueðð€of€a€dissentingÐ ˜è  ÐÔ#†X½@XX1X½@\‘#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôshareholderððs€interest€is€€òòWarren€v.€Baltimore€Transit€Co.,€óó220€Md.€478€(1959).€€In€that€case,€theÐ pÀ ÐCourt€of€Appeals€stated€that€to€arrive€at€the€fair€value€of€the€interest:€€Ð H˜ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ! °½‹X°°ŒX!ÓÓÓÓ  Óthe€real€objective€is€to€ascertain€the€actual€worth€of€that€which€the€dissenter€losesÐ  p Ðbecause€of€his€unwillingness€to€go€along€with€the€controlling€stockholders,€that€is,Ð  \ Ðto€indemnify€him.€€The€textwriters€and€cases€agree€generally€that€this€is€to€beÐ øH Ðdetermined€by€assuming€that€the€corporation€will€continue€as€a€going€concern€ð!ð€notÐ ä4 Ðthat€it€is€being€liquidated€ð!ð€and€on€this€assumption€by€appraising€all€material€factorsÐ Ð  Ðand€elements€that€affect€value,€giving€to€each€the€weight€indicated€by€theÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances,€including€the€nature€of€the€business€and€its€operations,€its€assets€andÐ ¨ø Ðliabilities,€its€earning€capacity,€the€investment€value€of€its€stock,€the€market€value€ofÐ ”ä Ðits€stock,€the€price€of€stocks€of€like€character,€the€size€of€the€surplus,€the€amount€andÐ €Ð Ðregularity€of€dividends,€future€prospects€of€any€industry€and€of€the€company,€andÐ l¼ Ðgood€will,€if€any.€Ð X ¨ ÐÓ X#˜ÓÓd˜ÓÌÓ X˜ÓÓ% °°ŒX°½‹X1˜%ÓòòId.€óóat€483.€€ÓR˜ÓÐ 0"€  Ðà  àPlaintiffs€rely€on€€òòWarren€óófor€guidance€in€determining€fair€value.€€Defendants,€on€theÐ $X" Ðother€hand,€cite€it€to€support€their€argument€that€it€would€be€tantamount€to€ð ðliquidation€valueðð€ifÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Court€simply€took€the€value€of€the€entity€and€prorated€it€among€the€withdrawing€partners.€AÐ ¸'#& Ðliquidation€can€occur€under€a€variety€of€scenarios€that€range€from€fair€market€value€to€a€distressÐ )à$( Ðsale.€However€the€term€ð ðliquidationðð€generally€implies€that€the€sale€of€the€entityððs€assets€will€netÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ0zfÑâ 0âÑ8€1½@1XXdì1XXdì8Ñâ 0âÑ  Ñless€than€if€the€entity€were€sold€as€a€going€concern.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Creel€v.€Lilly,€óó354€Md.€77€(1999)Ð ° Ðòòóó(ð ð[l]iquidation€can€be€a€harmful€and€destructive€measure,€especially€to€a€small€business€.€.€.,€andÐ ˆØ Ðit€is€often€unnecessary€to€determining€the€true€value€of€a€partnershipðð).Ð `° ÐÔ#†X½@XX1X½@—#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôà  àIn€òòCreelóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated€that€its€goal€was€to€ð ðprevent€the€disruption€and€lossÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€are€attendant€with€a€forced€sale,€while€at€the€same€time€preserving€the€right€of€the€deceasedÐ  ` Ðpartnerððs€estate€to€be€paid€his€or€her€fair€share€of€the€partnership.ðð€€òòóó354€Md.€at€107€(holding€thatÐ è 8  Ðliquidation€of€partnership€was€not€required€upon€death€of€one€of€the€partners).€€òòÔ#†X½@XX1X½@¦¡#ÔóóÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔThe€trial€courtÐ À  Ðtook€the€total€value€of€the€partnership€assets,€less€the€debts€to€creditors€and€partners€and€capitalÐ ˜è  Ðcontributions€of€the€partners.€€The€trial€court€then€determined€that€the€deceased€partnerððs€estateÐ pÀ Ðwas€due€the€52%€(his€partnership€interest)€of€the€balance,€plus€his€capital€account.€€òòId.€óóat€106.€Ð H˜ ÐAlthough€the€Court€did€not€compel€a€liquidation,€it€employed€the€same€method€that€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@À£#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔPlaintiffÔ#†X½@XX1X½@è¥#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔsÐ  p Ðsuggest€in€the€instant€case,€that€is,€to€value€the€assets€of€the€partnership,€deduct€the€liabilities€andÐ øH Ðdetermine€the€partnerððs€pro€rata€share€in€the€remainder.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@3¦#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ Ð  Ðà  àThe€òòCreel€óóCourt€stated€it€was€aiming€to€preserve€the€right€of€the€estate€to€be€paid€for€theÐ ¨ø Ðdeceased€partnerððs€fair€share€of€the€partnership,€rather€than€have€a€ð ðfire€saleðð€of€all€of€theÐ €Ð Ðpartnershipððs€assets.€€òòId.€óóat€107.€€The€Court€here€is€not€contemplating€a€ð ðfire€saleðð€of€East€ParkÐ X ¨ Ðnor,€for€that€matter,€that€the€partnership€or€its€asset€be€sold€at€all.€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àIt€is€true€that€the€òòCreel€óóand€òòWarren€óócourts€rejected€€a€ð ðliquidation€theoryðð€as€the€basis€forÐ $X" Ðvaluing€a€partnerððs€interest.€€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@C§#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔHowever,€DefendantÔ#†X½@XX1X½@-ª#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôsðð€argument€obscures€the€facts€of€this€case.€ItÐ à%0!$ Ðmust€be€remembered€that€East€Parkððs€business€consists€of€nothing€more€than€ownership€of€theÐ ¸'#& Ðreal€estate.€Unlike€a€business€that€loses€value€when€it€ceases€to€operate€because€of€the€loss€ofÐ )à$( Ðgoodwill€or€other€intangible€assets,€this€particular€business€has€no€value€other€than€the€value€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðits€underlying€fixed€assets.€Under€the€facts€of€this€case,€there€is€no€distinction€betweenÐ ° Ðliquidation€value€and€going€concern€value.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ª#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€The€fair€value€of€the€partnership€interests€equal€theÐ ˆØ Ðamount€that€the€partners€would€€receive€if€East€Park€sold€its€sole€asset€in€an€arms€lengthÐ `° Ðtransaction.€€€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àAlthough€Marylandððs€Revised€Uniform€Partnership€Act€(ð ðMRUPAðð),€ðð€9A„101,€et€seq.,Ð  ` ÐÔ#†X½@XX1X½@­#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôis€not€directly€applicable€to€this€case,€the€Act€provides€valuable€guidance.€€MRUPA,€which€wasÐ è 8  Ðadopted€by€€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@¢®#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔMaryland€in€1998€with€certain€phase„in€clauses,€Ô#†X½@XX6X½@c¯#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôwas€derived€from€the€RevisedÐ À  ÐUniform€Partnership€Act€(ð ðRUPAðð)€as€drafted€by€the€NCCUSL.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Õ¯#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô׃G×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ˆ°#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@±#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔSection€9A„701€of€€MRUPAÐ ˜è  ÐÔ#†X½@XX1X½@a±#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôprovides€for€the€purchase€of€a€dissociating€partnerððs€interest.€€Like€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@б#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@[²#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô10„604€and€the€Dissenting€Ð pÀ ÐShareholder€Statute,€the€purpose€of€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@¡²#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@6³#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€9A„701€is€to€indemnify€a€€withdrawing€partner.€€Under€ððÐ H˜ Ð9A„701,€the€term€ð ðbuyout€priceðð€was€introduced€to€describe€the€amount€payable€to€a€withdrawingÐ  p Ðpartner.€€€Buyout€price€is€defined€as€ð ðthe€amount€that€would€have€been€distributable€to€theÐ øH Ðdissociating€partner€under€ðð€9A„807€(b)€.€.€.€if,€on€the€date€of€dissociation,€the€assets€of€theÐ Ð  Ðpartnership€were€sold€at€a€price€equal€to€the€greater€of€the€liquidation€value€or€the€value€based€onÐ ¨ø Ða€sale€of€the€entire€business€as€a€going€concern€without€the€dissociated€partner€and€theÐ €Ð Ðpartnership€were€wound€up€as€of€that€date.ðð€ðð€9A„701€(b).€€The€NCCUSL€purposely€chose€not€toÐ X ¨ Ðuse€either€the€term€fair€market€value€or€fair€value€in€RUPA€to€avoid€confusion,€as€these€are€termsÐ 0"€  Ðof€art€with€special€meanings€in€certain€contexts.€€òòSee€óóRUPA,€ðð€701,€cmt.€3.€ò òó óà x àÐ $X" Ðà  àThe€aim€of€both€ðð€9A„701€and€the€Dissenting€Shareholder€Statute€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@|³#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôis€similar€to€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@¸#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@a¸#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„604Ð à%0!$ Ðthat€is,€to€ð ðcash€outðð€the€interests€of€the€dissenting€shareholders€in€order€to€avoid€compelling€theÐ ¸'#& Ðshareholders€to€participate€in€a€corporate€course€they€find€objectionable.€In€the€case€at€bar,€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@§¸#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@ã¹#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„Ð ° Ð604€has€been€invoked€by€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@)º#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔPlaintiffs€for€the€same€purpose.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@œº#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€The€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€thisÐ ˆØ ÐCourtððs€previous€decision€that€Mr.€Della€Ratta€breached€his€fiduciary€duties€to€the€minorityÐ `° Ðpartners€and€compelled€them€to€exercise€their€right€to€withdraw€in€order€to€avoid€an€unreasonableÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€oppressive€capital€call.€€òòDella€Rattaóó,€382€Md.€at€580.€òòóó€The€similarity€in€application€of€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ÿº#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@̼#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô10„Ð  ` Ð604€under€the€facts€of€this€case€and€the€reasoning€behind€the€Dissenting€Shareholder€StatutesÐ è 8  Ðjustifies€looking€at€the€latter€to€understand€the€former.Ð À  ÐÔ#†X½@XX1X½@½#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôà  àÔ#†X½@XX1X½@,¾#ÔThe€Court€has€considered€the€Ohio€case€of€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔòòConti€v.€Christoffóó,€2001€WL€1199056€(OhioÐ ˜è  ÐCt.€App.€2001)€(unpublished)Ô#†X½@XX1X½@¤¾#Ô,€cited€by€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔDefendantÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Q¿#Ôs€which€addresses€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@Ôð ðfair€valueðð€in€the€limitedÐ pÀ Ðpartnership€context.€€€In€that€case,€Appellant€was€a€limited€partner€in€a€partnership€with€aÐ H˜ Ðcommercial€office€as€its€primary€asset.€€Each€partner€owned€a€25%€interest€in€the€partnership.€Ð  p ÐAppellant€exercised€his€right€to€withdraw€and€the€partners€were€unable€to€agree€on€the€amount€heÐ øH Ðwas€entitled€to€under€Ohio€Rev.€Code,€ðð€1782.34,€which€is€the€same€as€ðð€10„604€in€Maryland.€€€Ð Ð  ÐBecause€ð ðfair€valueðð€was€not€defined€in€the€limited€partnership€portion€of€Ohioððs€statute,€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourt€looked€to€other€ð ðlaws€upon€the€same€or€similar€subjectsðð€to€determine€the€intent€of€theÐ €Ð Ðlegislature.€One€such€law€wasÔ#†X½@XX1X½@®¿#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€Ohio€Rev.€Code,€ðð€1782.437,€which€deals€with€a€dissentingÐ X ¨ Ðpartnerððs€right€to€withdraw€from€a€limited€partnership€after€a€merger€or€consolidation.€ThatÐ 0"€  Ðstatute,€òòunlike€any€Maryland€analogueóó,€uses€the€expression€ð ðfair€cash€valueðð€which€it€defines€asÐ $X" Ðð ðthe€amount€that€a€willing€seller€who€is€under€no€compulsion€to€sell€would€be€willing€to€acceptÐ à%0!$ Ðand€that€a€willing€buyer€who€is€under€no€compulsion€to€purchase€would€be€willing€to€pay.ðð€€òòId.€óóatÐ ¸'#& Ð*4.€€€The€Ohio€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€€inÐ )à$( Ðconsidering€Ohio€Rev.€Code,€ðð€1782.437€for€guidance€in€defining€fair€value.€The€Court€alsoÐ h+¸&* Ðstated€that€minority€and€marketability€discounts€may€be,€but€do€not€have€to€be,€applied€asÐ ° Ðvaluation€is€a€factual€issue€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòId.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Ã#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔóóÐ ˆØ Ðà  àA€critical€distinction€is€that€the€Ohio€court€equated€ð ðfair€valueðð€and€ð ðfair€cash€value.ðð€Ð `° ÐThe€statutory€definition€of€the€latter€term€mirrors€the€generally€recognized€definition€of€ð ðfairÐ 8 ˆ Ðmarket€value.ðð€€But,€as€discussed€elsewhere€in€this€Opinion,€fair€value€is€òònotóó€the€same€as€fairÐ  ` Ðmarket€value.€Since€the€Ohio€courtððs€premise€is€incorrect€under€Maryland€law,€the€òòConti€óócase€hasÐ è 8  Ðlittle€persuasive€value.׃P×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòà  àóóÔ#†X½@XX1X½@0Ç#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ À  Ðà  àò òà ` àòò1.€€Applicability€of€Discounts€óóó óÐ ˜è  Ðà  àÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Ê#ÔDefendants€strenuously€argue€that€the€withdrawing€partnersðð€interests€should€reflectÐ h¸ Ðdiscounts€for€their€minority€status€and€lack€of€marketability.Ô‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€€A€minority€discount€adjusts€for€theÐ @ Ðsellerððs€lack€of€control€in€the€management€of€entity.€€òòArnaud€v.€Stockgrowers€State€Bank€ofÐ h ÐAshland,€óó992€P.2d€216,€218€(Kan.€1999).€That€discount€assumes€that€an€investor€would€pay€lessÐ ð@ Ðfor€such€an€interest€than€for€an€interest€that€would€permit€a€voice€in€management€decisions.€Ð È Ðà  àA€marketability€discount€adjusts€for€the€lack€of€liquidity€based€on€the€notion€that€there€areÐ  ð Ðlimited€potential€buyers€for€shares€in€a€small€organization.€€òòEx€parte€Baron€Servs.,€Inc.,€óó874€So.Ð xÈ Ð2d€545,€549€(Ala.€2003).€To€some€extent,€these€discount€factors€overlap€since€lack€ofÐ P   Ðmanagement€control,€which€is€the€primary€factor€of€the€minority€discount,€also€affects€Ð ("x  Ðmarketability.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@fË#ÔÐ $P" Ðà  àIn€support€of€their€position,€Defendants,€presented€testimony€by€Joel€Charkatz,€C.P.A.,Ð Ø%(!$ Ðwho€applied€a€minority€discount€of€31.27%€and€a€lack€of€marketability€discount€of€25%€toÐ ° Ðvarious€alternative€fair€market€values€in€order€to€arrive€at€the€value€of€the€withdrawing€partnersððÐ ˆØ Ðinterests.€€Mr.€Charkatz€had€not€been€asked€to€conduct€an€independent€valuation,€but€only€toÐ `° Ðperform€the€discount€calculation.€€It€is€clear€that€Mr.€Charkatz€made€no€distinction€between€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðconcept€of€fair€value€required€by€ðð10„604€and€the€more€commonly€understood€concept€of€fairÐ  ` Ðmarket€value.€€In€a€fair€market€value€analysis,€discounts€for€lack€of€marketability€and€for€minorityÐ è 8  Ðstatus€may€sometimes€be€appropriate.€€Ð À  Ðà  àPlaintiffs,€on€the€other€hand€urge€the€more€persuasive€position€that€a€distribution€under€€€Ð ˜è  ÐÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Ó#Ô€10„604€€is€not€a€open€market€transaction€in€which€such€discounts€have€any€relevance.€€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔSectionÐ pÀ Ð10„604€is€silent€with€respect€to€whether€such€discounts€should€be€applied€when€determining€fairÐ H˜ Ðvalue.€€However,€it€bears€repeating€that,€as€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated€in€this€case,€under€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@¹Ó#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@èÔ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô10„Ð  p Ð604,€a€withdrawing€partner€is€entitled€to€ð ðcash€outðð€his€or€her€equity€òòbefore€the€partnershipóóÐ øH Ðterminates.€òòDella€Ratta,€óó382€Md.€at€576Ô#†X½@XX1X½@.Õ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô.€This€statement€affirms€that€the€transaction€should€beÐ Ð  Ðseen€as€an€internal€redemption€of€the€partnership€interest€and€should€not€be€viewed€from€theÐ ¨ø Ðperspective€of€the€marketplace.Ð €Ð Ðà  àÔ#†X½@XX1X½@3Ö#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔIn€dissenting€shareholder€cases,€most€of€the€courts€addressing€the€issue€have€determinedÐ X ¨ Ðthat€neither€minority€nor€€marketability€discounts€are€applicable.òòóó€€òòóóð ðThe€application€of€a€discountÐ 0"€  Ðto€a€minority€shareholder€is€contrary€to€the€requirement€that€the€company€be€viewed€as€a€ððgoingÐ $X" Ðconcern.ðððð€òòCavalier€Oil€Corp.€v.€Harnett,€óó564€A.2d€1137,€1144€(Del.€1989).€òòóó€€Fair€value€is€theÐ à%0!$ Ðvalue€of€what€has€been€taken€from€the€shareholder,€òòi.e.,€óóhis€proportionate€interest€in€the€entity€asÐ ¸'#& Ða€going€concern.€€òòId.;€Baron,€óó874€So.€2d€at€550.€€If€a€minority€shareholder€is€not€given€the€fullÐ )à$( Ðproportionate€values€of€her€shares,€it€imposes€a€penalty€for€lack€of€control,€and€unfairly€enrichesÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€majority€shareholders€who€may€reap€a€windfall€from€the€appraisal€process€by€cashing€out€aÐ ° Ðdissenting€shareholder.€òòCavalier€Oil€Corp.,€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@r×#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôóó564€A.2d€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@·Û#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôat€1145;€òòHansen€v.€75€Ranch€Co.,€óó957€P.2dÐ ˆØ Ð32,€41€(Mont.€1998).€Applying€the€discount€does€not€give€a€minority€shareholder€the€fullÐ `° Ðproportionate€value€of€his€shares€and€enriches€the€majority€shareholders,€and€also€penalizes€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðminority€for€taking€advantage€of€the€statute.€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Ü#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔòòLawson€Mardon€Wheaton,€Inc.,€óó734€A.2d€at€748„49;Ð  ` ÐòòBaron,€óó874€So.€2d€at€550€(ð ðapplying€a€lack€of€marketability€discount€would€allow€the€majorityÐ è 8  Ðwho€approved€the€transaction€to€later€buy€out€with€a€net€gain€what€the€minority€dissenters€haveÐ À  Ðlost,€granting€the€majority€an€unfair€windfallðð).€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@›Ý#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ ˜è  Ѐ€òò€óóà  àFurthermore,€it€is€generally€held€that€minority€discounts€should€not€be€applied€when€theÐ pÀ Ðinterests€are€sold€to€another€shareholder€or€the€corporation.€òòFriedman,€óó661€N.E.2d€at€977;Ð H˜ ÐòòHansen,€óó957€P.2dat€41;€òòArnaud€v.€Stockgrowers€State€Bank€of€Ashland,€óó992€P.2d€216,€220€(Kan.Ð  p Ð1999)€(holding€that€minority€and€marketability€discounts€are€not€applicable€when€the€purchaserÐ øH Ðof€the€stock€is€either€the€majority€shareholder€or€the€corporation€itself).€€The€difference€between€aÐ Ð  Ðsale€to€the€entity€or€its€shareholders€should€be€distinguished€from€a€sale€in€the€open€market.Ð ¨ø ÐòòHansen,€óó957€P.2d€at€41.€A€sale€to€a€majority€shareholder€simply€increases€the€interests€of€thoseÐ €Ð Ðalready€in€control.€€òòId.€óó€Applying€discounts€destroys€the€legislative€intent€to€protect€the€minorityÐ X ¨ Ðshareholderððs€right€to€dissent.€òòId.€óóat€41„42.€€€€òòóóÐ 0"€  Ðà  àSimilarly,€under€MRUPA,€minority€discounts€are€not€applicable€in€determining€theÐ $X" Ðbuyout€price,€as€the€applicability€is€negated€by€valuing€the€business€as€a€going€concern.€€òòSeeÐ à%0!$ ÐóóRUPA,€ðð€701,€cmt.€3.€Lack€of€marketability€discounts€or€discounts€for€the€loss€of€a€key€partnerÐ ¸'#& Ðmay€be,€but€are€not€always,€applicable€under€RUPA€ðð€701.€€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Lß#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔòòSee€also,€óóBrian€Tully,€òòDeterminingÐ )à$( Ðthe€Fair€Value€of€a€Withdrawing€Partnerððs€Partnership€Interest:€Exploring€the€UnchartedÐ h+¸&* ÐAlphabet€Soup€of€Texas€Partnership€Law,€óó54€Baylor€L.€Rev.€927Ô#†X½@XX1X½@då#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€(2002)Ô#†X½@XX1X½@•æ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô.€€None€of€the€cases€citedÐ ° Ðby€Defendants,€including€òòWarren€óóand€òòCreelóó,€discussed€previously,òò€óósupports€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@Þæ#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔDefendantÔ#†X½@XX1X½@«ç#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôsðð€ultimateÐ ˆØ Ðproposition€that€failing€to€apply€discounts€to€the€withdrawing€partnersðð€interests€is€the€functionalÐ `° Ðequivalent€of€a€liquidation€value,€rather€than€the€value€of€an€ongoing€concern.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@öç#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àòòóóÔ#†X½@XX1X½@&é#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔThe€logic€of€the€authorities€that€reject€both€minority€and€marketability€discounts€in€theÐ  ` Ðdissenting€shareholder€contextÔ#†X½@XX1X½@é#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€is€equally€applicable€to€a€valuation€analysis€under€Ô#†X½@XX1X½@]ê#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔððÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Ôê#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ô€10„604.Ô#†X½@XX1X½@ë#Ô€€òòóóThisÐ è 8  Ðis€not€a€marketplace€transaction€involving€a€third€party€purchaser.€Instead€it€is€a€statutoryÐ À  Ðredemption€intended€to€make€the€withdrawing€partners€whole€by€allowing€them€to€ð ðcash€outððÐ ˜è  Ðtheir€interests.€If€discounts€were€applied,€the€remaining€partners€would€end€up€acquiring€theÐ pÀ Ðinterests€of€the€withdrawing€partners€for€less€than€they€were€worth€if€those€interests€had€remainedÐ H˜ Ðin€the€hands€of€the€withdrawing€partners.òò€óóThe€Court€finds€that€òòunder€the€circumstances€of€thisÐ  p Ðcaseóó,€it€is€not€appropriate€to€apply€such€discounts€in€order€to€determine€the€value€of€the€interestsÐ øH Ðof€the€withdrawing€partners€under€ðð10„604.€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†X½@XX1X½@{î#ÔÔ‡1X½@XXX½@Ôà  àòòò òÔ#†X½@XX1X½@Òî#ÔòòóóóóD.€€òòConclusion€as€to€partnership€interestsóóó óÐ ¨ø Ðà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€Court€concludes€the€fair€value€of€the€withdrawingÐ €Ð Ðpartnersðð€interests€should€be€calculated€by€prorating€the€enterprise€value€established€above,€that€isÐ X ¨ Ð$14,643,606.€€The€fair€value€of€the€partnership€interests€of€the€Plaintiffs€in€East€Park€LimitedÐ 0"€  ÐPartnership€as€of€September€29,2002€is€as€follows:Ð $X" Ðà  àBarbara€Larkinà0  àà0h(#(#à12.2183%à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#à$1,789,200Ðà%0!$p(#p(# Ðà  àValeere€Sass,€Trusteeà0  àà0h(#(#à3.7975%à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#à$556,091и'#&p(#p(# Ðà  àCharles€L.€Helferstay€Trustà0 h à3.1875%à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#à$466,765Ð)à$(p(#p(# Ðà  àRosemary€Krupnickà0  àà0h(#(#à1.5937%à0h(#h(#àà0p(#(#à$233,375à  àà x àÐh+¸&*p(#p(# Ðà  àòòò òóóE.€€òòPre€judgment€interestóóó óà h àà À àÐ ° Ðòòà  àóóPlaintiffs€have€requested€an€award€of€prejudgment€interest€at€the€legal€rate€of€6%€perÐ ˆØ Ðannum€on€the€fair€value€of€their€partnership€interests€from€September€29,€2002.€€Whether€toÐ `° Ðaward€prejudgment€interest€when€it€is€not€otherwise€provided€by€contract€or€statute€is€within€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðsound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòBuxton€v.€Buxton,€óó363€Md.€634,€656€(2001);€òòCrystal€v.€WestÐ  ` Ð&€Callahan,€Inc.,€óó328€Md.€318,€343€(1992).€€Ð è 8  Ðà  àThe€right€to€prejudgment€interest€is€clear€when€an€obligation€to€pay€is€certain,€definite€andÐ À  Ðliquidated€by€a€specific€date€prior€to€judgment€so€that€the€withholding€of€payment€deprives€theÐ ˜è  Ðcreditor€of€the€use€of€the€money.€However,€in€cases€where€damages€are€not€easily€ascertainableÐ pÀ Ðuntil€the€verdict,€prejudgment€interest€is€generally€not€appropriate.€€òòBuxton,€óó363€Md.€at€656.€InÐ H˜ Ðthis€case,€the€amount€of€damages€were€not€ascertainable€before€the€date€of€trial€for€two€reasons.€Ð  p ÐFirst,€the€fair€market€value€of€East€Parkððs€real€property€was€fairly€debatable€prior€to€trial€on€theÐ øH Ðrelief€phase€of€this€case.€€Second,€the€concept€of€fair€value€in€this€context€would€have€beenÐ Ð  Ðunclear€to€the€parties.€€Since€fair€value€is€a€legal€concept€that€is€not€susceptible€to€readyÐ ¨ø Ðdefinition,€the€parties€would€not€have€been€able€to€ascertain€the€amount€owed€to€the€PlaintiffsÐ €Ð Ðwith€any€degree€of€precision€before€trial.Ð X ¨ Ðà  àPlaintiff€points€to€other€analogous€statutes,€such€as€the€Dissenting€Shareholder€StatuteÐ 0"€  Ðand€MRUPA,€that€do€provide€for€assessment€of€€interest€to€departing€shareholders€or€partners.€€€Ð $X" Ððð€3„211(c);€ðð€9A„701(b).€€While€the€Court€finds€the€construction€given€to€these€statutesÐ à%0!$ Ðpersuasive€in€other€areas€discussed€in€this€Opinion,€they€do€not€support€Ô‡1X½@XXX½@ÔPlaintiffÔ#†X½@XX1X½@ ü#Ôsðð€claim€forÐ ¸'#& Ðinterest.€It€is€significant€that€ðð€10„604€is€silent€regarding€the€issue€of€interest.€€The€Court€mustÐ )à$( Ðpresume€that,€if€the€Legislature€had€intended€to€allow€for€interest,€it€would€have€provided€for€it€inÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€section€as€it€did€in€the€other€statutes.€€The€Court€cannot€add€language€into€ðð€10„604€that€theÐ ° ÐLegislature€clearly€left€out.€€The€Court€therefore€concludes€that,€by€failing€to€include€languageÐ ˆØ Ðregarding€interest€in€ðð€10„604,€the€Legislature€did€not€intend€for€interest€to€be€awardable€underÐ `° Ðthat€section.€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àFor€these€reasons,€the€Court€must€reject€Plaintiffsðð€request€for€prejudgment€interest.€Ð  ` ÐÑ  ÑÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓ<(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤°°ŒX<ÓÓÓÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÐ Ô$  ÐÐ À  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ#†X½@XX6X½@#ÔÓ ÓÓ*ììDœôL¤ÜÜ‹X*ÓÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔPAUL€A.€HACKNER,€JUDGEÐ ˜è  ÐÓ XÓÔ#†X½@XX6X½@i#ÔÓ ÓÓ<(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ìì…X<ÓÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÌÔ#†X½@XX6X½@.#ÔòòÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÌóóÔ#†X½@XX6X½@t#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôcc:€€à  àRobert€Warfield,€Esquire,€Attorney€for€PlaintiffsÐ \¬ ÐÑ  Ñà  àJames€E.€Carbine,€Esquire,€Attorney€for€DefendantsÔ#†X½@XX6X½@º#ÔÔ‡6X½@XXX½@ÔÐ H˜ ÐÑ  ÑÔ#†X½@XX6X½@#ÔÓÓÔ‡6X½@XXX½@Ôò òó óÌÑ  ÑÔ#†X½@XX6X½@#ÔÓ  ÓÌà  àÌòòÌÔ‡1X½@XXX½@ÔÌÔ#†X½@XX1X½@…#ÔÌÌÌÌÌóóÌ