100 Harborview Drive Condominium Council of Unit Owners v. Clark
119 A.3d 87
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Clark sought inspection of Harborview’s financial records and written legal advice under RP §11-116; Harborview and Zalco refused detailed billing reports and counsel opinions.
- The circuit court granted access to emails about Harborview’s finances and to detailed billing reports, but denied written counsels’ advice; injunctions issued accordingly.
- The court relied on RP §11-116 to harmonize with common-law privileges, holding the act does not abrogate attorney-client privilege or work product.
- The court admitted an arbitration award to interpret RP §11-116 as allowing inspection of records including counsel opinions when not privileged.
- Harborview and Zalco appealed, contending the statute abrogates privileges and that detailed bills are not “books and records.”
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part, vacated the injunction for future emails, and upheld the privileges protective framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RP §11-116(c)(3) abrogates attorney-client privilege | Clark argues privilege overridden by statute | Harborview/Zalco argue no abrogation | RP11-116 does not abrogate privilege |
| Whether 'books and records' includes written counsel advice and detailed billing reports | Records include detailed billing and counsel advice | Records limited by privilege/work product | Records include, subject to privilege/work product constraints |
| Whether detailed billing reports are protected by privilege/work product | Clark seeks all detailed billing for scrutiny | Privilege/work product apply; blanket claims insufficient | Privilege/work product not automatically applied; need showings; disclosure allowed where not privileged |
| Whether injunction to produce future emails should stand | Imposes ongoing obligation to disclose future emails | Contract ended; likely moot; not irreparable harm | Vacate injunction regarding future emails; remaining orders affirmed |
| Whether trial court properly excluded Harborview’s expert Cosgray | Exclusion was error | Discretionary; scheduling noncompliance justified exclusion | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridgely Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Smyrnioudis, 343 Md. 357 (Md. 1996) (statutory control; hierarchy of governing documents; RP §11-124(e))
- Robinson v. State, 353 Md. 683 (Md. 1999) (statutory scheme as entire subject abrogates common law)
- Lutz v. State, 167 Md. 12 (Md. 1934) (abrogation when statute covers entire subject matter)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc., 351 Md. 396 (Md. 1998) (attorney-client privilege and work product principles; discovery)