Burson v. Simard
35 A.3d 1154
Md.2012Background
- Foreclosure purchaser Simard bid $192,000, defaulted at settlement; court ordered resale at his risk and expense.
- First resale (Oct. 16, 2007) sold to Zimmerman for $163,000; Zimmerman defaulted.
- Second resale (June 12, 2008) sold to JBJ Real Estate for $130,000.
- Audit under Md. Rule 14-305(f) allocated Simard liability for the price difference and resale expenses; Zimmerman liable for second resale expenses and the first-second resale differential.
- Court of Special Appeals held Rule 14-305(g) contemplates a single resale, so Simard’s risk and expense attach only to the first resale.
- Maryland Court of Appeals grants certiorari to resolve whether a defaulting purchaser may be liable for more than one resale and affirms the one-resale rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 14-305(g) permits liability for more than one resale | Simard: rule allows liability for multiresales | Trustees: rule permits liability for subsequent resales | Liability limited to one resale |
| Is the language 'a resale' unambiguous or capable of multiple resales | Language ambiguous in Simard | Text supports multiple resales | Language interpreted to limit to a single resale absent special circumstances |
| Does Rule 1-201(d) require treating singular terms as plural to reach multiple resales | Singular can include plural | Do not equate to multi-resale liability | Singular includes plural only if compelled; rule interpreted to favor single resale here |
| Are second-resale damages imports permissible as consequential damages attributable to Simard | Second resale losses extend Simard’s liability | Second resale not a consequence Simard caused | Second resale damages not attachment; only one resale’s risk and expense |
Key Cases Cited
- Simard v. White, 383 Md. 257 (Md. 2004) (mortgagors/mortgagees priorities; rule interpretation)
- Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599 (Md. 2004) (rule interpretation; precedents on contract remedies)
- Zetty v. Piatt, 365 Md. 141 (Md. 2001) (interpretation of rules when language is ambiguous)
- Kasten Constr. Co. v. Jolles, 262 Md. 527 (Md. 1971) (damages for breach of contract; difference between contract price and market value)
- Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007) (general vs. special damages; contemplation of parties)