Hunter v. Broadway Overlook, 181 A.3d 745

Tenant (Shontel Hunter) received a "Notice to Vacate" dated Feb. 28, 2017 stating she had 14 days to vacate; the notice did not specify grounds or other lease-mandated content.
Landlord (Broadway Overlook) filed a breach-of-lease Complaint in District Court on Mar. 2, 2017 (before the 14-day period expired), attaching the notice.
Complaint alleged tenant threatened staff and failed to maintain the unit; the Complaint recited a 14-day written notice.
Tenant moved to dismiss as premature and for defective notice under the lease; District Court denied the motion and ruled for Landlord.
Circuit Court (on appeal) affirmed, holding § 8-402.1 did not require waiting for the 14-day period to expire and that the Complaint cured the notice defects.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari; both parties agreed the 14-day requirement was not satisfied and requested reversal, but the Court decided the merits and reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hunter)	Defendant's Argument (Broadway Overlook)	Held
Whether landlord may file breach-of-lease complaint before statutory 14-day notice period expires	Landlord filed prematurely; statute requires notice period to expire and tenant to refuse to comply before suit	Statute requires giving notice but does not make exhaustion of the 14-day period a condition precedent to filing	Court held landlord must wait for the notice period to expire and tenant to refuse; filing before expiration is premature
Whether a deficient notice (not meeting lease content requirements) can be cured by the later Complaint	Notice failed to state specific grounds, reply rights, inspection rights, and consequences as required by lease §23; thus it was defective	Complaint set out grounds and procedural facts, which defendant argued cured the notice deficiency	Court held a defective notice cannot be cured by the subsequent Complaint; notice must comply with lease terms when issued
Mootness of appeal where parties agree relief	Tenant sought reversal; parties agreed judgment should be reversed	Landlord argued case moot because it agreed to reversal	Court declined to dismiss as moot because collateral consequences might follow and reached merits to correct legal error

Brown v. Hous. Opportunities Comm’n of Montgomery Cnty., 350 Md. 570, 714 A.2d 197 (interpreting § 8-402.1 and rejecting a reading that removes judicial discretion)
Curtis v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 427 Md. 526, 50 A.3d 558 (motion for possession filed prematurely when filed before statutory notice period expired)
Cane v. EZ Rentals, 450 Md. 597, 149 A.3d 649 (mootness exception when collateral consequences may result)