Kunda v. Morse, 145 A.3d 51

Karen Kunda agreed (Sept. 29, 2007) to sell Hacks Point General Store, associated real property, and 99 of 100 corporate shares to William and Sharon Morse for $846,950; the Morses would obtain $622,000 bank financing and Kunda would carry $224,950 over 240 months at 8%.
An addendum (Oct. 21, 2007) extended closing to May 1, 2011, required a $100,000 initial deposit (paid), a second $174,950 deposit (Morses paid ~100,000 toward this in June 2008 and amortized the remaining ~74,950), and monthly $4,500 lease payments.
Contract contained a 30‑day delinquency period: buyer would be in default only 30 days after a missed payment; original agreement’s possession/relief terms remained in effect after the addendum.
In June 2010, before the 30‑day delinquency expired and well before the May 1, 2011 closing/balloon payment, Kunda retook control of the business and excluded the Morses, who then sued for breach of contract and related relief; Kunda counterclaimed.
After a bench trial, the Circuit Court for Cecil County found Kunda was the initial, material breacher and awarded the Morses $200,000 (greater than the $102,600 pleaded); the court denied other claims (e.g., deceit, contract illegality). Kunda appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kunda)	Defendant's Argument (Morses)	Held
1. Who committed the initial breach / was it material?	Morses repeatedly failed to pay and notified Kunda in June 2010 they could not meet terms, so they first breached / were not ready, willing, able to perform	Kunda unlawfully retook property before the delinquency period expired and thus breached first	Trial court’s factual finding upheld: Kunda breached first by evicting Morses before default and before balloon due
2. Were damages (award of $200,000) properly calculated and permissible despite ad damnum discrepancy?	Trial court erred awarding $200,000 when Morses’ pleading sought $102,600 in Count I	Evidence supported $200,000 (two $100,000 deposits); 2012 amendment to Rule 2-305 permits general >$75,000 pleading and applies to pending cases insofar as practicable	Award affirmed: supported by evidence and compatible with current Rule 2-305 pleading standards; remittitur or amendment not required

State Sec. Check Cashing, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs. (DE), 409 Md. 81 (discusses deference to trial court factual findings)
Clickner v. Magoth River Ass’n, Inc., 424 Md. 253 (addresses standards for appellate review of bench trials)
Banks v. Pusey, 393 Md. 688 (legal conclusions reviewed de novo while factual findings are deferential)
Weaver v. ZeniMax Media, Inc., 175 Md. App. 16 (definition of breach of contract and promise concepts)
Nylen v. Geeraert, 246 Md. 4 (explains default as nonpayment)
Hoang v. Hewitt Ave. Assocs., LLC, 177 Md. App. 562 (reviews pre-2012 Rule 2-305 ad damnum requirements)
Bijou v. Young-Battle, 185 Md. App. 268 (permitting amendment of ad damnum post-verdict under former rule or remittitur)
Mraz v. County Comm’rs of Cecil County, 291 Md. 81 (procedural rules apply to pending cases absent vested-rights issues)
Roth v. Dimensions Health Corp., 332 Md. 627 (further discussion on application of changed procedural rules)