Larocca v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C.
94 A.3d 197
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Six appellants (three married couples) alleged a fraudulent mortgage scheme tied to the Northrop Team and related lenders/realty/title entities; they executed HELOCs and non-contingent purchase arrangements in 2006–2007 to finance new homes while old ones remained unsold.
- Bridge Loan Program allegedly did not exist and was marketed through misrepresentations to secure loans and commissions.
- At HELOC closings, appellants reviewed Form 1003; a vague reference to “gross rental income” on one page was alleged to have triggered discovery, but plaintiffs argue the Bridge Loan deception concealed the true scheme.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations as to counts I–IX and XI, applying the signature doctrine and accrual at HELOC closings; second amended complaint was struck as prejudicial.
- Appellants moved to certify a class; the circuit court denied certification based on numerosity, method of calculation (transactions vs. persons), and other factors.
- This Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, addressing accrual, SMLL liability, and other defenses, with judgments as to several counts reversed and others affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on limitations for counts I–IX and XI | LaRocca argues genuine disputes on accrual and discovery; the Bridge Loan misrepresentation tolls limitations | Realtor appellees contend accrual occurred at HELOC closings and the signature doctrine binds plaintiffs | No; material factual disputes on accrual preclude summary judgment |
| Whether the Secondary Mortgage Loan Law claims are time-barred or subject to tolling | Banking appellees violated SMLL through false advertising of a non-existent Bridge Loan Program | SMLL claims either twelve-year specialty or not applicable; advertising scope disputed | SMLL claims considered under twelve-year specialty analysis; some aspects tollable and actionable |
| Whether Ms. Matthews, Windesheim, or PNC qualify as lenders under the SMLL | Windesheim and Matthews participated in HELOCs; they could be liable as lenders | Mathews not a lender; Windesheim a lender as PNC employee; corporate liability via agency | Windesheim liable as a lender; Matthews not; court found genuine issue of fact as to Windesheim’s liability; Matthews not liable as lender |
| Whether the SMLL advertising provision extends to brokers or indirect communications | Brochures and personalized pitches amount to advertising under the SMLL | Advertising must be direct public communication by the lender; indirect/individual communications may be limited | Summary judgment reversed as to PNС on advertising theory; question of fact remains regarding indirect advertising |
| Whether class certification was properly denied | Numerosity shown by potential class size; geographic/timeframe appropriate | Numerosity unreliable; transactions counted not persons; methodology flawed | Court did not abuse discretion; denials of class certification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Frederick Rd. Ltd. P'ship v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76 (Md. 2000) (accrual and discovery rule; twelve-year specialty analysis guidance)
- Dashiell v. Meeks, 396 Md. 149 (Md. 2006) (discovery rule; question of fact for fraud claim accrual)
- Frederick Rd. v. Brown & Sturm, 121 Md. App. 384 (Md. 1998) (earlier discussion of discovery rule and accrual)
- Supik v. Bodie, 152 Md. App. 698 (Md. 2003) (discovery rule; tolling and fraud implications in professional malpractice)
- Master Fin., Inc. v. Crowder, 409 Md. 51 (Md. 2009) (12-year specialty limitations analysis for SMLL claims)
- AGV Sports Group, Inc. v. Protus IP Solutions, Inc., 417 Md. 386 (Md. 2010) (TCPA; distinguishes statutory specialty claims from common-law面对)