Lipitz v. Hurwitz, 77 A.3d 1088

Hurwitz, a buyer, contracted Aug. 6, 2009 to purchase a Caves Valley home and already owned two other lots in the same HOA.
Disclosures under Maryland Homeowners Association Act (Act) were offered but later struck from the contract; buyer allegedly declined disclosures claiming he already had them.
Closing was set for Nov. 2, 2009; on Nov. 1, 2009, buyer’s agent informed sellers he would not close.
Buyer canceled after failing to receive Act disclosures; sellers sued for breach of contract seeking specific performance; buyer moved to dismiss.
Circuit Court held the Act applied and that disclosures were required; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue framed: (1) whether Hurwitz is a “member of the public” under the Act and (2) whether equitable estoppel can bar the right to cancel under the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Hurwitz a “member of the public” under §11B-106(a)?	Hurwitz is protected by the Act as a buyer who intends to occupy.	The term excludes insiders who already possess disclosures.	Yes; Hurwitz is a member of the public.
Can the seller’s equitable estoppel defense bar the buyer’s cancellation right under the Act?	Equitable estoppel cannot override the Act’s non-waivable rights.	Equitable estoppel may defeat the right where reliance and detriment exist.	Estoppel may be raised; triable issue for fact-finding.
Should the case be remanded for further proceedings on estoppel?	Facts about offer of disclosures and buyer’s acceptance/declination require fact-finding.	The circuit court properly disposed of the case on a motion to dismiss.	Yes; remand to circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Lipitz v. Hurwitz, 207 Md.App. 206, 52 A.3d 94 (Md. App. 2012) (discussed public-vs-insider interpretation of the Act; standard for inheriting protections under the statute)
Walker v. State, 432 Md. 587, 69 A.3d 1066 (Md. 2013) (statutory interpretation—plain meaning and context)
Green v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 430 Md. 119, 59 A.3d 1001 (Md. 2013) (canon of interpreting statutes to avoid absurd results)
Gardner v. State, 420 Md. 1, 20 A.3d 801 (Md. 2011) (statutory interpretation and avoiding absurd results)
Kendall v. Howard County, 431 Md. 590, 66 A.3d 684 (Md. 2013) (guidance on reviewing trial court dismissals; standard of review)
Cunninghame v. Cunninghame, 364 Md. 266, 772 A.2d 1188 (Md. 2001) (estoppel and related defenses in statutory contexts)
Crane Co. v. Onley, 194 Md. 43, 69 A.2d 903 (Md. 1949) (equitable estoppel and contract-related defenses)