MRA Property Management, Inc. v. Armstrong, 43 A.3d 397

Longstanding dispute between Tomes Landing Condominium Ass'n and MRA Property Management and 25 unit purchasers over resale package disclosures.
Unit purchasers obtained partial summary judgment against the Association and MRA for violating the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA) based on misrepresentations in resale budgets.
The Court granted certiorari to address whether the CPA applies to disclosures in resale certificates and whether budgets could be deceptive, among other questions.
The Maryland Condominium Act requires resale certificates with specific budget disclosures; the trial court held budgets were deceptive as a matter of law.
This Court reversed summary judgment on the CPA claim, held the CPA could apply to resale disclosures, and remanded to consider additional disclosures under § 11-135(a)(4)(x).
The opinion clarifies the roles of the council of unit owners, the association, and MRA in the sale of condominiums and whether their statutory duties implicate CPA liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the CPA apply to resale certificate disclosures in condo sales?	Unit purchasers contend CPA can reach disclosures even if not the seller.	Association/MRA argue they are not merchants and rely on Swinson limiting CPA duty.	CPA may apply to resale disclosures.
Are operating budgets in resale certificates deceptive as a matter of law?	Budgets allegedly understate repair costs, misleading buyers.	Budgets complied with statutory budgeting rules; no per se deception.	Not to be decided as law on summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact exist.
Does Hoffman v. Stamper support extending CPA liability to non-sellers like a condo association/manager?	Hoffman shows non-sellers can be liable when integral to sale.	Distinguishable because no conspiracy or appraisals; standard disclosures used.	Hoffman supports potential liability where disclosures are integral to sale.
Can compliance with § 11-135 disclosures immunize from CPA claims?	Statutory duties could still implicate CPA when disclosures deceive.	Disclosures under 11-135 should limit CPA liability.	Not dispositive; CPA can apply notwithstanding 11-135 compliance.
Was it error to grant summary judgment where facts about knowledge of damage and timing of notices were contested?	Knowledge of repairs and timing of assessments create disputes.	Budget deception could be established on undisputed facts.	Reversed; genuine issues of material fact remain.

Swinson v. Lords Landing Village Condominium, 360 Md. 462 (2000) (Swinson held 11-135(a)(4)(x) does not require disclosure of uncharged violations; condo council not seller for CPA in that context.)
Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1 (2005) (Non-seller liability may extend to deceptive practices if integral to sale.)
Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 519 (1995) (Appellants not shielded when deceptive practice involves suppliers to builders; scope for CPA liability beyond direct seller.)
Hogan v. Maryland State Dental Ass'n, 155 Md.App. 556 (2004) (Professional association not liable where not engaged in sale; distinguishes CPA reach.)
Ridgely Condominium Ass'n v. Smyrnioudis, 343 Md. 357 (1996) (Defines condo ownership and council duties, framework for disclosure obligations.)