Norino Properties v. Balsamo, 265 A.3d 1109

BNP is a 50/50-member real-estate LLC (Balsamo and Zorzit); Norino Properties is Zorzit-controlled and had a 1998 Management Agreement to provide services to BNP.
In 2012 Balsamo sued (Balsamo I); after a 2014–15 bench trial the court denied dissolution but ordered some relief; that judgment became final.
In 2019 Balsamo filed a new (amended) complaint individually and derivatively alleging post-2017 self‑dealing, obfuscated records, improper loans, and seeking dissolution and other relief against Norino and Zorzit.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on res judicata grounds; the circuit court granted the motion with prejudice and denied leave to amend; Balsamo moved to alter and sought in banc review.
The in banc panel held the dismissal was a “trial” under Article IV, § 22 (so in banc jurisdiction existed) and reversed the denial of leave to amend, giving Balsamo 30 days to file a second amended complaint; this judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article IV, § 22 permits in banc review of the circuit court's dismissal (i.e., whether the dismissal was a “trial”)	Balsamo: § 22 is not limited to evidentiary merits trials; a final judgment dismissing claims qualifies as a "trial."	Zorzit/Norino: “trial” means an evidentiary/merits trial; a dismissal for failure to state a claim is not a "trial," so no in banc jurisdiction.	Court: "trial" includes any step that decides issues of law or fact and results in a final judgment; the dismissal with prejudice was a "trial" for § 22 purposes, so in banc review was proper.
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint	Balsamo: proffered newly obtained records and post‑2017 factual allegations; amendments should be freely allowed absent prejudice or futility.	Zorzit/Norino: plaintiff already had multiple chances; further amendment would cause delay and prejudice; defects were incurable.	Court: Abuse of discretion — given the proffer of new evidence, lack of discovery/trial date, and no clear futility or prejudice, leave to amend should have been granted; in banc panel properly reversed and allowed amendment.

Berg v. Berg, 228 Md. App. 266 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) (adopted broad definition of “trial” for Art. IV, § 22 as that step deciding issues or questions of fact)
Miller v. Tobin, 18 F. 609 (C.C.D. Or. 1883) (demurrer disposition is a "trial" when it results in a final disposition)
Alley v. Nott, 111 U.S. 472 (1884) (disposition of a demurrer that resolves the merits is a trial of the action)
State v. Phillips, 457 Md. 481 (Md. 2018) (discussed scope of in banc review and interplay with appellate rights)
RRC Ne., LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc., 413 Md. 638 (Md. 2010) (policy favoring liberal allowance of amendments when justice permits)
Schmerling v. Injured Workers' Ins. Fund, 368 Md. 434 (Md. 2002) (leave to amend is within trial court discretion; reversal only for clear abuse)