Price v. Murdy
198 A.3d 798
Md.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Price and Chovan) sued lender Samuel Spicer under the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (MCLL), alleging Spicer made small consumer loans while unlicensed and committed related statutory violations (repo notices, compound interest, inflated attorneys’ fees).
- All disputed loan transactions occurred more than three years before suit (filed March 17, 2017), raising a statute-of-limitations defense.
- The issue was certified by the U.S. District Court to the Maryland Court of Appeals under the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act.
- Central statutory provisions: CL § 12-302 (licensing requirement) and CL § 12-314 (remedy making unenforceable loans by unlicensed lenders).
- Governing limitations statutes: CJP § 5-101 (general 3-year period) and CJP § 5-102(a)(6) (12-year period for “other specialties”).
- The Court applied the three-prong Crowder test to decide whether CL § 12-302 is an “other specialty.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CL § 12-302’s licensing requirement is an “other specialty” under CJP § 5-102(a)(6) | The MCLL licensing requirement is a statutory specialty created solely by statute; remedies (unenforceability/forfeiture) yield ascertainable damages — so a 12‑year limitations period applies | The licensing rule enforces traditional common-law usury/remedies; damages (“other compensation”) are not readily ascertainable; thus the 3‑year general limitations period applies | Yes. CL § 12-302 is an “other specialty”; claims under it are governed by the 12‑year limitations period in CJP § 5-102(a)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Master Fin., Inc. v. Crowder, 409 Md. 51 (2009) (articulates three-prong test for statutory "other specialty")
- AGV Sports Grp., Inc. v. Protus IP Sols., Inc., 417 Md. 386 (2010) (applies Crowder and holds statutory damages must be liquidated or readily ascertainable)
- NVR Mortg. Fin., Inc. v. Carlsen, 439 Md. 427 (2014) (applies Crowder; finds Finder’s Fee Act is not an "other specialty" because duty derives from common law disclosure)
- Greene Tree Home Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Greene Tree Assocs., 358 Md. 453 (2000) (discusses scope of statutory duties versus common-law duties)