Simard v. Burson
14 A.3d 6
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Foreclosure of Betty L. James’s deed of trust on 403 Cherry Hill Rd.; original purchaser Simard bid $192,000 but failed to settle; First Resale to Stan Zimmerman for $163,000; Zimmerman failed to settle; Second Resale to JBJ Real Estate LLC for $130,000; auditor allocated shortages totaling $95,000 with Simard responsible for $62,000 (Original to Second Resale) and Zimmerman for $33,000 (First to Second Resale).
- Estate of Betty James involved Michelle James as Personal Representative; later replaced by Special AdministratorAlexander McMullen, Esq.
- Auditor’s determination: Simard liable for the First Shortage; Zimmerman liable for the Second Shortage; Simard filed exceptions challenging the audit; court ratified the audit over exceptions.
- Rule 14-305(g) allows a resale at the risk and expense of the defaulting purchaser, but the rule’s language has been interpreted as allowing a singular resale, not a series of resales; issue on appeal was whether the first defaulting purchaser could be held liable for deficiencies arising from subsequent resales.
- Circuit court ultimately denied Simard’s exceptions and ratified the audit; this Court reverses, holding Simard liable only for the First Shortage and not for the Second Shortage, with liability for the Second Shortage falling on Zimmerman; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 14-305(g) contemplates multiple resales against a defaulting purchaser. | Simard argues rule envisions only one resale at purchaser’s risk. | Special Administrator argues rule permits ongoing liability for all losses. | Rule 14-305(g) contemplates a single resale; defaulting purchaser bears only the shortage from that resale. |
| Whether Simard can be liable for the Second Shortage as consequential damages. | Simard contends damages from Zimmerman's default are too remote and not caused by his breach. | McMullen asserts foreseeability permits recovery for all subsequent losses. | No; Simard did not cause Zimmerman’s default; consequential damages do not extend to Second Shortage. |
| What damages framework applies—arm’s-length contract measure for First Shortage. | Simard should be liable for the difference between $192,000 and $163,000. | N/A. | Damages measured as the difference between Original Sale and First Resale ($29,000) under contract principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Simard, 152 Md.App. 229 (2003) (foreclosure contract terms; sale becomes complete upon court ratification)
- Baltrotsky v. Kugler, 395 Md. 468 (2006) (foreclosure delays; damages arising from others’ actions may be abated or not recoverable)
- McCann v. McGinnis, 257 Md. 499 (1970) (remedies for breach of contract with the court in foreclosure sales)
- Hoang v. Hewitt Ave. Assocs., 177 Md.App. 562 (2007) (guide on interpreting Maryland Rules and extrinsic material for purpose)
- Zetty v. Piatt, 365 Md. 141 (2001) (statutory rule interpretation; contextual approach)