Wheeling v. Selene Finance, LP
228 A.3d 791
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2020Background
- Selene Finance posted statutory "abandonment notices" on two occupied residential properties (the Wheeling tenants’ rental and Rodriguez’s owner-occupied home); Gargeu (Century 21) posted the notice on Rodriguez’s property as Selene’s agent.
- Wheelings called Selene after the notice; Selene’s rep told them foreclosure had been initiated and to vacate, but no foreclosure had been filed against the Wheeling property.
- Rodriguez faced a scheduled sheriff eviction following foreclosure sale; an abandonment notice was also posted though she remained in possession.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants posted notices without conducting the required "reasonable inquiry" under Md. Real Prop. § 7-113 and asserted MCPA claims, emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.
- Plaintiffs were not locked out, utilities were not cut, and none alleged they vacated as a result of the notices. The circuit court dismissed the amended complaint; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a claim under Real Prop. § 7-113 | Selene/Gargeu posted abandonment notices without the statutorily required "reasonable inquiry," so § 7-113(b)/(c) was violated and § 7-113(d) provides a remedy. | § 7-113(d) remedies apply only where the resident was actually deprived of possession (locked out, utilities cut, or equivalent); here plaintiffs were not dispossessed. | Court: Allegations, if proved, show a § 7-113 violation (failure to reasonably inquire), but § 7-113(d) remedies are limited to cases of actual deprivation of possession; plaintiffs did not allege such deprivation. |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a private MCPA claim (Com. Law § 13-408) | Selene’s threats/abandonment notices are deceptive/abusive collection practices under the MCPA and caused damages (emotional distress and legal fees). | MCPA private actions require objectively identifiable "actual injury or loss"; defendant also invoked statutory exemptions and argued notice-posting isn't a covered collection practice. | Court: Assuming some MCPA violation could be shown, plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite objectively identifiable injury/loss for a private MCPA action; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether alleged emotional distress and attorney fees satisfy pleading standards for damages under MCPA | Alleged fear, anxiety, anger and incurred legal fees suffice at pleading stage to show injury. | Emotional distress claims require observable physical manifestations; attorney fees for consulting do not necessarily show compensable injury under private MCPA standards. | Court: Emotional-distress allegations were conclusory and lacked observable physical manifestations; attorney fees for advice did not by themselves meet the MCPA private-injury pleading requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nickens v. Mount Vernon Realty Group, 429 Md. 53 (2012) (recognized common-law self-help that prompted legislative response).
- Lloyd v. General Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108 (2007) (private MCPA actions require pleading and proof of objectively identifiable actual injury or loss).
- CitaraManis v. Hallowell, 328 Md. 142 (1992) (distinguishes public enforcement from private MCPA remedies).
- Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1 (2005) (emotional-distress damages under Maryland law require objective, ascertainable manifestations).
- Vance v. Vance, 286 Md. 490 (1979) (modern rule: emotional injury recovery requires consequential physical injury/ objective determination).
- Blue v. Prince George’s County, 434 Md. 681 (2013) (statutory construction principles—text, context, legislative intent).
- SVF Riva Annapolis LLC v. Gilroy, 459 Md. 632 (2018) (canons of statutory interpretation, including conjunction vs. disjunction meaning).