Mirjafari v. Cohn

A.2d MIRJAFARI, Seyed et al. Mehran COHN, S. et al. Edward Sept.Term, No. Maryland. Appeals of

Court of Feb. Karas, LLP, (Cooter, & Mangold, Tompert A.

Dale Cooter DC), brief, for Petitioners. Washington, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC, (Cohn, Goldberg N. Stephen (Law brief; Office of Towson, MD), Kevin T. Olszewski on Md), brief, P.A., Air, respon- for Olszewski, Bel T. Kevin dents. HARRELL, BELL, C.J.,

ARGUED BEFORE GREENE, MURPHY, BATTAGLIA, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.

HARRELL, Judge.

Petitioners, Seyed Mirjafari and Mehran Mirjafari Maziar (“the at issue Mirjafaris”), owners of the investment of the case, to a foreclosure sale exceptions this (“the Trust by Respondents/Trustees instituted property, ees”),1 third-party purchaser, Respondent/Intervenor, a (“JSG”). LLC Hills Campus JSG County for Harford and no favor in the Circuit Court found as of dismissed Special Appeals The Court they appealed. to file a on their failure Mirjafaris’ appeal based moot Solomon, Cohn, Goldberg, Stephen are Richard The Trustees Edward Rogers. Richard and supersedeas bond.2 See Maryland Rules 8-4223 and 8-4284 (2009). supersedeas here contend that no bond security because, or alternative required was this case as bona they a allege, JSG as of the date price. it the full paid purchase For reasons we shall explain appellant’s 2. A "[a]n bond is bond to execution on judgment during pendency appeal.” Dictionary Black’s Law (9th 2009). ed. 8-422, "Stay Rule judgment,” provides entitled of enforcement pertinent part: (a) (1) proceedings. Generally. Stay granting Civil order an an injunction governed by Except is Rules 2-632 and 8-425. as other- 2-632, provided appellant may stay wise or Code Rule an any judgment appeal enforcement of other civil from which an is by filing taken the clerk with of the lower court a 8-423, security prescribed by under Rule 402(e), alternative as Rule 1- provided or other as in Rule 8-424. The bond or security may any other be filed at time before satisfaction of the judgment, stayed only but be enforcement shall from the time the security is filed. 8-422(a)(l). Rule 8-423, bond,” "Supersedeas 4. Rule provides: entitled (a) (b) Rule, Subject Condition bond. superse- to section this (1) be upon deas bond shall conditioned the satisfaction in full of taken, judgment costs, appeal together from which the is with inter- est, damages delay, any and if for reason the is dismissed affirmed, judgment any or if the judgment is modified costs, interest, damages appeal. entered or awarded on (b) otherwise, parties agree Amount of bond. Unless the amount bond shall as follows: (1) Money judgment judgment not otherwise secured. When the secured, recovery money for the not otherwise the amount of the bond shall be the sum will cover the whole amount of the costs, judgment remaining plus except unsatisfied interest and court, factors, taking the after into may consideration all relevant upon reduce the making specific findings amount of the bond justifying the amount. (2) Disposition property. judgment of When the determines the (as actions, disposition property controversy in real replevin, mortgages,) and proper- actions to foreclose or when the sale, ty, proceeds custody or the of its the the of lower court or sheriff, the the amount of the bond shall the sum that will secure the for property, amount recovered the use and of detention interest, costs, damages delay. and for case, any Other cases. In other of the amount the bond shall by be fixed the lower court. Rule 8-423.

479 case, a bona of we hold JSG was on the facts this and at its successful bid the foreclo- of the date of purchaser, as sale, and, supersede- to file a thus, Mirjafaris’ failure sure of overrul- subsequent appeal as rendered moot their of of report ratification sale. exceptions and ing of

Facts at located property investment Mirjafaris The owned Hill, The con- Maryland. property in Forest Melrose Lane R-3, improved by two acres, zoned and is of 2.728 sists The of six rental units. containing a total buildings separate uncle, Mansour, in Mirjafaris’ purchased by name. $245,000, titled 2002 for but was $75,000 proceeds of a 2006, Mirjafaris In received which was repayment from of Equity Mortgage, loan Home on property. secured a note and deed trust $1050.75, 1on beginning required monthly payments note monthly payment made the initial June 2006. time, 1 July payment until 8 pay but failed to monthly A in their falling behind August pattern 2006. 17 January ensued.5 On the Trastees institut payments ed, County, in the Circuit Court for Harford foreclosure sale, Mirjafar At the time of the foreclosure proceedings. in arrears. is were seven months ran of the sale of the once week

Advertisement January early for at the end of three successive weeks 2007, Alex Auctioneers February. February Cooper On 15 the high conducted the auction. JSG was bidder $250,000. with the advertised terms accordance $8,000 A report an to secure its bid. deposit JSG delivered February filed Circuit Court on the sale was with the counsel, Mirjafaris, through filed On March sale, contending to the that the the Circuit Court 2006, Mirjafaris August tendered a check for the On October September monthly payments, but the check was returned insufficient funds. sale set should be aside because the advertisements for the sale of the property violated the time in requirements Mary 14-206(b)6 land Rule and contained certain inaccuracies description of the property7 that affected adversely the of amount the bids received. The Trustees opposed the the exceptions, arguing that advertising, description of the and property, price adequate. sale were On 11 June JSG, the purchaser, as to moved intervene granted action. Circuit Court the motion to intervene. Mirjafaris’ The first round of hearings on September were held on 17 and 20 On 16 October initial attorney filed a motion to his withdraw appearance, which the granted. Circuit Court At the resump- tion hearings of the December 14-206, sale,” prior 6. Rule pertinent entitled "Procedure to states part: (b) (1) By publication. Notice. After commencement of an to action making foreclose a and property subject lien before sale of the to lien, person publish authorized to make the sale shall notice time, place, general newspaper and terms of sale in a of county in pending. circulation in the which the "Newspa- action general per of newspaper satisfying means a circulation” the criteria Code, set newspaper circulating forth in Article Section 28. A to a county customarily substantial number subscribers in and con- taining legal respect county property notices with to be shall regarded newspaper general county, as a circulation in the not- (1) withstanding readership throughout that its is not uniform county, (2) segments its content is not directed at all population. property, For the of an sale interest in real the notice given weeks, be shall least once a week for three successive publication days prior first to be less not than and sale the last publication be prior not more than one week to sale. For the sale personal property, given days the notice shall five less than days nor more than before the sale. 14-206(b)(l). Rule regard, Miijafaris argued In this that the advertisements were (1) they deficient in type that failed note: and the number buildings property dwelling on the and the number of then-current units; (2) (3) property’s zoning designation; property’s public (4) public private ingress egress; water and sewer access and and permitted development up the subdivision of the to 26 units; could be townhouse/condominium sold as individual lots. coun- retained new they had a continuance because requested for the motion The Court denied days prior. ten only sel Mirjafaris’ the hearings with proceeded, The continuance. counsel, day. next and the new concluded an order Court entered the Circuit 13 December On the ratifying and Mirjafaris’ exceptions overruling the At the close to JSG. of the February sale of the inquired counsel for JSG ruling, oral the Circuit Court’s for an requirement “[imjpose it would a whether Circuit Court Mirjafaris the if counsel for judge The asked appeal bond.” matter, search but he declined. Our to address the he wished requests by the any subsequent the record did not disclose Court to determine to the Circuit Mirjafaris or counsel bond, security, or of a consider alternative the amount 2007, Mirjafaris 21 December the On ratification the sale. for trial. and a new judgment alter or amend the

moved to were denied. motions tow, in Mirjafaris, yet (present) new counsel again with Special Appeals, an to the Court timely appeal following the issues consideration: presenting [Cjourt (1) [Cjircuit [Mirjafar- in permitting err Did the deny- from the case and former counsel to withdraw is’] ing a motion for a continuance? [JSG’sj

(2) [Cjircuit [Cjourt considering err in Did the price and in that the sale was fair? appraisal concluding [Cjircuit [Cjourt (3) concluding err in that Did the ade- in the was advertisement description quate? [Cjourt [Cjircuit finding that there was no err Did the the sale? stop other sufficient payment

tender or Special Appeals, in the Court of appeal pending was While property, paid on 19 settled on sale June JSG and recorded its purchase price, the balance of the auction date, Mirjafaris posted had not As of still new deed. that amount. any or a bond alternative supersedeas on appeal On 25 June JSG moved dismiss bond Mirjafaris posted had not a ground security. alternative The Court of Special Appeals denied dismiss, the motion to without prejudice, permitting JSG to JSG, renew its motion for in its joint dismissal brief. filing Trustees, brief with the accepted the invitation and included there a motion dismiss the as moot based failure to post bond. The dismissal, opposed contending the appeal was not moot as required no because JSG was a bona fide purchaser. Specifically, Mirjafaris argued that bona fide status is determined at the time the purchase money is deed paid conveyed, rather than sale, that, time of the foreclosure its through participation as intervenor Court exceptions hearings Circuit con- subsequent ducted to the acquired JSG notice of the alleged in defects the foreclosure proceedings before it settled on the sale.

The intermediate appellate court heard oral argument on appeal 2009, on 5 January panel December On Special Appeals of the Court of reported issued its in opinion granted which it Mirjafaris’ JSG’s motion dismiss the appeal as moot based on failure to a post supersedeas Cohn, bond or other v. security. Mirjafari 701, 183 Md.App. (2009). 963 A.2d 247 appellate intermediate court held explicitly that “the status of a purchaser, foreclosure as bona not, or sale, is determined as of the time of the auction fide at not the time of the exceptions hearing by or ratification court, circuit or legal passes when to the title foreclosure purchaser.” Id. at 963 A.2d at 252. The court noted that, if otherwise, the rule were lenders be discouraged would from foreclosing delinquent Likewise, on mortgages. Id. discouraged bidders would be from in participating foreclosure and, subsequently, actions from protecting partici- their bid by pating exceptions hearings before the circuit court. Id. February 2009, Mirjafaris On 19 with filed this Court a certiorari, petition granted, Mirjafari writ which we see Cohn, (2009), v. poten- 970 A.2d 892 to consider two tially issues:

(1) determining bona time of Whether fide bid determined at the time successful is to be status purchase the time the foreclosure foreclosure sale at a price paid? not on who settle does a foreclosure Whether foreclosure months after the until fourteen purchase

his long after appeal has been long after an Sale, the time of by the Terms required date the sale and notice of defects settlement has purchaser? a bona judicial proceedings, is of Special Appeals the Court contend that JSG was appeal as moot their because dismissing erred requirement excusing the normal purchaser, a bona thus They urge further that we bond. posting supersedeas and reverse the merits of their contentions below consider sale.8 As it had ratification of Circuit Court’s Court, filed this on Appeals, JSG with Special the Court case as moot based on May a motion to dismiss the file a bond or other Mirjafaris’ failure to motion pend action to dismiss security. We deferred ing argument. Special now affirm Court oral We grant of motion to dismiss the Appeals’s JSG’s security. file or other for failure to

Analysis Md. 910 A.2d 1089 Baltrotsky Kugler, clearly (2006), “Maryland speaks decisional law we noted that to challenges question appellate on the of the mootness of of in the absence a ratified foreclosure sales 474, Id. A.2d at of a trial court.” at 910 judgment a general rights that “the of bona rule is by a of would not affected purchaser mortgaged property in the of a bond reversal of the order of ratification absence here, holding coupled scope of our with the limited Due to the nature Mirjafaris’ petition questions presented for writ of certiora- in the ri, regarding do not contentions we reach merits alleged proceedings. defects in the foreclosure 484 Id.; Walter,

having 664, been filed.”9 Pizza v. 674, 345 Md. 93, (1997), withdrawn, 694 A.2d 315, 97 mandate 346 Md. 697 A.2d 82 (withdrawing by joint motion pursuant Lowe, 365, settlement v. agreement); 368, Lowe 219 Md. 149 382, (1959); A.2d 384 see Leisure & Campground also Coun Estates, 220, try P’ship 223, Club Ltd. 280 Leisure Md. 372 (1977). 595, A.2d 598 consequence, As a “an appeal becomes if moot to a is sold bona fide in the absence of a on supersedeas bond because reversal have Baltrotsky, 474, would no effect.” 395 atMd. 910 A.2d at 1093; Pizza, 674, 97; Lowe, 345 Md. at 694 A.2d at see also 369, 219 Md. at 149 A.2d at 384-85. The rule operates “even though the know purchaser may that a claim is being asserted against 223, ratification.” Leisure Campground, 280 Md. at 598; 372 A.2d at City see also Hagerstown v. Meadow Long Center, 481, 497, 242, (1972). Shopping Md. 287 A.2d rule intended to encourage non-party individuals or entities to bid foreclosure sale properties, as bidders “justifiably would be to purchase reluctant prop erty without assurance in form of some security be protected litigation investments will from subsequent recalcitrant mortgagors seeking to retain their property.” Baltrotsky, 1094; atMd. 910 A.2d at see also Leisure Likewise, Md. Campground, 280 at A.2d at 598. protects rule lenders who have succeeded foreclosure but who, operation rule, without enjoy “could not [their] success until the new fully litigated, action was all the while bearing the lost interest Baltrotsky, income.” atMd. Thus, 910 A.2d at 1094. law [mortgagors] is clear that “[t]he may litigate validity expense foreclosure at the others; posting is required mortga on [the gor’s] part protect the purchasers and lender alike.” Id. Summarizing recently dangers of permitting extended purchaser, 9. A bona in the case of a foreclosure "is a who takes the without notice of defects in the 474-75, 1093; Baltrotsky, foreclosure sale.” 395 Md. at 910 A.2d at see Pizza, also 694 A.2d at 98.

485 bond, in filing supersedeas of a the litigation requiring without Friedman, (2008), 47, we stated: Md. 939 A.2d 185 Poku v. 403 long be overturned after If foreclosure sales could ratified a filing supersedeas the of in the absence of the ratification to stay, any property of the title granting a bond and of came out of in the chain title any prior conveyance where if the be even questioned foreclosure sale could mortgage a years, or ten or year past, sale a occurred scenario, become In a lenders would fifty years. such buyers money by properties, secured such reluctant to lend and buy such title might properties, become reluctant The properties. to insure title such insurers reluctant severely could marketability of title to general affected. 7, 939 at 188-89.

Id. at 54 n. A.2d of a requiring filing supersedeas rule general The (1) exceptions: but security or alternative has two bond and of unfairness or collusion between occasion trustee, mortgagee pur or its affiliate when a Baltrot disputed chases the at the foreclosure sale. 1093; Pizza, at 395 at 910 A.2d at 345 Md. sky, Md. 98; 280 Md. at Campground, A.2d Leisure Novak, 80, 88, 598; Sawyer A.2d at see also (1955). A.2d Mirjafaris do not contend that JSG and the Trustees

engaged in collusion10 or that JSG was an affiliate Thus, they mortgagee, Equity Mortgage. Home do main a was excused under filing tain that the bond Rather, argue in the cases. they protection entitled to the JSG not bona fide afforded other present alleged case because it had notice defects Opposition Appeal, to JSG's filed with the Motion Dismiss Mirjafaris argued Special Appeals, Court that the "collusion” case, Gonzalez, exception applied present claiming in the that John JSG, Trustees, principal Stephen Goldberg, "have one of the had prior dealings.” business make no such contention before Court. this (due to presence foreclosure sale its in participation prior exceptions hearing) settling to on the property and full, which, in paying purchase price point at according Mirjafaris, to the bona purchaser status is determined fide If not properly. purchaser, JSG is a bona the Mirja- as fide allege, protected it not by faris is requirement and, bond, therefore, the Mirjafaris’ appeal not counters, should have been dismissed moot. as JSG held, Special Appeals Court that bona purchaser fide (or is status determined based on the relevant facts known known) which should have of the been as date the successful made, any bid is and that JSG did not have notice of alleged prior making defects to its successful bid.

We have previously purchaser stated that fide “[b]ona extends only purchasers status those without notice of title, case, in defects or this defects in the sale.” foreclosure Pizza, 674, added); 345 Md. at 694 A.2d at 98 (emphasis see Baltrotsky, 474-75, also 395 Md. at 910 A.2d at 1093. Like Poku, wise, in we title in the bona present, “[a]t protected at a at sale least is fide foreclosure by necessity partially filing for the of a supersedeas bond for a mortgagor order the proceedings subsequent Poku, to the ratification of a foreclosure sale.” 403 Md. at 54 added). 7, n. addition, 939 A.2d at 188-89 (emphasis describing to the require ment, we have noted that the exceptions concern actions or of the at the parties Baltrotsky, statuses sale. 395 foreclosure 475, 1093; Pizza, Md. at A.2d at 345 Md. at 694 A.2d Thus, by here, at 98. of Special as noted Court Appeals Mirjafari, see at Md.App. 963 A.2d at our prior imply decisions that the status a foreclosure as purchaser, (or not) bona knowledge based on of defects in the fide sale, foreclosure is determined as of time of the successful exceptions hearing foreclosure not at time of the or court, ratification the circuit legal passes when title the foreclosure purchaser upon payment purchase of the full As price. long as the foreclosure unaware proceedings the foreclosure at defects the time of its at valuable consideration provides bid and successful time, purchaser. Despite as bona protected it is contrary, purchas to the a foreclosure Mirjafaris’ contentions (and necessarily not depend as bona does er’s status case) timing payment in the on the especially present at price.11 Sawyer, See purchase balance fact that the deed was (noting that the “mere A.2d until taken would show not executed after collusion, character of upon [the or reflect the bona fide purchase”). purchaser’s] regard, Mirjafaris rely heavily Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton In this the 433, 450, Co., 736, (1961), which Land 225 171 A.2d 743 in we Md. equitable purchases to estate is stated that "one the title real not who purchaser prior protected a where receives notice of a as bona fide he legal acquires ... he equity before he title or where receives notice paid substantially purchase price.” all at before he has all or of the Id. 450, (internal omitted). Mirjafaris A.2d at 743 citations fail to 171 sale, however, judicial acknowledge, Westpark that did involve a but not competing rather interests in a conventional contract sale between refusal, prior right purchaser party a with a a contract and of first (or known), agent prior purchaser have to which the knew its should Westpark inapposite present signing the is to the case. contract. addition, Grayson Buffington, Mirjafaris grasp support in v. 340, (1964), 233 held Md. 196 A.2d 893 wherein we that defen- dants, purchasers property, enjoy bona of certain real did fide purchaser they knowledge prior possessed status of a because actual they accepted conveyance paid conveyance of the "before case, 344, purchase price.” Id. at 196 A.2d at 896. In that "[a]t settlement, no written contract had been entered into [the time sale], parties liberty to the that either side was at not to so consummate 342, case, however, present the sale.” Id. at 196 A.2d at 895. In the at prior participation at the time of the foreclosure sale and to its acquired knowledge exceptions hearings alleged wherein it 8,000 proceedings, $ in the JSG an defects foreclosure submitted deposit obligated pay purchase and became to remainder of the Thus, price. Grayson distinguishable. is Finally, Empire Properties, direct to LLC our attention 628, (2005), Legacy Funding

Hardy, 386 Md. 873 A.2d 1187 LLCv. Cohn, (2007), Md. 914 396 A.2d 760 in which we discussed the purchaser’s possession prior right sale to foreclosure to purchase price, support pays he or time she the full to their argument payment purchase price proper of the full also is the purchaser suggests time to determine bona status. Neither case fide contend, proposition Mirjafaris' such a as the and we decline to significantly scope addressing their from broaden entitlement of 488 contention bona Adopting pur status,

chaser for determination of whether an bond or required is to the effect of judgment ratify ing the is report determined at the time settlement would purpose undercut bond require ment, to namely, bidding at encourage foreclosure sales. See Poku, 188-89; at 54 n. A.2d at Baltrotsky, 395 475-76, Md. at 910 A.2d at 1094. If a bidder could bid at a sale successfully foreclosure and submit oftentimes a significant their relatively deposit, only to lose bona fide purchaser mortgagor exceptions status because the files to the settlement, sale prior bidding would be discour Poku, aged significantly. See Md. at 54 n. 939 A.2d at 188-89; 475-76, at Baltrotsky, 395 Md. 910 A.2d at 1094. In addition, bidders would be hesitant understandably partici pate if hearings protect their bids newly (or alleged process flaws the foreclosure subsequent flaws the judicial process) adduced in the hearings could strip Poku, away their bona status. See 403 Md. at 188-89; 54 n. A.2d at Baltrotsky, 475-76, atMd. Thus, A.2d at order further the policy behind the stay requirement to promote bids at foreclo sure protect sales and bidders from prolonged litigation expense, risk and hold that we bona fide purpose status for this known, determined based on what is knowable, reasonably or the by bidder of the date as of the successful at the bid foreclosure sale.

Any knowledge of part relevant facts on the of JSG as bid, of the time of its successful and the of giving valuable consideration, namely, the deposit,12 could have been $8000

purchaser possession property proper to of to the time for determina- purchaser tion of bona status in a foreclosure context. argue Mirjafaris purchaser 12. The that JSG cannot be a bona fide pay purchase price because to days its failure the in full ten within after the sale ratification of violated the of advertisement’s terms sale. The go advertisement stated that to ”[i]f the ... fails to settlement days within ten of of ratification the the Substitute Trustee remedies, may, any legal in addition to other available declare the was nothing Because hearings. proved JSG,13 it is a bona disqualify to Circuit Court found determining applicability purposes of the stay to the ratification supersedeas bond requirement Poku, Baltrotsky, such, under the As foreclosure sale. under Rules cases, Mirjafaris required were Pizza line in order to secure bond post 8-422 and 8-423 to do so Their failure appellate review.14 right pursue moot. appeal rendered their cost of the at the risk and deposit and resell the entire forfeited added). Thus, assuming (Emphasis the adver- defaulting purchaser.” binding and that violation of such were on JSG tisement’s terms of sale (an reversing of the sale issue grounds for ratification constitute would today), language of the adver- pass judgment we do not on which granting discretion to non-compulsory, the Trustees the tisement day beyond limit. As noted

permit the ten consummation of a sale earlier, and JSG are between the Trustees no claims of collusion before us. advanced the defect in the advertise- Miijafaris contend that JSG knew of 13. ment, accurately property, fully namely, did not describe or that it testimony he property, relying that on Gonzalez’s before it bid on the upon fully initial review comprehend the nature of the did not property. oral inspection of the In its and visual of the advertisement fact, however, findings Court found that "there the Circuit published [i]t legally [because] from the notice that was sufficient notice reference,” reference, plat gave gave the and that the Deed it auction, give any potential buyer, at the bidder advertisement "would property, enough and as information to find out about more than indicated, easily This certainly located from the ad.” it could any finding question notice of deficien- resolves the of whether JSG had bid, making been cy of the of its and we have in the advertisement as finding. given disturb the no sufficient reason to posed question argument, the rhetorical In oral required they or other should have been what amount of bond $8,000 $250,000 (the bid). (JSG’s winning post, deposit) or question proper present amount of record does not point during required in this case because at no parties request amount, proceedings any the Circuit Court did security, alternative confront the issue of the bond consider general inquiry proceedings, to the court as to other than JSG’s "[imjpose requirement At would for an bond.” whether it supra, upon inquiry, asked counsel for the JSG’s the Circuit Court appellate Miijafaris question of an bond at if he wished to address the time, Likewise, Special Appeals did the Court of but he declined. appropriate supersedeas bond here. not determine the amount of the THE JUDGMENT OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED; BE PAID BY COSTS TO PETITIONERS.

MURPHY, J., ADKINS, concurring opinion files which J., joins. BELL Judge joins

Chief the judgment only. MURPHY, ADKINS, Concurring Opinion by Judge which J., joins. agree

I with the majority’s holding “that was a JSG bona purchaser, as of the date of its successful bid at the sale, and, thus, failure to file a supersedeas bond rendered moot their subsequent appeal of overruling of their and ratification of the report however, of sale.” I write separately, that in emphasize bar, case at at no in time point prior to dismissal of their did appeal request Petitioners ever the Circuit Court (1) (2) enjoin foreclosure,1 exercise its discretion to estab (3) bond, lish the amount of a order other reason able alternative security, enforcement of the judg ment Nor did pending appeal.2 request Petitioners that the Special Court of enter an Appeals staying order the judgment Moreover, of the Circuit Court.3 on the record before us the Circuit Court have been clearly would erroneous finding that JSG was not a bona purchaser. Under these circum stances, Petitioners’ appeal properly dismissed.

I am concerned that the majority opinion will be misinter- preted imposing as an absolute requirement timely that a the victim of an equity stripping scheme must us, question properly express opinion Because the is not before we no appropriate required as amount of the to have posted by Mirjafaris.

been 14-209(b), Neal, Fargo 1. See Md. Rule and Wells (2007). A.2d 538 2. See Md. Rule 2-632.

3. See Md. Rule 8-425. with the comply he or she is unable to dismissed whenever be Court—regard the Circuit established provisions that the foreclo the evidence indicated strongly less of how purchaser not entitled to bona purchaser sure sale status.4 2008, Assembly legisla- enacted

In 2005 and the General the deceitful falling from victim to protect mortgagors tion to May consultants.” Effective of certain “foreclosure practices (RP) T—311(e) 2005, Property provid- § of the Real Article ed: BONA

A FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE OR BONA A ENTERS INTO FIDE LENDER FOR VALUE WHO A A OR FORE- WITH HOMEOWNER TRANSACTION A FORECLOSURE PURCHASER WHEN CLOSURE IN EFFECT OR DUR- CONTRACT IS CONSULTING A RECON- THE FORECLOSURE ING PERIOD WHEN RESCINDED, BE NOTICE MAY WITHOUT VEYANCE THE FACTS, TITLE TO RECEIVES GOOD OF THOSE PROPERTY, OF THE RIGHT OF FREE AND CLEAR THE THE CONSULT- PARTIES TO FORECLOSURE THE OF THE HOME- ING CONTRACT OR RIGHT TO RESCIND THE FORECLOSURE RECON- OWNER VEYANCE.

In provision was eliminated when the General in Foreclo- Assembly enacted Protection Homeowners Blondell, Turover, (1950), In et al. v. 72 A.2d 697 this Court stated: requires diligence purchaser prop- The law reasonable in a of real erty any to ascertain defect of title.... When a has notice title, upon validity rights of a fact which casts doubt of his persons prejudiced negli- innocent must not as a result of his gence determining any .... whether a had notice of interests, prior equities preclude or unrecorded so as to him from being protection purchaser, entitled as a bona the rule is that if knowledge ought put person he had of circumstances which to have ordinary prudence inquiry, presumed he will be to have made inquiry charged such and will be with notice of all facts which such investigation probability an would in all have disclosed if it had been properly pursued. Id. at 72 A.2d at 699. (PHIFA).5 sure Act require The case bar does not that we 7-311(e), why Assembly § determine the General RP repealed but I am that the Court of persuaded Special Appeals or this requested Court will soon be to make that determination. I would not dismiss the of a party making request, provided party requested that the has also the various forms post-judgment relief that were never in the requested case at bar.

Judge joins ADKINS has authorized me to state that she concurring opinion. this

988 A.2d Rubin PAZ-RUBIO The Honorable Janice R. AMBROSE. Term, Sept.

No. 2009. Appeals Maryland. Court

Feb. 2010. (Norman Middletown, Jorgensen, Usiak, Paul MD Victor C. Frederick, MD), brief, on for Petitioner. Gansler, Y. Ausby, Atty. (Douglas

Kendra Asst. Gen. F. Baltimore, MD), Maryland, brief, Atty. Respon- Gen. dent. provisions § § of RP 7-311 were 7- transferred to RP

Case Details

Case Name: Mirjafari v. Cohn

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date Published: Feb 16, 2010

Citation: 988 A.2d 997

Docket Number: 38 September Term, 2009

Court Abbreviation: Md.