How to make claim against a title agent's bond.

 To make a claim against a Maryland title agent's bond with the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA), you'll need to follow a specific process. Title agents in Maryland are required to maintain bonds to protect consumers and ensure they fulfill their obligations. A lawyer can be helpful, but one is not necessary. You can go it alone before making the decision to hire counsel. Here's how you can proceed:

1. Gather Documentation: Collect all relevant documentation related to your claim. This might include contracts, invoices, correspondence, and any evidence that supports your claim.

2. 
   

3. Contact the Title Agent: Before filing a claim, it's a good idea to reach out to the title agent directly to discuss the issue and see if it can be resolved amicably. Sometimes, misunderstandings or errors can be corrected without the need for a bond claim.

4. 
   

5. Verify the Bond: Make sure the title agent has a bond with the MIA. You can do this by contacting the Maryland Insurance Administration or checking their website. Ensure that the bond is current and covers the specific circumstances of your claim.

6. 
   

7. Complete the Claim Form: Visit the Maryland Insurance Administration's website and download the appropriate bond claim form. They may have specific forms for title agent bond claims.

8. 
   

9. Provide Supporting Documentation: Fill out the claim form accurately and completely. Attach all relevant documentation that supports your claim. This may include contracts, invoices, receipts, emails, or any other evidence.

10. 
    

11. Submit the Claim: Send the completed claim form and supporting documents to the Maryland Insurance Administration. Make sure you follow the submission instructions provided on their website or in the claim form.

12. 
    

13. Wait for Processing: The MIA will review your claim and may conduct an investigation. They will communicate with both parties involved in the dispute and gather necessary information.

14. 
    

15. Resolution: Depending on the outcome of their investigation, the MIA will determine whether the title agent's bond should cover your claim. If approved, the bond will be used to compensate you for your losses.

16. 
    

17. Appeal (if necessary): If your claim is denied and you believe it was wrongfully rejected, you may have the option to appeal the decision. Check the MIA's guidelines for the appeals process.

18. 
    

19. Legal Assistance (if needed): If the dispute remains unresolved and you believe you have a strong case, you may want to consider consulting an attorney with expertise in insurance or real estate law for further guidance.

Expunge or shield your record before the job application.

Dumb mistakes carry long-term consequences.  Your misdemeanor conviction as a teenager will prevent you from getting certain jobs well into adulthood. Tickytack convictions have effectively barred a large portion of the population from meaningful jobs. To recapture this workforce Maryland’s General Assembly enacted substantial changes to the way “convictions” for minor offenses affect those convicted.  Effective October 1, 2015, the changes will both increase the availability of expungements, and create a new kind of protection – shielding – which has previously not existed in Maryland.

Changes to the Expungement law

 Prior to October 1, 2015, the law in Maryland prohibited expungement in certain situations where a defendant was convicted of a separate offense after the otherwise expungeable event.  Changes to the law removes that prohibition for all situations except probations before judgment.

Additionally, the law has been changed to permit folks convicted of crimes which, since the conviction, are no longer crimes (for instance: possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana, which was decriminalized in 2014), to expunge the former convictions.

The new “shielding” law

Under the new law, for certain “minor” crimes, Maryland permits someone who has been convicted, to petition to have their conviction “shielded” from the public.  The petition may be filed, at the earliest, three years after the completion of all the terms of their probation, parole, or mandatory supervision.  Convictions of crimes for which “shielding” is available are:

·         Disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace

·         Failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order
·         Malicious destruction of property
·         Trespass on posted property
·         Misdemeanor theft
·         Possession of certain controlled and non-controlled substances
·         Possession of drug paraphernalia
·         Driving without a license
·         Driving while license is canceled, suspended, refused, or revoked
·         Driving while uninsured
·         Prostitution

 “Shielding” is different than “expungement.”  Whereas an expungement compels destruction of all records of the incident, “shielding” merely hides the conviction from public view.  The conviction is still available to the police, health occupations boards, and certain employers and institutions that are subject to a statutory or contractual requirement to inquire into criminal background.  However, as to the public, and potential employers or educators, the law makes it illegal to compel disclosure on an application or in an interview.  It also makes it illegal for a potential employer or educator to refuse hire or admit an applicant solely based on the refusal to disclose shielded convictions.

Clean up your record, expunge or shield the past and get that job!

Extreme squatting comes to Maryland.

Last year we shared the story out of California involving lawyers complicit in a scheme to push false adverse possession cases through the courts. We concluded that such a scheme would be very difficult to pursue in Maryland because of very different standards for taking property under the law.

But that doesn't rule out the straight "squatter" who takes without permission.

On January 2, 2015, the Daily Record and an ABC News affiliate reported that a man was charged with moving into a home he did not own...with his entire family! He allegedly introduced himself to the neighbors, and was unpacking the van when the true owner arrived to find the invaders in the driveway.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Jan. 24, 2015, to remove the suspect’s name after the suspect contacted us to say the district court charges were dropped. We confirmed in the court's public database that the charges were subject to a "nolle prosqui." This means the prosecutor elected not to pursue the case, but it remains subject to re-indictment. Ramon Korionoff, public affairs officer for the Montgomery County State’s Attorney office, reported to other news outlets that the investigation is ongoing. The suspect also asserted to us that the video of the original television news story had been dropped from the television news affiliate's website, and he requested that we remove the embedded video from this blog.  It was only as a courtesy to him that we have removed the embedded video from this story. After all, we also represent criminal defendants and believe that everyone deserves a second chance! But we do not control, nor can we control that the video may remain resident and publicly available on the television news outlet's server.

The house had been on the market for over a year. The lesson behind the story is that you must check on your property regularly!! And talk to your neighbors--there is no reason for the alleged squatter to have fooled the neighbors, if that is what happened. It is easy to to knock on your neighbor's door to say "the house will be empty, call me if you see anyone try to enter."

In our real estate litigation practice, we've seen a lot of real estate scams (forged deeds, deeds executed after death, the impersonating of owners at settlement, producing fake death certificates, fake powers of attorney, and false corporate filings to reinvigorate defunct entities), but this story describes perhaps the most brazen and ill conceived that we have seen reported in the news.

I received a civil demand letter. What do I do?

“I made a mistake.   I was caught trying to shoplift.  I gave the merchandise back, and was released.  I thought this was all behind me, until I received a letter in the mail demanding payment.  What is a civil demand letter, and what should I do about it?”

What is a civil demand letter

The letter will identify you, and accuse you of theft.  The letter will demand a return of the merchandise (if not already returned), payment equal to the value of the merchandise (if the merchandise was destroyed), payment for the lost time/wage of the employee(s) who apprehended you, and payment of a civil penalty equal to twice (2x) the value of the stolen items.  See, the Maryland Courts & Judicial Article of the Maryland Code § 3-1302.

What happens if I pay the amount demanded?

If you pay the demand, the store cannot make any further civil demands against you relating to the same theft.  See, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code § 3-1304.  However, that payment can be used against you in subsequent criminal proceedings to demonstrate your guilt.  See, Maryland Rule 5-804(b)(3).  Payment of the civil demand does not preclude criminal prosecution.  See, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1306(b).

What happens if I ignore the demand letter?

If you ignore the demand, the store may sue you, civilly.  They must file a small claim in district court, and serve you with a summons.  If they are successful, they may recover attorney’s fees and court costs, regardless of your ability to pay.  See, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1305(b).  Generally, however, the time and effort required to prosecute a small claim deters such lawsuits.

What can happen, regardless of my decision?

Whether you pay the civil demand or not, the store can swear-out a criminal complaint, and you may be charged with a crime.  Maryland’s consolidated theft statute establishes maximum penalties based on the value of the items stolen:

Value	Type	Max Penalty
< $100	Misdemeanor	90 days / $500
< $1,000	Misdemeanor	18 months / $500
$1,000 - $9,999	Felony	10 years / $10,000
$10,000 - $99,999	Felony	15 years / $15,000
$100,000+	Felony	25 years / $25,000

See, Maryland Criminal Law Article § 7-104.

If you are charged with an incarcerable crime, you are entitled to a lawyer, regardless of your income.  Hire a private attorney, or apply for representation through the Office of the Public Defender.

Squatter convicted of stealing a house.

On January 24, 2014, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided Hobby v. State, upholding the conviction of a squatter who entered a bogus lease and occupied a vacant house for seven months while it was being foreclosed.

The case combines real property law concepts and criminal law, two areas of focus for the firm.  And it is a fascinating twist on the various schemes to take over vacant or foreclosed property. Only last month, two California lawyers and their clients were arrested for lying in court documents to manipulate adverse possession laws to acquire multiple homes. And last year, a Kansas lawyer was charged with death by legal document in order to acquire her father's property. And Maryland courts have convicted others for filing a forged deed. But the latest case reads like a novel.

Dr. Braithwaite moved out of her Kirk Drive property and offered it for sale while the bank started foreclosure proceedings. Meanwhile, several miles away, Mr. Hobby and his wife were losing their own home to foreclosure. 

Mr. Hobby used a realtor in an effort to sell his home before foreclosure, but it did not happen. Mr. Hobby and his wife then used that same realtor to make an offer to purchase the Kirk Drive property .  Dr. Braithwaite's bank rejected the offer.

Dr. Braithwaite's bank, Severn, completed foreclosure on the Kirk Drive property but learned that there was a couple claiming to have a lease living in the house.  The couple was Mr. and Mrs. Hobby.

What?

Mr. Hobby (and not Mrs. Hobby) was indicted for theft, burglary and related crimes involving the taking of property and depriving the owner.  At trial, Mr. Hobby put on a defense that centered on a mysterious "Derek Williams" as the real culprit.  Mr. Hobby's defense described Mr. Williams as the one who brought a proposed lease to Mr. Hobby, already bearing Dr. Braithwaite's signature.  At lease signing, Mr. Williams accepted cash payment of $7,000, and every month he appeared at the Kirk Drive property to collect another $3,500.

It appears the jury did not believe "Derek Williams" existed, and Mr. Hobby was convicted. He did not have Daniel Webster to argue his case!

Mr. Hobby was sentenced to 10 years, with all but 59 days of the sentence suspended.  He was also assessed a $10,000 fine. He lost his intermediate appeal, and he lost again before Maryland's highest court which did send the case back down the ladder for new sentencing.

In simple terms, you can steal a house and be charged even if the true owner never knows of your actions.  And you can commit a burglary, even if you have the keys, and even if you never intend to bar the true owner from entering the house. When it comes to the value of your crime (to determine if the felony thresholds are met), Maryland looks to the fair market value of the house during the time of possession (the rental value).

The case is yet another alert for lawyers and real estate professionals to yet another manner of theft and deception in the purchase and sale of real estate. In this case, Mr. Hobby had the brass to forge Dr. Braithwaite's signature on a false lease, move in and live in plain sight of the neighbors!  

The theft was laid bare by Mr. Hobby's hubris.  When the bank delivered a letter announcing the foreclosure, Mr. Hobby and his wife protested and raised their tenancy in the house as a bar to the foreclosure or their eviction.  This protest lead the foreclosing bank to review the loan documents with Dr. Braithwaite to discover it had rights to receive any rent from the property after the foreclosure proceedings were started.  The bank even suspected a scheme involving Dr. Braithwaite's intent to deprive the bank of its money. What happened next could not have been anticipated by Mr. Hobby.

The bank contacted Dr. Braithwaite and demanded that she turn over the rent collected from Mr. and Mrs. Hobby.  Of course, Dr. Braithwaite knew nothing of the lease, and thus triggered the police investigation. 

Had Mr. and Mrs. Hobby quietly packed up their things and departed the house, they would have enjoyed six months of free housing (they did, at least, pay for their utilities). Perhaps they would have worked the same scheme elsewhere.

We are often accused of being overly suspicious when presented with descriptions of real estate deals gone bad.  It is our practice is to question everything, and everybody. Can you blame us?