Maryland Business Litigation Lawyer BlogIn a landmark decision in Kathleen Anderson, et al. v. Evan Hammerman, et al., the Maryland Supreme Court ruled that attorneys can be held liable under consumer protection statutes like the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) for submitting false or inaccurate fee affidavits in debt collection lawsuits. This holding is a departure from the traditional protections afforded by the litigation privilege and signals a shift in the legal landscape surrounding attorney fees in debt collection lawsuits.
Articles Tagged with maryland supreme court
Published on:
Supreme Court of Maryland Reiterates Important Clarification to Rules of Contract Interpretation
If you’ve litigated a contract dispute in Maryland, you’ve likely referred to the “four corners” rule, which means the reviewing court interprets a contract based on the language within the document itself. If that language is unambiguous, the terms of the agreement control regardless of the parties’ subjective intent. A court considers “parol” or extrinsic evidence (evidence outside the contract itself) only if the terms of the contract are ambiguous. This foundational rule of contract interpretation appears in many cases, so a litigator could hardly be faulted for describing it this way. See, e.g., Walton v. Mariner Health of Maryland, Inc., 391 Md. 643, 660 (2006). But, as two recent Maryland Supreme Court opinions make clear, it’s not exactly right.