Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2471 September Term, 2001

LAWRENCE POLAKOFF, ET AL. v. BRENDA HAMPTON, ET AL.

Salmon, Eyler, Deborah S., McAuliffe, John F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

Filed: November 7, 2002

The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action brought by Lawrence Polakoff; CFSP Limited Partnership ("CFSP"); Chase Management, Inc.

("Chase"); Stanley Sugarman, Sugarcorn Realty ("Sugarcorn"); and Homewood Realty, Inc. ("Homewood"), the appellants, against Brenda A. Hampton, individually and as mother and next friend of Brenda Hampton, a minor; Brenda Hampton; Kimberly Robinson, individually and as mother and next friend of Kaletha Leggette; Kaletha

Leggette; and Kerpelman & Associates, P.A. ("the Kerpelman firm"), the appellees. Also named as defendants were "[a]ll other

similarly situated Litigants, named or unnamed[,] Who may in the future claim Injuries due to alleged lead Exposures in the State of Maryland." On appeal, the appellants present four questions for review, which we have combined into one: Did the circuit court err in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to seek declaratory relief?1

1

The four questions as presented by the appellants are: "I. Did the trial court err by granting a Motion to Dismiss for Brenda Hampton on the basis that the Plaintiffs (Appellants here) were not entitled to an equitable remedy? II. Did the trial court err by granting a Motion to Dismiss for Kerpelman and Associates, P.A., on the basis that the Plaintiffs (Appellants here) were not entitled to an equitable remedy? III. Did the trial court err by granting a Motion to Dismiss for "Other Similarly Situated Litigants" on the basis that the Plaintiffs (Appellants here) were not entitled to an equitable remedy? IV. Did the trial court err by granting a Motion to (continued...)

The appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as not having been taken from a final judgment. For the following reasons, we shall deny the appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The appellants alleged the following facts in their complaint for declaratory relief. Polakoff holds interests in several limited partnerships and other business entities that own or manage numerous residential rental properties in Baltimore City. One such property, 1716 North Washington Street, is owned by CFSP and managed by Chase. Brenda

A. Hampton and her minor daughter Brenda Hampton ("the Hampton appellees") live at that address. On February 2, 2001, CFSP and Chase received from the

Baltimore City Health Department an Emergency Violation Notice and Order to Remove Lead Nuisance for 1716 North Washington Street stating, inter alia, that the premises had been inspected for lead on January 29, 2001, and test results revealed the presence of lead-based paint. In connection with the violation notice, CFSP

and Chase were informed that Brenda Hampton had been diagnosed with
1

(...continued) Dismiss for Kaletha Leggette on the basis that the Plaintiffs (Appellants here) were not entitled to an equitable remedy when there are pending matters as to possible legal remedies against the Plaintiffs in a Declaratory Judgment Action?" -2-

an

elevated

blood

lead

level

("EBL")

of

22

Download Polakoff v. Hampton.pdf

Maryland Law