Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 01694 September Term, 2008 ______________________________________

STANLEY ROCHKIND, et al. v. DANIELLE FINCH, next friend of Tyaih Dodd, a minor ______________________________________ Krauser, C.J., Matricciani, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Matricciani, J. ______________________________________ Filed: December 1, 2010

Appellants Stanley Rochkind, J.A.M. #18 Corporation, and Dear Management & Construction Co., Inc. (collectively "appellants"), appeal the jury verdict in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in favor of appellee Danielle Finch, next friend of Tyaih Dodd, a minor (collectively "appellee"). Appellants present twelve issues for our consideration, which we have rephrased as such: I. Whether appellants should be granted a new trial because the court admitted into evidence a Consent Order which contained a list of over 700 properties and 86 corporations which were not parties to the instant case. II. Whether the court committed reversible error by refusing to include the owner/operator issue on the multiple-question verdict sheet. III. Whether the court committed reversible error by denying appellants' Rule 2-502 motion which sought dismissal of appellee's pierce-the-corporate-veil claim. IV. Whether the court committed reversible error when it permitted appellee to amend her complaint on the day of trial. V. Whether the court committed reversible error by denying appellants' motions for judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") because Stanley Rochkind was not the owner of the property under Maryland corporate law or under the Baltimore City Housing Code ("the Code"). VI. Whether the court committed reversible error by denying appellants' motions for judgment and JNOV because Rochkind was not the operator of the property under the Code. VII. Whether the court committed reversible error by denying appellants' motion to strike appellee's experts because the experts rendered no substantive opinion prior to trial.

VIII. Whether the court committed reversible error by refusing to grant appellants a new trial because of raciallycharged comments by appellee's counsel. IX. Whether the circuit court committed reversible error by refusing to give a requested supervening cause instruction. X. Whether the circuit court lacked authority to issue the November 10, 2008 order granting appellee's motion to strike appellant's experts in light of the fact that it had denied the motion during the September 9, 2008 hearing. XI. Whether the circuit court committed reversible error by not permitting Charles Runkles to testify during appellants' case-in-chief. XII. Whether the court committed reversible error by denying appellants' motion for judgment and motion for JNOV because appellee did not present any evidence that the flaking paint was lead-based paint. We shall resolve the first and second issues in appellants' favor and we shall reverse the circuit court's ruling and remand for a new trial. Accordingly, we need not reach the remaining issues. FACTS Appellee Danielle Finch, is the mother of Tyaih Dodd, a minor. In July of 1986, Mary Johnson moved into a property at 2212 East Lanvale Street ("2212 East Lanvale") in Baltimore City with her four children, including Danielle Finch.1 Johnson's landlord was appellant Dear Management & Construction Company, Inc. ("Dear Management"), and appellant J.A.M. #18 Corporation ("JAM 18"), which had legal title to 2212 East
1

Finch was eight years old at the time her mother moved into 2212 East Lanvale. -2-

Lanvale during the time that appellee occupied the premises, and of which appellant Stanley Rochkind was the sole shareholder. At the time she moved into the row house, Johnson noticed areas of peeling paint on the inside and outside of the house. On May 31, 2000, Dodd was born. At the time, Finch was still living at 2212 East Lanvale, and after Dodd was born they occupied the back bedroom on the second floor. The windows in this bedroom had chipping, peeling, and flaking paint on them. On November 15, 2002, the Baltimore City Health Department issued an emergency violation notice and an order to remove lead nuisance after an inspection at 2212 East Lanvale revealed that the house contained lead-based paint. On August 5, 2002, Dodd was tested for lead poisoning and the results showed that the child had lead exposure. Appellee, as well as Johnson, moved out of the house in August 2003. On July 22, 2004, appellee filed a complaint against appellants in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging that negligence and unfair trade practices 2 had resulted in Dodd's exposure to lead paint at 2212 East Lanvale and requesting a jury trial. On March 14, 2008, before trial commenced, appellants filed a motion under Maryland Rule 2-502 requesting that the court dismiss appellee's claims based upon her pierce-the-corporateveil theory. On March 17, 2008, appellee filed an amendment by interlineation to her complaint in which she indicated that she would be pursuing the theories of "piercing the corporate veil and/or individual liability." On March 26, 2008, appellants filed their

2

The unfair trade practices claim was dropped before trial. -3-

motion to strike the amendment. Trial commenced on March 31, 2008. On that date, the court denied appellants' motion to strike and permitted the case to proceed with the amended complaint.3 The court also denied appellants' Rule 2-502 motion, finding that there was a sufficient dispute as to "whether Rochkind controls the whole or part" to put that question before the jury. The court also denied appellee's request that it strike appellants' expert witnesses. The court admitted into evidence, over objection of appellants' counsel, a Consent Order4 among 86 corporations, including Dear Management, and the Maryland Department of the Environment, under which the corporations agreed to meet certain deadlines with respect to inspecting and/or abating lead from over 700 properties. 2212 East Lanvale was among the properties listed in the Consent Order. Rochkind signed it as guarantor in the event that the principal parties to the document failed to fulfill their financial obligations. The Consent Order also imposed a penalty of $90,000 for prior non-compliance with the lead-risk reduction standards.

On the day of trial, appellants made a motion under Rule 2-502 to dismiss appellee's pierce the corporate veil claim. Appellee states in her brief that she withdrew this claim, but appellants state that "the trial proceeded with Appellee's pierce the corporate veil claims remaining in this case." The record is unclear, as the trial judge never made a definitive ruling on the motion. Because this issue is not dispositive of the appeal, we need not resolve it here. Administrative proceedings before the Maryland Department of the Environment, Waste Management Administration, Case Number SA-2001-0097 (2001). -44

3

On April 3, 2008, appellants moved for judgment at the close of appellee's case and the court denied this motion. On April 7, 2008, appellants moved for judgment at the close of the entire case and the court denied this motion. On April 8, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee in the amount of $1,750,000, which the court later reduced to an award of $590,000 pursuant to

Download Rochkind v. Finch.pdf

Maryland Law