 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Landsman v. Maryland Home Improvement Commission12/22/2003
rly creates new rights, new duties and new obligations thus effecting the substantive rights of the Petitioner and Somerville, a licensed contractor." The court reasoned that the 2000 amendment "gives the claimant a new right to seek a higher monetary award from the Fund" and affects Somerville's substantive rights by increasing the "maximum penalty," thereby exposing Somerville to greater risk of license suspension for failure to reimburse the Fund the full amount of a claim.
Following entry of the court's order, Landsman filed this timely appeal raising five issues for our review, which we have consolidated into one:
Did the Commission err in concluding that, as a matter of law, the $15,000.00 claim limit applies only to contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2000, and that contracts entered into prior to October 1, 2000 are subject to the $10,000.00 claim limit?
DISCUSSION
In 1962, the General Assembly enacted the Maryland Home Improvement Law, now codified at Md. Code (1992, 1998 Repl. Vol., 2003 Supp.), § 8-101 et seq. of the Business Regulation Article. This law, which had its genesis in a 1961 report of the Governor's Commission to Study the Home Improvement Industry in Maryland, is a regulatory scheme designed for the protection of the public. Shade v. State, 306 Md. 372, 377 (1986); Harry Berenter, Inc. v. Berman, 258 Md. 290, 294 (1970).
As the title of the original statute explained, the law was enacted, in part, "with the intention of `providing generally for the regulation of the home improvement business for all persons in the State,' and `establishing a system of licensing certain contractors and salesmen under a new administrative agency to be known as the Maryland Home Improvement Commission.'" Fosler v. Panoramic Design, Ltd., 376 Md. 118, 126 (2003). "The Commission's primary functions are to investigate complaints about home improvement contractors, and to administer the licensing of those contractors in this state." Brzowski v. Maryland Home Improvement Comm'n, 114 Md. App. 615, 628, cert. denied, 346 Md. 238 (1997) (code citations omitted).
In 1981, the General Assembly enacted Subtitle 4 of the Home Improvement Law, establishing the Fund. The Fund was created to provide a remedy for homeowners who suffer an "actual loss that results from [,inter alia,] an act or omission by a licensed contractor." § 8-405(a); Fosler, 376 Md. at 131.
Subtitle 4 sets forth an administrative remedy before the Commission for claims against the Fund, and provides for a contested case hearing before the Commission and payments by the Commission to claimants. Fosler, 376 Md. at 131. As we have said, prior to 2000, the maximum amount that a homeowner could recover from the Fund for actual loss due to the unsatisfactory work of a home improvement contractor was $10,000.00. By Chapter 144 of the Acts of 2000, the General Assembly increased that amount to $15,000.00. As amended, § 8-405(e)(1) reads: "The Commission may not award from the Fund more than $15,000 to 1 claimant for acts or omissions of 1 contractor."
At the heart of this appeal is whether Landsman, having established an actual loss resulting from Somerville's abandonment of the job in December 1997, is entitled to benefit from the increased maximum amount provided under the 2000 amendment. The answer to this question is dictated by whether the amendment is to be applied retrospectively or prospectively.
As we undertake to answer that question, we note preliminarily that " t is well settled that a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency or make its own find
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|