 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Landsman v. Maryland Home Improvement Commission12/22/2003
he actual loss to Landsman was $42,395.41.
It is plain that the only deprivation of property at issue is that of Landsman. Somerville simply does not have a vested right in being shielded from the additional $5,000.00 owing to the Fund upon payment of Landsman's claim. Consequently, Somerville was not entitled to either notice or a reasonable expectation of retaining that sum.
The Commission also intimates some due process problem attendant to the potential for license suspension upon a contractor's failure to reimburse the Fund the full $15,000.00 in a situation comparable to the one presented by this case. To the extent the Commission makes such an argument, we reject it.
We fail to see how a contractor is entitled to a license where there has been a determination by the Commission that the contractor's acts or omissions have caused actual loss to a claimant. A license is essentially a privilege, not a "vested right." We therefore conclude that suspension of a contractor's license pursuant to § 8-411 does not infringe upon a property right protected by the Maryland Constitution.
For the reasons we have discussed, we conclude that the 2000 amendment to § 8-405(e)(1) is a remedial act that does not interfere with a vested or substantial right of either the homeowner or the contractor. We shall therefore apply the rule that such acts will be construed as having retrospective application unless the legislature has made it clear that the legislation be prospective. Aviles, 281 Md. at 533.
The enacting legislation provides that the effective date of the Act is October 1, 2000. Aside from that, the General Assembly did not expressly declare in the enacting legislation (or, for that matter, indicate in any way in its legislative history) that the maximum award provided by the amendment to § 8-405(e)(1) would be prospective only. We hold, therefore, that the Commission erred when it refused to apply the increased maximum recovery from the Fund to Landsman's claim.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO THE MARYLAND HOME IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEE.
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.
|
|