Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fisher v. Ward

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 1, 2015No. 0108/14Published

1ConcurrenceLeahy, J.

Respectfully, I concur. I join in the judgment, but write separately to express my concern that the rule proposed by the majority is an unnecessary departure from the common law that would allow constructive presence to become the default practice of trustees at foreclosure sales. I would make explicit that the failure of a trustee (or an empowered and properly supervised delegate) to physically attend the sale remains an irregularity in the sale, which, should it result in actual prejudice, would be fatal to the sale. As the majority states, neither statute nor rule require the physical…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hopper v. HopperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1894
  2. Ten Hills Co. v. Ten Hills Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
  3. Fagnani v. FisherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  4. Wicks v. WestcottCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
  5. Hansen v. CostelloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API