Court of Appeals of Maryland. Glenn E. Bushel , Baltimore Gerard P. This case involves claims that an Ocean City condominium has been defectively constructed. The claims are based upon the implied warranties created by Md.
Code , Repl. There are multiple issues, including applicability of the statutory warranties, standing of the council of unit owners to sue, a discovery dispute, sufficiency of the evidence and liability of a parent corporation for the obligations of its subsidiary. In the early 's Paddy Construction Company, Inc. Paddy was acting as both developer and builder of three garden apartment buildings on the eastern half of the block of Ocean City land bounded on the south by th Street, on the east by Assawoman Drive, on the north by th Street and on the west by Ocean Highway.
Each building contained three floors, of four apartment units each, for a total of 12 units per building and of 36 units in the project. II Joint Venture. Service Co. Graham was an Ocean City realtor. A written joint venture agreement, effective November 30, , was executed between Service Co. It contemplated the prompt completion of construction on the property. Graham was to supervise construction. A commitment for a loan to the Joint Venture had been procured by Service Co. A condominium regime was to be imposed upon the property, and Graham was to use his best efforts to effect sales of the individual condominium units.
The deed from the foreclosing trustees to the Joint Venture was granted on February 27, The certificate of occupancy was issued on March 10, The first annual meeting of the council of unit owners of Starfish was held on December 18, By that time sales of 35 out of the 36 units had been closed. On May 11, Starfish Condominium Association , which is the council of unit owners at Starfish Council , and the owners of nine units brought suit against the Joint Venture, Service Co.
On July 2, the owners of nine additional units brought a separate action against the same defendants. These actions were consolidated and tried by the court. While the actions asserted a number of theories, we are concerned here only with the claims predicated on statutorily implied warranties. The Council sought damages for alleged construction defects relating to the common elements. The owners of individual units sought damages for construction defects in their particular units. One unit owners' claim was dismissed by the trial court , and that dismissal is not involved in these appeals.
