Legal Opinions - Maryland Court of Special Appeals: October 20, 2008

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Oct 20, 2008

PRACTICE TIPS: Former FL [section]5-706.2 defined the administrative review procedures the OAH was required to follow if a local department declined to change its finding on abuse or neglect after having engaged in an initial requested review of its own records. The OAH, under FL [section]5-706.2, was instructed to conduct an in camera review of the full departmental report or record to determine its accuracy. See C.S. v. Prince George's County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 343 Md. 14, 19-20 (1996).

FL [section]5-706.2 was repealed in 1999 as part of the Legislature's effort to streamline the hearing procedures for those accused of child abuse or neglect by eliminating a record review process and replacing it with a two-tiered appeal process under FL [section]5-706.1. See 1999 Md. Laws, ch. 214; Fiscal Note for H.B. 148 (1999).

The Legislature also repealed FL [section]5-715, see 1999 Md. Laws, ch. 214, a provision which had provided "an alleged abuser with a separate and independent right to an administrative hearing before his or her name may be entered into a central registry." See C.S., 343 Md. at 23. The FL [section]5-715 right to a contested case hearing was incorporated in FL [section]5-706.1, creating a two- tiered appeal process.

Commercial Law

Lemon Law

BOTTOM LINE: Circuit court properly granted summary judgment for defendant auto manufacturer when plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Lemon Law, CL [section]14-1501, et seq., or the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

CASE: Zitterbart v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation, No. 897, September Term, 2007 (filed Oct. 7, 2008) (Judges EYLER, D., Zarnoch & Wright).

FACTS: On July 17, 2004, Michelle and David Zitterbart purchased a 2004 Suzuki Verona from an authorized Suzuki dealership. The vehicle was a demonstrator model with 4,849 miles on its odometer, and came with a "New Vehicle" limited warranty of 36 months or 36,000 miles, as well as a "Powertrain" limited warranty" of 84 months or 100,000 miles.

From November 15, 2004, through May 2006, the Zitterbarts brought the Verona to an authorized Suzuki dealership for servicing or repair on multiple occasions.

On May 23, 2006, the Zitterbarts sued Suzuki Motor Corporation in circuit court, alleging violations of the Maryland Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act, CL [section]14-1501 (Lemon Law); the Magnuson-Moss Warranty - Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. [section]2301 (MMWIA); and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), CL [section]13-101.

Suzuki filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts, and identified Ben Perricone, a regional manager, as an expert witness. Perricone inspected and test driven the Verona, and furnished a report in which he opined that the servicing performed on the car had resolved any customer concerns, and that the car did not have any "uncorrectable defects or non-conforming conditions that substantially impair" its use, safety, or value.

The Zitterbarts identified Steven Ruch as an expert witness. By the time Suzuki's motion for summary judgment was filed, however, Mr. Ruch had not inspected, test driven, or inspected the Verona.