View by Topic
Recent Articles
-
New Environmental Laws from the 2025 Maryland Legislative SessionSaturday, April 26th, 2025
-
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take – AgainSaturday, April 19th, 2025
-
President Trump’s Bold Step to Rein in State Overreach in Climate ChangeSaturday, April 12th, 2025
-
Mandatory GHG Disclosures in Maryland Real Estate ContractsSaturday, April 5th, 2025
View by Month/Year
“Green Building Law Update” Headlines
Recent Articles & News from
Stuart Kaplow’s blog
at GreenBuildingLawUpdate.com
- BEPS Redux: The Most Far Reaching Environmental Legislation of the 2025 Maryland General Assembly May 4, 2025
- New Environmental Laws from the 2025 Maryland General Assembly Session April 27, 2025
- Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take – Again April 20, 2025
- President Trump’s Bold Step to Rein in State Overreach in Climate Change April 13, 2025
Subscribe to the Green Building Law Update!
Stuart Kaplow brings his expertise and extensive experience to the table with his unique digital publication, "Green Building Law Update". Subscribers receive regular updates to keep them informed about important issues surrounding Environmental Law, Green Building & Real Estate Law, as well as the emerging demand for Environmental Social Governance (ESG).
Get fresh content through the lense of Stuart Kaplow's cutting-edge expertise, innovative commentary and insider perspective. Don't miss another issue! Subscribe below.
A Chilling Effect On Abuse Of Process Claims
In One Thousand Fleet Limited Partnership v. John Guerriero, et al., the Maryland Court of Appeals was called upon to determine whether a developer could maintain suit for malicious use of process and abuse of process against a Little Italy community association and its members challenging the zoning modification and issuance of building permits for the redevelopment of the Bagby Furniture building.
In a wonderful 21-page opinion in which the Court provides an historical review of abuse of process and malicious use of process, and the distinctions between the two torts, the Court narrowly interprets the law.
Holding that abuse of process requires “damages consisting of an arrest or seizure of property” and that malicious use of process requires damages “consisting of seizure of property, arrest or other special injury,” the Court established an extremely high standard that may not be possible to meet against any other than governmental defendant.
Also ruling that an action for malicious use of process cannot be maintained when the underlying lawsuit had not been terminated in the plaintiff’s favor because the judgment dismissing the lawsuit was pending on appeal, served to further make difficult bringing such a case. To appreciate this issue, the reader must be aware that the community association had filed no less than four different appeals, all of which were dismissed for lack of standing, but because appeals of the dismissals were pending, the Court ruled this case was not ripe.
This case will have a chilling effect on the ability of property owners to defend themselves from others abusing the right to appeal from development approvals.