|
|
|
Blandair Foundation Files Petition;
Research Program is Active
Today, the Blandair Foundation is filing a
petition for a writ of certiorari
(Appendix A16) with the Court of Appeals to appeal the Court of Special
Appeals' opinion regarding the suit to preserve Blandair Farm. Byron C. Hall,
Jr., Chairman of the Blandair Foundation and a party to the suit himself,
issues the following statement.
Hall Critical of Logic of Opinion
The reason we are filing this petition is
that, because the opinion does not address the legal issues we have raised,
we find fatal flaws in the logic of the Court of Special Appeals' opinion
upholding the rulings of the Circuit Court. As a result of these flaws, the
conclusions reached by the Court of Special Appeals are invalid. Moreover,
the Court compounds its logical problems by resorting to the fallacies of red
herrings and a straw man to justify its conclusions.
This opinion of the Court of Special
Appeals is even more appalling because the Court concedes one of the
underlying premises of our suit: "It was well-known to everyone that
Miss Smith wanted to preserve Blandair without changing its character."
Legal Issues
- The lower court failed to recognize the
distinction between a contractual claim to an estate, as in our case,
and a contractual claim against an estate. This distinction is crucial with respect to
the time limitation on filing a suit. A suit to enforce a contractual
claim to an estate may be filed up to three years after death,
whereas a suit to enforce a contractual claim against an estate
must be filed within six months of death.
- The method used by the lower court to evaluate
acts of part performance was incorrect. The court lifted each act out of context, and
then concluded the act could be interpreted in any number of ways. This
method is inconsistent with that used in previous cases in which
part performance was found. The proper interpretation of any act
requires an understanding of its context. In our case, the proper
context is that of all the acts. Since the demonstration of acts of part
performance is central to our case (it is required for us to be able to
overcome the statute of frauds), use of the correct method to evaluate
such acts is crucial.
- The lower court mistakenly focused its
attention on my part performance, instead of that of Miss Smith. Our case is a paradigm for part performance
by Miss Smith, the promisor. Miss Smith and I shared the common goal of
preserving Blandair Farm by means of a foundation created by her trust.
The promissory contract between Miss Smith and me was sequential in
nature: Miss Smith needed to create the trust before I could undertake
my full responsibilities as trustee. Evaluation of the part performance
by the correct party is crucial to our case.
Invalid Conclusions
- By mischaracterizing ours as a claim against
an estate, the Court of Special Appeals ruled against us because we
filed suit more than 6 months after Miss Smith's death.
- By following the incorrect method used by the
lower court in evaluating acts of part performance and by confusing
whose part performance is primary, the Court of Special Appeals ruled
against us on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Red Herrings and a Straw Man
- With respect to the time limitation, the Court
states: "The appellants have offered no plausible explanation as to
why they failed to file suit in a timely manner. Such a failure
warranted the granting of the Motion to Dismiss." Since ours is a
claim to the estate with a three-year time limitation, there is
no need to give a plausible explanation as to why we failed to file suit
within six months. Thus, the "plausible explanation" is a red
herring.
- With respect to the statute of frauds and part
performance, the Court observes that "... Ms. Smith had been
provided with countless opportunities to see to it that the character of
Blandair was preserved upon her death. Ms. Smith, however, availed
herself of none of those opportunities. Therefore, absent some written
document establishing a valid contract, upon Ms. Smith's death the life
estate she held properly ended and Blandair properly reverted to her
father's heirs per his will of 1939." The "many
opportunities" is a red herring, in that our case is about only one
-- the one she chose and accepted, but did not live to sign. In
addition, the claim that she "availed herself of none of those
opportunities" is a straw man argument.
In our form of government, the courts are
designed to serve as impartial arbiters of disputes. We, the citizens, have
given the courts this responsibility and power, and we have the right to hold
the courts to a high standard.
Some cynics have said to me that the
courts will never give our case a fair hearing. In suits like ours, the
courts will want to protect Howard
County as another part
of government.
It is our hope that the Maryland Court of
Appeals will prove the cynics wrong by giving our case a fair hearing and
living up to the standard we have a right to expect.
Background: More Details on the Law
- A claim against an estate is defined by
Maryland
case law (Hamilton v. Caplan) as having three elements: it is a
demand of a pecuniary nature, if necessary it could be reduced to a
demand for money damages, and it could have been enforced against the
decedent during his lifetime. Our claim is for ownership of the estate,
we are seeking specific performance of a contract, and our claim could
not have been enforced during Miss Smith's lifetime. Hence, our action
is not a claim against the estate. The proper designation of our
claim is a contractual claim to the estate
- The statute of frauds requires that any
transfer of real estate must be made by a written, signed document; an
exception is made when part performance of the contract can be
demonstrated. Part performance of a contract refers to actions taken by
a party that satisfy some of his obligations under the contract. The
correct method of evaluating acts of part performance is used in Hanson
v. Urner, as approved in Unitas v. Temple.
- Acts by the promisor are permitted to
constitute part performance under Maryland
case law (Friedman & Fuller v. Funkhouser, Lorenzio v.
Ottaviano), although no cases until now have been decided on that
basis. An Idaho case (Frantz v.
Parker) has a conclusion similar to that of Maryland case law. Moreover, there is
a New York
case (Stone v. Klein on the Square, et al.) in which part
performance by the promisor is dispositive.
Foundation Research Program is Active
Even while this litigation has proceeded,
the Blandair Foundation has been pursuing part of its objectives actively
through its Division of Wildlife and Open Space Management and Research. The
Division is doing research to make the colorful group of birds that feed
primarily on insects (even flying ones) more visible to the bird watching
public. One aspect of this research has wide-ranging potential public benefit
by the use of material now wasted and disposed of as sewage (overloading
sewage treatment plants) or hauled to landfills at great cost. We are in the
process of negotiating a cooperative research agreement with a major
university. We have begun an environmental consulting service with respect to
habitat creation and management, water management (including storm water),
and wildlife surveys and management. For further information, contact the
Director, Dr. Aelred D. Geis at (410) 531-3117.
Byron C. Hall, Jr.
|
