Dear Class and Chapter Presidents:

You may recall that the plaintiffs in the Tackney v. Trost lawsuit appealed Judge Caroom’s order dismissing their lawsuit to Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals.  The plaintiffs also took the step of asking Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to grant certiorari and take the appeal directly, rather than waiting for the Court of Special Appeals to decide the case.  Because the issues involved are the same in either court, the Association did not oppose the plaintiff’s request for certiorari.  On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal in March 2009.

The decision of the Court of Appeals to hear the case means only that the Court of Appeals found the issues involved in the case to be of public interest.  From a practical standpoint, eliminating the hearing in the Court of Special Appeals will save money and accelerate the resolution of this case.  Regardless of which party won in the Court of Special Appeals, we are certain that the other party would have appealed to the Court of Appeals.  In short, the issues on appeal remain the same and the case will be decided on its merits.

Please keep in mind that neither the Court of Appeals nor the Court of Special Appeals will be addressing the substantive issues raised in the lawsuit.  The appeal deals simply with the issue of whether the plaintiffs’ lawsu it is so devoid of merit that it doesn’t deserve to be in court at all.  If the Court of Appeals agrees with Judge Caroom that the complaint does not even deserve to proceed, the case is over. 

Alternatively, if the Court of Appeals disagrees with Judge Caroom, the case will be remanded to the Circuit Court and the Association will have the opportunity to make additional dispositive motions and, if necessary, will have the opportunity to present the facts surrounding the 2005-2006 election.  

Sincerely,

Hank

Henry J. Sanford
Treasurer and CFO