“Where did the time go?” We ask this question all the time, whether we have a deadline approaching quickly, or we are enjoying a few more hours on the beach during the last day of a vacation. We often find ourselves thinking we have more time, until we don’t. When talking about Statutes of Limitations, it is important to make sure that you don’t let time fly by and find yourself without any left. Failing to act in time can have unfortunate consequences and could leave you (and you pockets) empty handed.

Statutes of Limitations apply to many areas of law and they control the amount of time you have to act. Much like a deadline at work, in most cases if you don’t do what you have to do in the time you are given, mostly bad consequences will result. At work, you may get scolded by a boss. In the law, you may miss out on your opportunity to sue someone, charge someone, or recover money that others owe you. In all those cases, running out of time is never a good thing and it often leaves you with no possibilities to get more time.

The statute of limitations for your case will depend on the area of law in which your case falls. In most cases, people are dealing with the limitations period for personal injury. In Maryland, the limitations period for personal injury cases is three years. This means that if someone injures you in a car accident and you would like to sue, you have three years to do so. If you wait too long, then most likely you are out of luck. You can still sue, but the defendant will have an absolute defense and you will lose your case. So it is very important for you to know the limitations period for your injury. For most areas of civil law, the statute of limitations is three years. These include:

• Contracts (Oral Contracts and those in writing without seal)
• False Imprisonment
• Fraud
• Legal Malpractice (which hopefully WE ALL never have to worry about)
• Medical Malpractice (The lesser of 3 years after discovered or 5 years after injury)
• Personal Injury
• Product Liability
• Property Damage
• Trespassing
• Wrongful Death

These are just a few examples for you. It is important to know that the limitations period begins to run when you know or should have known of your injury. So claiming you didn’t know you were injured in a car accident until your neck started hurting a year later will not change the fact that the clock was already ticking.

Another area of law where it is important to know the Statute of Limitations is with the enforcement of judgments. When a court decides that one party (creditor, ex-spouse, former client) owes another party money, there becomes a judgment against the debtor saying that he/she owes money to the other party. This judgment can include certain requirements such as a wage garnishment, an account levy, a lien on some property, or it can simply state that one party must pay the other money. When this judgment is filed, the clock starts ticking on the limitations time. For judgments in Maryland, the statute of limitations is 12 years.

It is very important to keep track of how much time has elapsed since the judgment was entered. Twelve years may seem like a long time, but people are often unable or unwilling to pay what they owe and before you know it, 12 years will have passed. Once that time runs out, the judgment no longer exists and the party no longer has to pay. In order to avoid the expiration of a judgment, a party can file to renew the judgment. You want to be sure to renew the judgment before the time elapses. Once 12 years has passed, the judgment will no longer exist and there will be nothing to renew.

As you can see, the Statute of Limitations can play a big part in your claim. It is one of the first things attorneys think of when discussing a case with potential clients. Whether you want to sue someone or are worried about being sued, it is important to know the time limits imposed by the statute of limitations.

If you have a possible claim against someone, don’t wait around to take action. Contact Fred Antenberg to discuss your claim and he can help explain the statute of limitations and your options for moving forward. Act quickly so you don’t find yourself asking, “Where did the time go?”

LIKE THIS ARTICLE?  CONNECT WITH US ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK TO KEEP UP WITH MORE ARTICLES THAT COULD HELP YOU OUT.

WAS YOUR SEARCH LEGAL?

Many people believe that a police officer must see you in the act of a crime in order to stop you and ask you some questions. The truth is, all that the officer needs is to see something that he reasonably believes to be suspicious. A “Terry Stop” is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon “reasonable suspicion” that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity. As you may recall, in order for an officer to legally arrest a suspect, the officer must have “probable cause” that the suspect committed a criminal offense. This distinction that is taught throughout the country to law students comes from standards established in a famous 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

The case discussed whether an officer may detain a person without probable cause, and perform a limited search of the person for weapons. In the end, the Court found that a police officer may in fact perform this search, justified by the officers concern for his own safety and those nearby. The officer does not need probably cause to perform this search, and any weapons (and other evidence) discovered during the legal execution of this search can be introduced into evidence.

Suppose a police officer sees a person acting in an unusual manner, such as pacing outside a convenience store/bank, and this observation leads to reasonably suspect a possibility that criminal activity is or may occur. In such an instance, the officer may approach the suspected person. If he has a concern that the person(s) may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer may briefly detain the subjects. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. After an initial questioning an investigation into the person(s) behavior, if the officer still has a reasonable suspicion/fear for the safety of himself and others, they may carefully perform a limited search of the outer clothing. This is performed in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her. The officer may not look in any closed containers, or place his hands inside pockets of the clothing, unless during the initial pat-down, he discovers something that he reasonably believes to be a weapon, or drug paraphernalia.

The “Terry Stop” is an issue that is often discussed in the courts. Questioning the legality of an officers search is always an area that attorneys must consider in their clients cases. Being able to recognize and distinguish the difference between a reasonable suspicion and probable cause can be the difference between a guilty and not guilty.

Our Criminal Attorney has the training and experience to identify these issues and properly defend our clients. If you believe you have been the victim of an illegal search and seizure, and are facing criminal charges as a result, CONTACT US immediately. Fred Antenberg will sit down with you during your FREE CONSULTATION to discuss whether you may have been the victim of an officer’s illegal search. Give Fred a call at 410-730-4404.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER, AND READ UP IN OTHER AREAS OF LAW AT FGALAW.COM

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

 Criminal Procedure, Right to counsel at bail determination: Under Maryland’s Public Defender statute, an indigent defendant has a right to appointed counsel at his or her initial appearance before a judicial officer in order for the judicial officer to determine whether there was probable cause for the arrest and, if so, whether the defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance, on bail, or not at all, because this initial appearance is a “critical proceeding” in the disposition of the case. DeWolfe v. Richmond, No. 34, Sept. Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 12-0104-20, 46 pages. Page

 Election Law, Ballot questions: The Maryland General Assembly has the power to enact general legislation before, and contingent on, the adoption of a constitutional amendment that it has proposed to the voters, and as a result, the General Assembly’s enactment of senate bill, which enacted comprehensive legislation that would regulate the implementation and the allocation of revenues originating from video lottery terminals in Maryland contingent on voter ratification of a constitutional amendment proposed by house bill which proposed to legalize video slot machine gambling and implement the Governor’s proposed revenue raising program, was constitutional. Stop Slots MD v. State Board of Elections, No. 87, Sept. Term, 2008. RecordFax No. 12-0106-20, 53 pages. Page

U.S. 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Administrative Law, Supplemental Security Income: Although intelligence testing examiner testified that Social Security disability claimant was functioning in the mild level of mental retardation, there existed substantial evidence to support finding by Administrative Law Judge that claimant was not disabled within the definition of the Social Security Act, where ALJ discredited examiner’s opinion and rejected the validity of the IQ score reported by examiner based on examiner’s failure to attest to the validity of the test results, as well as on inconsistency of the results with claimant’s actual functioning and the notes of treating psychiatrists. Hancock v. Astrue, No. 11-1001. RecordFax No. 12-0105-60, 10 pages. Page

Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction under FSIA: For purposes of analyzing subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), a foreign state and its armed forces are not separate legal persons, and as a result, court had subject matter jurisdiction over company’s claim against Republic of Iraq alleging breach of a contract entered into by Iraq’s Ministry of Defense. Wye Oak Technology, Incorporated v. Republic of Iraq, No. 10-1874. RecordFax No. 11-1229-60, 26 pages. Page

Constitutional Law, Second Amendment: Given defendant’s history of domestic violence and use of firearms, intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, applied to defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to statute prohibiting a person from knowingly possessing firearms and ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order. Because the government established a reasonable fit between the statute and its purpose of reducing gun violence, the statute was constitutional as applied to defendant. United States v. Chapman, No. 10-5071. RecordFax No. 12-0104-60, 16 pages. Page

Criminal Law, False ID: Statute making it a crime to knowingly and without lawful authority produce an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document if the false identification document is or “appears to be” issued under the authority of the United States was not unconstitutionally vague, and jury instruction properly stated the requisite mens rea. United States v. Jaensch, No. 10-5013. RecordFax No. 11-1229-62, 19 pages. Page

Criminal Procedure, Invasive search conducted in public: Police officers’ sexually invasive search of a handcuffed suspect who had previously been searched and did not appear to be armed, which was conducted in a public place and during which officer used a knife to remove a plastic baggie of cocaine that was secured to suspect’s penis by a rubber band, was unreasonable, and evidence seized during the search was therefore subject to exclusion under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Edwards, No. 10-4256. RecordFax No. 11-1229-61, 26 pages. Page

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

Criminal Law, Firearms: A “firearm” does not have to be operable in order to sustain a conviction under §5-133(c), which prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence or other specified offenses from possessing a regulated firearm. Moore v. State, No. 20, September Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-1222-20, 54 pages. Page

Estates & Trusts, Release of liability prior to distribution: ET §9-111 entitles a personal representative to obtain a release when she requests one even if acting pursuant to a court-approved distribution. Allen v. Ritter, No. 16, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 11-1215-21, 19 pages. Page

Health Care, Health Care Quality Improvement Act: Healthcare providers who disciplined doctor for unprofessional behavior were entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health Systems, No. 4, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 11-1219-21, 33 pages. Page

Insurance, Fairness of Hearing: The Maryland Insurance Administration’s hearing on cease-and-desist order was fair and without undue “command influence,” even though the Commissioner delegated that hearing and final administrative decision-making responsibility to a subordinate. Maryland Ins. Comm. v. Central Acceptance Corp., No. 7, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 11-1220-20, 45 pages. Page

Real property, Foreclosure by nonholder in possession: Defendants, as agents of the principal, were nonholders in possession of the negotiable instrument and were, therefore, entitled to enforce the plaintiffs’ mortgage through foreclosure. Anderson v Burson, No. 8, September Term, 2011. RecordFax No. 11-1220-21, 25 pages. Page

U.S. 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Admiralty Law, Constructive loss: Where plaintiffs’ yacht was damaged following an allision with an army vessel, doctrine of constructive loss applied to limit plaintiffs’ awardable damages to the market cost of the yacht. F.C. Wheat Maritime Corporation v. United States, No. 10-1906. RecordFax No. 11-1214-60, 18 pages. Page

Corporations and Partnerships, Remedies: Dismissal was warranted where former shareholder sued the corporation and its officers over the decline in share value, because he failed to allege facts showing the existence of a special duty between him and the defendants or that he suffered an injury separate and distinct from that suffered by other shareholders. Rivers v. Wachovia Corporation, No. 10-2222. RecordFax No. 11-1222-60, 14 pages. Page

Criminal Law, Conspiracy: Jury could find from totality of evidence that defendant had a continuous buy-sell relationship with drug suppliers and a standing agreement to bring their drugs to market in Virginia, evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions. United States v. Hackley, No. 10-4069. RecordFax No. 11-1206-60, 22 pages. Page

Criminal Procedure, Confrontation Clause: Expert’s testimony and report, which included expert’s interpretation of raw data prepared by analysts not present at trial, did not violate the Confrontation Clause, because expert’s opinion was an “original product” that could be and was readily tested through cross-examination. United States v. Summers, No. 06-5009. RecordFax No. 11-1216-60, 20 pages. Page

Criminal Procedure, Good-faith exception: While the search warrant application and police officers’ supporting affidavit were defective, the officers acted with objective reasonableness in relying on uncontroverted facts known to them but inadvertently not presented to the magistrate, and good-faith exception to exclusionary rule therefore applied. United States v. Colline McKenzie-Gude, No. 10-4119. RecordFax No. 11-1216-61, 17 pages. Page

Criminal Procedure, Stop-and-frisk: Given the totality of the circumstances, which included gas station’s location in a high-crime area, suspect’s observation of attendant at 4:40 a.m. from an area not covered by the station’s surveillance cameras, and officers’ knowledge that the station had been the target of previous armed robberies, the stop-and frisk of suspect was supported by reasonable suspicion and did not violate Fourth Amendment. United States v. Glover, No. 10-4462. RecordFax No. 11-1209-60, 12 pages. Page

Criminal Procedure, Sentencing: Trial court erred in basing sentences for drug conspiracy on the total amount of oxycodone that had been legally prescribed to one of the defendants for back-pain management, since the government failed to show the entire quantity was within the scope of the conspiracy. United States v. Bell, No. 10-4644; United States v. Gibson, No. 10-4651. RecordFax No. 11-1221-60, 29 pages. Page

Labor & Employment, Black Lung Benefits Act: The lower court properly gave retroactive application to §932(l) of the amended Black Lung Benefits Act, which provides that an eligible survivor of a miner who was receiving benefits at the time of his death is automatically entitled to survivors’ benefits without having to establish that the miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis. West Virginia CWP Fund v. Stacy, No. 11-1020. RecordFax No. 11-1221-60, 23 pages. Page

Labor & Employment, Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act: Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law was not a fundamental public policy; therefore, choice of law provision in company profit-sharing plan designating New Jersey as forum for lawsuits was enforceable against former employee. Kunda v. C.R. Bard, Incorporated, No. 09-1809. RecordFax No. 11-1223-60, 18 pages. Page

Real Property, Truth in Lending Act: Lender did not violate the Truth in Lending Act’s disclosure requirements in providing a refinancing borrower with a rescission-rights form intended for use with new mortgages, because the form actually used included all of the “effects of rescission” mandated by the TILA and Regulation Z. Watkins v. SunTrust Mortgage, Incorporated., No. 10-1915, No. 10-1915. RecordFax No. 11-1214-60, 24 pages. Page

——————————————————————————————————————–

The Daily Record — Providing essential legal knowledge for more than 120 years, featuring the latest law, government and business news. Visit www.TheDailyRecord.com for breaking news, the On the Record and Generation J.D. blogs, exclusive law coverage, special sections and a networking calendar. Sign up to be a TDR Insider to receive free daily breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox or text DailyRecord to 444888 to receive breaking news sent to your cell phone.