<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: MARYLAND CONDO’S RIGHT TO RECOVERY ATTORNEY’S FEES IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT CASE	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://cowielawgroup.com/condominium-associations-right-to-recovery-attorneys-fees-in-construction-defect-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://cowielawgroup.com/condominium-associations-right-to-recovery-attorneys-fees-in-construction-defect-case/</link>
	<description>A Construction, Condo, Business and Litigation Law Firm</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 17:40:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: COWIE &#38; MOTT - Attorney&#039;s Fees DC Construction Defect Claims		</title>
		<link>https://cowielawgroup.com/condominium-associations-right-to-recovery-attorneys-fees-in-construction-defect-case/#comment-1473</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[COWIE &#38; MOTT - Attorney&#039;s Fees DC Construction Defect Claims]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:31:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cowiemott.com/?page_id=791#comment-1473</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Affairs.&#160;For an article discussing the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,&#160;See&#160;“Condominium Association’s Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees in Construction Defect Cases,” by Nicholas D. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Affairs.&nbsp;For an article discussing the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,&nbsp;See&nbsp;“Condominium Association’s Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees in Construction Defect Cases,” by Nicholas D. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: COWIE &#38; MOTT &#8211; DC Condominium Construction Defect Attorneys &#8211; Treble Damages and Attorneys fees under the CPPA by Nicholas D. Cowie		</title>
		<link>https://cowielawgroup.com/condominium-associations-right-to-recovery-attorneys-fees-in-construction-defect-case/#comment-1468</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[COWIE &#38; MOTT &#8211; DC Condominium Construction Defect Attorneys &#8211; Treble Damages and Attorneys fees under the CPPA by Nicholas D. Cowie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2020 16:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cowiemott.com/?page_id=791#comment-1468</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] This is the terminology and interpretation guidance used in many other state consumer protection acts, including Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act,&#160;Maryland Commercial Law Article&#160;§§ 13-105 and 13-301. For example, The Maryland Court of Appeals, relying upon “the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts,” held that&#160;&#160;“[i]mplicit in any advertisement and rental of an apartment is the representation that the leasing of the apartment is lawful” and in compliance with licensing laws.&#160;Golt&#160;v.&#160;Phillips, 308 Md. 1, 9-10,&#160;fn. 3 and accompanying text&#160;(Md.&#160;1986) (“[f]or consumer protection purposes, the meaning of any statement or representation is determined not only by what is explicitly stated, but also by what is reasonably implied”). Likewise, it is implicit in the sale of a newly constructed condominium in the District of Columbia that the condominium complies with applicable building codes and laws requiring compliance with approved plans and specifications submitted to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.&#160;For an article discussing the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,&#160;See&#160;“Condominium Association’s Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees in Construction Defect Cases,” b&#8230;. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] This is the terminology and interpretation guidance used in many other state consumer protection acts, including Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act,&nbsp;Maryland Commercial Law Article&nbsp;§§ 13-105 and 13-301. For example, The Maryland Court of Appeals, relying upon “the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts,” held that&nbsp;&nbsp;“[i]mplicit in any advertisement and rental of an apartment is the representation that the leasing of the apartment is lawful” and in compliance with licensing laws.&nbsp;Golt&nbsp;v.&nbsp;Phillips, 308 Md. 1, 9-10,&nbsp;fn. 3 and accompanying text&nbsp;(Md.&nbsp;1986) (“[f]or consumer protection purposes, the meaning of any statement or representation is determined not only by what is explicitly stated, but also by what is reasonably implied”). Likewise, it is implicit in the sale of a newly constructed condominium in the District of Columbia that the condominium complies with applicable building codes and laws requiring compliance with approved plans and specifications submitted to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.&nbsp;For an article discussing the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,&nbsp;See&nbsp;“Condominium Association’s Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees in Construction Defect Cases,” b&#8230;. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
