3919 NEH v. Salinas

3919 NEH, LLC v. Salinas, No. 0284, Sept. Term, 2024. Opinion by Reed, J. Appellee home buyer (Buyer) filed action against Seller, 3919 NEH, LLC, for breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act for damages arising out of Seller’s failure to disclose presence of animal waste and infestation in attic, and whether those issues had been remediated prior to settlement. Seller completed the Real Property Disclosure Statement a few months prior to the sale, as required by Section 10-702 of the Real Property Article. Md. Code (1996, 2023 Repl. Vol., 2025 Supp.) § 10-702 of the Real Property Article. (Disclosure Statement). The Disclosure Statement provided that seller had no actual knowledge of any latent defects in the property. When the Buyer obtained a home inspection before settlement, that inspector reported the presence of animal waste in the attic. Buyer informed the Seller prior to settlement about the infestation, and Seller hired a contractor to conduct a remediation. Shortly after taking possession, Buyer noticed effects and/or presence of animal activity in the attic. Buyer hired an exterminator, which sent a technician to examine the attic. The technician observed a relatively minimal amount of animal waste. Buyer and his family left for a vacation, and on their return detected a significant odor and possible activity in the attic. The pest control technician returned, and discovered extensive amounts of animal waste and observed that a screen intended to prevent entry by wildlife into the attic was insufficient. The jury found that the contractor who was responsible for the repair and remediation was the Seller’s agent and that the contractor’s knowledge of any latent defects, viz effects of animal infestation and resulting damage, was imputed to the Seller, thus finding that the Seller had actual knowledge. Seller argued that it had fulfilled its disclosure obligations under Section 10-702, and should not have been liable for the contractor’s knowledge. Its focus in its Motion for Judgment NOV and on appeal was that its disclosure obligation was limited by its representation on the Residential Disclosure form. It asserted that the trial court misrepresented the disclosure law. The Maryland Association of Realtors filed an amicus brief, arguing that the jury’s verdict ran counter to the law and warning that the trial court’s error places a burden on sellers not contemplated by the General Assembly and that the protections of the Disclosure Statute will be lost. The court disagreed, and upheld the jury’s finding that the contractor’s knowledge would be imputed to the Seller-principal. During the litigation, Seller sought the oral deposition testimony of Buyer’s spouse, who claimed that she was unable to be present for this testimony because of mental health issues. Following extensive litigation of this issue, the circuit court issued a protective order initially excusing the spouse from providing oral deposition testimony based on letters from health care professionals. At trial, the Seller argued that the pest control technician should not have been accepted as an expert. She had earlier testified at deposition that she was not an expert. The trial court accepted her as an expert, citing her extensive experience and credentials, but limited her testimony, as urged by Seller’s counsel, to the contents of her report. Seller also raised the issue of spoliation of evidence. The trial court permitted the pest control technician to testify about the extent of animal waste that had been removed from the attic and then discarded. Spoliation was not established, given that the waste had been discarded over a year prior to the commencement of this action. Further, Seller did not raise this issue until filing its Motion for Judgment. Both sides were awarded attorney’s fees. Buyer’s counsel received a greater proportion of the total fees awarded. Although Maryland follows the American Rule, which provides that parties bear their own counsel fees regardless of the outcome of litigation, fees recovered here were based in part on the fee shifting provision of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the real estate sales contract. Held. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment on the jury’s findings on the merits. The Court upheld the finding that the contractor’s knowledge was imputed to the Seller, such that the Seller knew of the continuing presence of the animal infestation and the effects thereof. The Court pointed out in a footnote that contractors can in many instances be agents, and further noted authority that a contractor may not constitute an agent in some circumstances. Although Seller argued that the construction company contractor was not an agent, its focus was on its disclosure obligations under Section 10-702 of the Real Property Article and it did not adequately brief this argument before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a protective order so that Buyer’s spouse would not be compelled to appear for an oral deposition. The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the pest control technician as an expert. The trial court cited the technician’s extensive experience and training in so ruling, and limited her testimony essentially to the four corners of her written report. The Appellate Court rejected Seller’s argument that the trial court erred by admitting the pest control technician’s report based in part on evidence of animal waste that the technician’s company had discarded. The Panel noted that the issue was not raised until Seller’s Motion for Judgment. Further, the Court pointed out that the waste had been discarded over one year prior to the lawsuit. Finally, the Court vacated the attorney’s fee award and remanded to the trial court to consider in detail the factors set forth in Md. Rule 2-703(f)(3). STANDARD OF REVIEW – SUMMARY JUDGMENT Appellate review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment is common. An appellate court has plenary review of a lower court’s ruling. Less common is appellate review of a denial of a motion seeking summary judgment. That standard is an abuse of discretion, as the Court concluded. AGENCY – IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE. The Court reiterates that “[o]ne of the general principles of an agency relationship is that the knowledge of the agent is knowledge of the principal.” Anderson v. General Casualty Ins. Co., 402 Md. 236, 248 (2007). Even an independent contractor can be considered an agent in the appropriate circumstance. The jury found that knowledge held by the contractor in this instance was imputed to the Seller, and thus found both intentional and negligent misrepresentation about the condition of the property. As to the nature of the agency relationship, the Court concluded that Seller failed adequately to argue in its brief whether the contractor, Distinct Construction, was an agent. The Court emphasizes that “arguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal.” Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 215 Md. App. 244, 269 n. 15 (2013). In this instance, Seller’s argument was focused on the Disclosure statute and its supposed limitations on a Seller’s obligations. REAL PROPERTY – DISCLOSURE – COMMON LAW REMEDIES – MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. The residential disclosure provisions of Section 10-702 of the Real Property Article continue to be viable and the Court’s decision leaves that provision in place. The Court emphasizes that common law and statutory consumer protections are available to a buyer in the appropriate case. Specifically, causes of action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation have not been displaced by Section 10-702. Further, relief under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act remains available in an appropriate case such as that present here. DISCOVERY - PROTECTIVE ORDER – ORAL DEPOSITION The Court upheld the circuit court’s issuance of a protective order excusing Buyer’s spouse from sitting for an oral deposition. The lower court accepted representations from two mental health professional’s that requiring the spouse to testify at an oral deposition would be harmful. Seller insisted that the justification was inadequate. Although the spouse answered written questions and was later ordered to testify at trial, and refused to appear, there was no abuse of discretion in the issuance of the circuit court’s earlier protective order. PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY – FEDERAL INTERPRETATIONS OF CIVIL RULES The Court rejected Buyer’s complaint that Seller cited only federal cases as authority for its discovery argument. The Court emphasizes that while “federal cases are not controlling,” Maryland Courts may “look for guidance to federal decisions construing the corresponding federal rule[.]” See Tanis v. Crocker, 110 Md. App. 559, 574 (1996). See also Paul V. Niemeyer & Linda M. Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary, 472 (6th ed. 2024). ATTORNEY’S FEES The Court vacates the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and remands for a detailed consideration of the factors set forth in Md. Rule 2-703(f)(3). The entitlement to fees is based on the contractual provisions and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Circuit Court for Howard County Case No.: C-13-CV-21-000596 REPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND No. 0284 September Term, 2024 ______________________________________ 3919 NEH, LLC v. ERICK GALBAN SALINAS ______________________________________ Reed, Tang, Wright, Alexander, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Reed, J. _____________________________________ Filed: October 5, 2026 * Judge Anne Albright did not participate in the Court’s decision to designate this opinion for publication pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-605.1. Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.10.05 15:41:00 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk  This is an appeal by a real estate seller, 3919 NEH, LLC (“NEH”), from a judgment entered after a jury trial awarding damages and attorneys’ fees to the home purchaser, Erick Galban Salinas (Salinas). A jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County returned verdicts finding NEH liable for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, related to alleged misrepresentations of the presence of latent defects in the property and whether they were remedied prior to settlement. NEH seeks appellate review of the judgment, adverse rulings by the circuit court on various motions, and the attorneys’ fees awards. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. BACKGROUND Factual Background NEH is described as a “Maryland corporation … which is in the business of home renovation and resale[.]” John Matthew Burgess, a member of NEH, described the entity as a “consultant company that helps people buy and sell real estate or … invest in real estate.”1 In August 2018, NEH acquired a single-family house on Canvasback Drive in 1 We have considered portions of the trial transcripts that are not included in the record extract. Maryland Rule 8-501(c) provides in part that the “record extract shall contain all parts of the record that are reasonably necessary for the determination of the questions presented[.]” Although the rule does not preclude our consideration of a part of the record that is not included in the record extract, see Rule 8-501(c), “[w]e cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to [the] appellant.” Rollins v. Capital Plaza Associates, L.P., 181 Md. App. 188, 201 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Notwithstanding, we consider it necessary to set forth additional portions from the record to provide a helpful timeline and clearer picture of events. Columbia (“property”), and hired Fred Berger, a contractor and owner of Distinct Construction Services, LLC, to renovate the property by removing all the interior contents and fixtures; a second contractor removed and disposed of the prior occupant’s belongings.2 Berger had worked with NEH before and produced excellent results in renovating properties. On this occasion, his company’s proposal was also “competitive” and his availability was timely. After completing the renovations, NEH listed the property for sale. On April 10, 2019, Ernest Steven Loffler, another member of NEH, completed a “Maryland Residential Property Disclosure and Disclaimer Statement” (“Disclosure Statement”) for the property.3 By signing the Disclosure Statement, he represented that there were no “material defects, including latent defects, affecting the physical condition of the property” that were known to him. On July 1, Salinas made an offer to NEH for the purchase of the property.4 The Disclosure Statement was delivered to Salinas at that time. There is no indication that he requested an updated Disclosure Statement. The Contract for Sale provided that the property was sold “as is.” Loffler accepted the contract on July 2 on behalf of NEH, and settlement was completed on July 29. 2 In its brief to this Court, NEH represents that the house was “gutted.” 3 See Md. Code (1996, 2023 Repl. Vol., 2025 Supp.) § 10-702 of the Real Property Article. (Disclosure Statement). 4 Salinas testified at his November 28, 2022 deposition that while his spouse, Freyja Rose Galban, was also on the deed, he was “the only one on the mortgage.” 2  Prior to settlement, the property was inspected by Salinas’ mortgage lender, which appraised the property for purposes of evaluating the value for his VA loan. The VA loan inspector did not report the presence of any defects. A termite inspection was conducted on July 16, and this inspection reported no issues with the attic. Salinas also had an inspection conducted at his expense and enlisted Highland Home Inspections Inc. (Highland) to complete this task. A Highland inspector, accompanied by Salinas, surveyed the property on July 10. They went up into the attic and Salinas was with the Highland inspector when he saw animal feces. Highland Inspections submitted a detailed report that day. They discovered the presence of animal feces in the attic underneath insulation. The inspector pulled up insulation at an area above where he had seen staining in the ceiling; he did not pull up insulation from other locations in the attic.5 When this came to light, Salinas contacted his real estate agent, Ashley Migliore, who then informed NEH by an email dated July 11.6 He expected NEH to address the condition of 5 The Highland inspector reported his observations and provided an urgent recommendation: Condition: • Evidence of active moisture presence was noted at the time of the inspection, visually and as determined by using a moisture meter. Above the stained area, within the attic, was a large amount of feces under the insulation and between the joists; more than likely left by a rac[c]oon (photo is only example). I believe the stain in the closet is from urine and decomposed feces. Animal urine and feces can lead to major health concerns. I recommend that all feces be removed immediately and affected ceiling drywall be replaced. 6 The agent sent an email to Salinas confirming that NEH would address this issue. She wrote: “The home inspection went well and the seller agreed to make the requested repairs even though it was an AS IS sale. That’s amazing.” 3 the attic. He also testified that he would have terminated the contract if NEH “had not agreed to make these repairs.” He proceeded with the sale, however, because he was assured that the repairs were made. He testified that he “got the actual document at closing that everything that we had requested was repaired.” Salinas and his agent returned to the property on Friday, July 26, three days prior to settlement, to “make sure” that repairs had been completed. He testified that “not everything had been fixed and we also weren’t able to get into the attic.”7 NEH arranged for this inspection, and Salinas was not prevented or restricted from accessing any part of the property. He thought that he could see the property on the morning of the closing, July 29, but he could not enter the house because the lockbox had been removed. At closing on July 29, Salinas “was provided with a document that listed the items that were repaired[.]” That document, the July 22 invoice from Distinct Construction, LLC, was admitted as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, and stated that the “Animal feces found inside attic and in the insulation and staining on closet ceiling from animal feces repaired.” Salinas understood from this that all the items that needed to be addressed “were repaired or remediated.” Salinas and his family started moving in after closing on July 29. During this process, they were aware of an odor in the house. He recounted: [Salinas’ Counsel]: Okay, and during the move-in process … did you notice anything about the home? A: Yes. We noticed that there was a smell in the house, like a foul smell that we couldn’t place where it was coming from. And so we tried to clean as much as we could, especially because we had our infant son so we wanted 7 The attic would have been accessible, if Salinas had brought a ladder to reach that part of the property. 4  to make sure just we weren’t exposing him to something that we’re just not aware of. And then also, we noticed some noises coming from the attic as well. Salinas called an exterminator, Orkin Residential Services, and a representative responded that same day. The Orkin specialist “went into the attic just to see what they could find and they were able to find some animal waste in the attic.” Salinas testified that “[a]fter that … we reached out again to our real estate agent and asked her to reach out to the sellers.”8 At this point, Salinas and his family had planned on visiting his family in Puerto Rico for a vacation, and they left the house “shortly after that.” From there, they attempted without success to contact their agent so she could raise this issue with the sellers.9 The transcript reflects the following: Q: Okay, and while you were in Puerto Rico, what did you do if anything about what Orkin found in your home? A: We attempted to contact the real estate agent several times just hoping that she would be able to contact and speak to the sellers to see about addressing the situation because it was supposed to have been addressed and we just never heard back. 8 It is unclear from Salinas’ testimony whether the agent contacted NEH. That agent, Ms. Migliore, had passed away in 2019. 9 Salinas recalled that “[w]e attempted to contact the real estate agent several times just hoping that she would be able to contact and speak to the sellers to see about addressing the situation because it was supposed to have been addressed and we just never heard back.” Plaintiff’s expert, Ms. Celeste Holman-Curlee, testified that Salinas’ wife, Ms. Galban, who had tried to reach their agent without success, complained that “they’d actually blocked [Galban’s] number.” 5  The Salinas family returned from Puerto Rico on August 22 and noticed that the odor had worsened. They tried cleaning the house again and contacted Orkin, which scheduled a “full-on inspection.” That inspection revealed “a lot of stuff in the attic, different animal waste, feces, urine[,] vomit.” The inspector also noted that the “gable vents themselves were not screened.” Salinas explained: “That’s how the animals were getting in. And [there were] other points of ingress into the house.” Following this, Salinas and family went to a hotel. During this time, Orkin personnel took about “5, 6 days” to clean the attic and seal any entry points, allowing the Salinas family to return. Orkin prepared a report on August 29. After completing the repairs and removing the soiled materials, Orkin employees discarded those items. On cross-examination, Salinas acknowledged that he did not know the condition of the property on April 10, 2019, when the Disclosure Statement had been completed. Nor did he know whether Loffler, or anyone else at NEH, knew about the animals in the attic, or any undisclosed latent defect, as of April 10. Nor was Salinas aware that he could have requested an updated Disclosure Statement. Salinas also acknowledged that the mortgage lender’s VA appraisal inspector discovered no animal activity in the attic. Nor did a termite inspection reveal any animal activity or presence in the attic. 10 The cross-examination 10 In its brief, NEH emphasizes that “[Salinas] was not informed of any animal activity in the attic after the termite inspection or the inspection to appraise the Property’s value in connection with his mortgage loan application.” While it is not clear whether the VA appraiser was able to access the attic, the [termite] inspector who prepared the “Wood Destroying Insect Inspection Report” indicated that there was “No access or entry” to the attic when he reported that certain areas “were obstructed or inaccessible.” 6 turned to the July 10 home inspection that had been arranged by Salinas, as well as his opportunities to inspect the property in the days before closing. Salinas didn’t know how many animals had entered the attic, when they deposited their excrement, especially when his family was in Puerto Rico, and whether the animals had burrowed under the insulation. He testified, however, that “there was stuff found before I went on vacation[.]” He also acknowledged that he did not know whether any member of NEH, or their contractor, had actual knowledge of the animal waste. He insisted, however, that “they [the conditions] were concealed.” Loffler, a member of NEH, described the process of buying this property and removing all the house’s contents. NEH hired Berger’s company, Distinct Construction, to complete the renovation of the house, and another contractor to do the “cleanout, which is take all the junk out and fill up the dumpsters and so on.” Loffler would periodically visit the property to observe Berger’s work. He emphasized that Berger had done “great work”; Berger had worked on several projects for NEH with good results. Loffler recalled that the property was listed for sale shortly after the Disclosure Statement had been signed. He testified that during the period when it was vacant, he would check on the property “[w]eekly, at least” by conducting a “[t]op to bottom inspection of just a visual walkthrough.” He had never gone into the attic. During open-house events, no person had complained to Loffler about any smells or odors coming out of the attic. He emphasized that “[a]t no time was there any smell nor sounds. No sounds, no smell, nothing.” 7  Loffler recounted that the property had been “inspected by Howard County, top to bottom.” He testified that Salinas had arranged for a home inspection on July 10, 2019, after which his real estate agent, Ashley Migliore, sent an email to John Burgess with a list of items that needed attention, including “[a]nimal activity in attic, feces found inside attic and in the insulation and staining on closet ceiling from animal feces.” Based on these revelations, NEH engaged Distinct Construction to address this issue. When asked whether the contractor had any “specialized training in animal waste removal or remediation[,]” Loffler responded: “There was nothing needed in this particular situation. It was just some waste in some insulation that needed to be replaced.” Before Berger started the repairs, NEH contacted John Adcock, owner of Adcock’s Trapping Service, who sent a representative to inspect the attic. The results of this inspection were “very minor.” It was, according to Loffler, “not a major project.” Loffler relied on Berger’s representation that the work had been done and did not personally check on the work “[b]ecause he has done other projects for us, and did good work and we’d never had a problem.” No one at NEH inspected Berger’s work “[b]ecause we never follow up on a -- once we give him a punch list, it’s taken care of.” Loffler did not know of any undisclosed latent defect in the house prior to the settlement date. Nor did he have any knowledge of existing defects in the attic after receiving Berger’s invoice that stated that all issues have been addressed; he “heard nothing more about that.” John Burgess recalled that the previous owner of the house was a “hoarder,” that the house “was worn” and required a contractor to remove all the building’s contents for renovation. To accomplish this, NEH contracted with Berger of Distinct Construction 8 Services to “tak[e] care of … all of the rehab.” He emphasized that during all the open house events, no one reported animal activity in the attic or a bad smell. Burgess described the actions NEH took after receiving the Highland inspection report: Once we got the home inspection -- or not the home inspection, the additional punch list of items, I told Steve to please call Adcock right away. We had used them over the years. They have been very good at what they’ve done. And we called them right away to get in there to see if there was any -- because she said animal activity, our concern was that there were live animals up there, which we didn’t know about. So we called them right away to get up there ASAP, as soon as possible to take a look at that. *** [T]hey did the inspection and they informed us that it was free and clear. There were no animals up there. And he noticed two spots of fecal matter, as Ashley had reported to us. But it was free and clear and there were no animals in the attic. *** [T]here was some feces … droppings in the attic and no active entry points found along the roof line. Salinas and his realtor, Ashley Migliore, conducted a “final walkthrough” on the Friday before closing. Ms. Migliore contacted Burgess and reported that “the purchasers 9 wanted some more items taken care of.” He assured her that NEH would take care of these items, notwithstanding the fact that this sale involved an “as-is situation.”11 Burgess insisted that he did not know of any latent defects in the house prior to the closing date. He had “first learn[ed] about animal activity in the attic” after Ms. Migliore called him “[a]fter the [July 10] home inspection.” On cross-examination, Burgess acknowledged that NEH had filed a lawsuit against Fred Berger and Adcock claiming that any damages incurred by Salinas were attributable to those contractors. Eventually, NEH and those contractors entered into a settlement agreement. Fred Berger has been a general contractor since 1986. He emphasized that he is not an employee of NEH, but serves as a contractor. He operates his business in Washington, D.C. and was licensed in Maryland as a home improvement contractor. He acknowledged that, at the time of the events of this matter, his Maryland contractor’s license was inactive; it had been forfeited. On cross-examination, Berger also acknowledged that his company’s LLC had been forfeited in the State of Maryland at the time his contract with NEH had been signed. Berger was contracted to renovate the property in early 2019. He detected no signs of any animal activity during his process. He stressed that should any of the workers find signs of animal activity or some other pre-existing problems with the house, they would identify the problem and inform Berger, who would then report to Burgess or Loffler. 11 “In the case of an ‘as is’ sale, the purchaser bears considerably greater risk, and generally has no remedy for later-discovered damage to, or defects on the property, unless there is a showing that the seller committed fraud or otherwise acted in bad faith.” Wonder City, LLC v. Dipietro, 268 Md. App. 218, 229 (2025) (citation omitted). 10 Berger emphasized that he saw no signs of anything when he had the attic insulation installed. Asked about the two times that his workers went to the house to address issues in the attic, Berger testified: [NEH Counsel]: … And do you recall doing work regarding the … attic? *** A: Yes, we were given a picture of some stuff. I sent the guys back up to remove it, put it into the trash bag and put it out to the front where the dumpster was. Q: Okay. And was the insulation replaced? A: Yes, sir. Q: There was also I guess staining of the ceiling below that area. Do you recall that? A: I think there was something there and I think we spot primed it with KILZ and then we just touched up. We did a lot of touchups and house. Q: Okay, did you know about any animal activity in attic before that time when you were asked to address that? A: No, sir. Q: And did you provide a document to Loffler stating that you performed the work? A Yes, sir. … [W]e document to the owners indicating this was done, this was done and this was done. 11 Berger’s workers last went to the property on the weekend before closing to address three items that had been noted by Ms. Migliore. He said that “[i]t was very minor.” John Adcock testified for the plaintiff. He “ran a company [Adcock’s Trapping Service] that removes nuisance wildlife from people’s homes.” One of the services provided by Adcock Trapping is home inspections. He recalled that an Adcock technician, Mr. Gann, inspected the property on July 16. A “proposal” form addressed to Loffler was created based on this inspection. The technician observed “Raccoon[] feces in the attic (very old droppings). No active entry points found along the roof line.” He recommended the following action: “Removing fascia under front gable vent and around attic access panel. Deodorize and replace approx. (1) piece of R30 insulation under gable vent.” Mr. Adcock’s company was not hired to complete the tasks recommended in its proposal. On cross-examination, Adcock was asked whether the issue described in the proposal was a “difficult issue, a serious issue for [the] trapping service to provide[.]” He testified that “[f]rom the evidence that this reads, apparently did not appear to be any big deal.” Celeste Holman-Curlee is a regional field-trainer for “Orkin Pest Control under Rollins Brands.”12 She has also been a certified home inspector and branch manager for Orkin. In her current position, she “train[s] new inspectors for signs and things of what’s going on in the home, what are the symptoms of bigger problems and issues, moisture, the types of droppings, type of scat, what pests leave them and how to remediate them.” Her 12 We will refer to Ms. Holman-Curlee as Ms. Curlee, which is how her name appears in the transcript. 12 current level of experience in this field was gained through “training and through experience[.]” Based on her responses, Ms. Curlee was proffered over objection as an expert in the field of pest control. A bench conference ensued and the transcript reflects the following exchange: [NEH Counsel]: Your Honor, I specifically asked her during her deposition if she has any expert opinions. She said, “No, I’m not an expert.” [Salinas’ Counsel]: Your Honor, she’s testified to her experience, to her level of training, to being in over 15,000 attics, to doing this work over a decade, the specific training that she has animal scat. I understand what Mr. Golding is saying, but I believe we’ve met the qualifications for designation as an expert under the law. THE COURT: Looking at that, although individuals don’t necessarily identify themselves as experts, sometimes they are, even just like that. She has described the level of experience that I think goes beyond the common person in this area. And I believe that she may be helpful to the jurors who might not also have that level of experiences. I will, over objection, identify her as an expert. *** She’s limited as to what is reported in the general topics that are in her report. She can’t go beyond her report. Ms. Curlee first responded to the property in early August, before the Salinas family went on vacation to Puerto Rico. She went into the attic, walked through the attic quickly, “saw a small area of daylight down at the end and saw some squirrel droppings.” As a result, she recommended that Salinas contact their agent or their home inspector. 13  After the Salinas family returned from Puerto Rico, they contacted Ms. Curlee again because it “smelled like something [had] died in the house.” She returned to the house, and again ascended to the attic and “started pulling up the insulation, the newer bat[ted] … insulation[]” and “found mouse droppings, raccoon scat, squirrel droppings[.]” She described it as the “worst contamination [she had] seen in an attic.” She had prepared an inspection report for Orkin Pest Control, and was asked to comment on portions of the report, which contained photographs and video recordings. When asked about the screens that should cover the gable vents for ventilation, she testified: A: They’re the gable vents for ventilation in an attic. They show that the lower portion of those gable vents have been rescreened, but not the upper portion. It was only a partial screening. They used a window screen as well, like for just a regular, traditional window, not like for wildlife, or hardware cloth, or anything like that. Q: Okay, and is there a specific type of screening used for wildlife? A: Yes, hardware cloth. Some people call it chicken wire, but yeah. Q: Would an animal be able to force its way through regular screening? A: Yes, absolutely. *** Q: So what you found – you’re saying there was, based on your findings, a layer of old insulation, then all of the animal waste, and then new insulation on top of that? A: Correct. 14  *** You can see the new insulation laid on top of the old, contaminated insulation. And so you can see the staining on the wood and everything from the urine and the feces. On cross-examination, Ms. Curlee explained that she did not notice an odor in the attic when she first went up there because she was wearing a full respirator. She was asked about her deposition testimony, in which she described the squirrel droppings on top of the new insulation as “no big deal.” She explained: “I viewed that as not a big deal because they just had a home inspection and they had just purchased the home. The squirrel droppings I saw were on top of the new insulation. ... The amount of contamination I saw on top of the newer insulation was very recent and very minimal.” 15  Circuit Court Litigation On September 1, 2021, Salinas and his spouse Freyja Rose Galban filed suit against NEH seeking damages in excess of $75,000 for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.13 NEH filed a counterclaim on January 10, 2022, asserting that Salinas did not attempt to mediate the claims in his complaint, and sought attorneys’ fees.14 On June 8, 2022, Salinas filed his “First Amended Complaint” that repeated the original counts and added a count alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.15 This matter would go before a circuit court jury, but not until NEH filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment” and a “Motion to Compel,” which were denied on April 5.16 A four-day trial commenced on April 22, 2024. After the plaintiff rested, NEH moved for judgment. Counsel for NEH asserted that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that 13 The Amended Complaint also alleged that NEH breached the contract for failing to reply to Salinas’ “requests to begin the mediation process[]” as provided in the contract. In addition, Salinas complained about defects in the chimneys and basement fireplace. The chimneys and fireplace issues are not implicated in this appeal, although they are relevant to attorneys’ fees. NEH did not respond to the mediation request because “there was no factual merit to Salinas’ accusations and … the Request for Mediation was made more than a year after” the transfer of property. 14 The counterclaimant NEH also filed a “Third Party Complaint” against Distinct Constru