Thornton Mellon LLC v. Adrianne Dennis Exempt Trust (2022)
Citation: No. 28, Sept. Term 2021; 478 Md. 280; 274 A.3d 380 · Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland (Maryland’s then-highest court, since renamed the Supreme Court of Maryland) · Argued: March 3, 2022 · Decided: April 25, 2022
A maryland decision holding that a tax-sale certificate holder’s post-complaint attorney’s fees under Tax-Property § 14-843(a)(4) are discretionary, and that a court may deny them where the holder impeded the owner’s right-of-redemption.
Facts
After buying a property at a Maryland tax sale, Thornton Mellon LLC (the tax sale certificate holder) sought reimbursement of attorney’s fees in connection with foreclosing the owner’s right of redemption. The certificate holder’s conduct included billing the owner for attorney’s fees and a complaint-filing fee before any complaint had actually been filed, providing the owner with a redemption release that erroneously stated it was expired, and not promptly explaining the error or confirming the release was valid. The owner ultimately paid all amounts necessary to redeem. The Circuit Court for Frederick County declined to award the certificate holder its attorney’s fees under TP § 14-843(a)(4)(i), and also declined to award fees in “exceptional circumstances” under § 14-843(a)(4)(iii).
Holding
“[T]he determination of whether to order reimbursement of attorney’s fees under Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 14-843(a)(4)(i), after a complaint to foreclose the right of redemption has been filed, is discretionary, and … in making the determination as to reimbursement, a circuit court may consider whether the tax sale certificate holder impeded or hindered the property owner’s exercise of the right of redemption.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed: the plain language of TP § 14-843(a)(4) is unambiguous in vesting trial courts with discretion over fee reimbursement, and the legislative history confirms a General Assembly intent to encourage redemption. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where the certificate holder failed to cooperate and instead impeded the owner’s redemption efforts; nor did it abuse its discretion in denying “exceptional circumstances” fees under § 14-843(a)(4)(iii).
Reasoning
- Plain language. The statute’s text shows the fee award is permissive, not mandatory; trial courts hold discretion to grant or deny it.
- Legislative purpose. Maryland’s tax-sale statutes are designed to encourage redemption by owners. Reading § 14-843(a)(4) to compel fee awards even where the holder obstructed redemption would conflict with that purpose.
- Conduct matters. Pre-billing fees before filing, issuing an erroneously “expired” release, and failing to promptly correct the error were precisely the kind of obstruction the trial court could weigh in denying reimbursement.
Practical impact
- For investors/operators holding Maryland tax-sale certificates: post-complaint attorney’s-fee reimbursement is not automatic. Conduct that impedes the owner’s redemption (premature billing, misleading releases, slow correction) can cost the holder its fee recovery. Clean, cooperative redemption handling protects fee claims. See right-of-redemption.
- For former owners: a certificate holder that obstructs redemption may be denied the attorney’s fees it tries to add to the redemption amount, lowering the cost to redeem.
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided by Maryland’s highest court in 2022; not overruled as of last_verified 2026-06-02. (The court has since been renamed the Supreme Court of Maryland, effective December 2022, but the decision and its construction of TP § 14-843 remain controlling.)
Why it matters
This is the controlling Maryland authority that a tax-sale buyer’s fee shifting against a redeeming owner is discretionary and forfeitable through bad behavior — a meaningful check on certificate holders who try to load the redemption amount with fees.
Related authorities
- heartwood-88-v-montgomery-county-2004 — Maryland tax-sale refund-rate limits when a sale is void for paid taxes.
- scott-v-seek-lane-venture-1992 — Maryland foreclosure-of-redemption set aside for inadequate notice.
Applies in →
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.