Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that, because Ms. Greisz did not allege any
injury related to the alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, she was entitled to only
statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, and the
bank’s tender of more than Ms. Greisz could have recovered even were she to have been
completely successful eliminated any actual controversy for the court to adjudicate. The
Court noted, however, that the Bank’s tender only related to the relief for one claim in the
complaint, and so the dismissal was not actually proper because it was not “an offer to settle
Greisz’s entire case against the bank,” but affirmed the trial court’s ruling because the
plaintiff waived that argument by not raising it. Id. at 1016 (emphasis in original).
In the instant case, the question before us is whether Crystal Ford’s tender of
compensatory damages rendered punitive damages under Mr. Frazier’s fraud claim
unavailable as a matter of law. The Court of Special Appeals answered this question in the
affirmative, relying on our jurisprudence that punitive damages must have a foundation in
an award of compensatory damages and on the fact that, because it was undisputed that Mr.
Frazier received all of the compensatory damages that he sought in his complaint, “there
were no further compensatory damages that Frazier could recover at a trial in the instant
case.” Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 200 Md. App. 285, 296, 27 A.3d 583, 589 (2011).
Punitive damages, under the Count of common law fraud, are governed by various
basic principles. Their purpose is to punish a defendant for certain tortious conduct
committed with actual malice, Ellerin v. Fairfax Savings, F.S.B., 337 Md. 216, 241-42, 652
A.2d 1117, 1129-30 (1995), and they are not available, absent an award of compensatory
5