Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc.

McDonald, j. It is sometimes the case that an individual bent on avoiding taxes exchanges the certainty of the tax liability for a risky, and perhaps fraudulent, investment that proves more costly in the long run. The instant litigation arises out of such a situation. We are asked to decide the nature of the investment — was it a “security” for purposes of application of the Maryland Securities Act? — and whether the long run was too long — are the claims barred by limitations?

We also consider the potential use at trial of a bankruptcy examiner’s report concerning the promoter of the investment scheme. We hold that an investment that combined a tenant-in-common interest in commercial real estate with a mandatory management contract with the affiliate of the seller and only a limited ability for the buyers to effect a change of management of the property is an “investment contract” and therefore a security for purposes of the Maryland Securities Act. We affirm the Circuit Court’s determination that the buyer’s claims under the Securities Act are barred by limitations insofar as they relate to registration under the Act. We reverse the court’s determination that the buyer’s claims under the Act that relate to alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the defendants are barred by limitations and remand for further consideration whether the limitations period as to those claims was tolled by affirmative fraudulent conduct of the defendants.

For a similar reason, we also reverse and remand for reconsideration the Circuit Court’s judgment that the buyer’s common law tort claims are time-barred as a matter of law. We decline to affirm the award of summary ⁵⁹² judgment on an alternative ground that the Circuit Court did not adopt. Finally, we affirm the Circuit Court’s decision to reserve judgment on the admissibility and use of a bankruptcy examiner’s report until it had additional information concerning the proposed use of the report in the context of the trial. Background Factual Background Except as otherwise indicated below, the following facts are undisputed in the record of this case, although the parties have some differences as to immaterial details and as to the inferences that may be drawn from these facts.

Mr. Mathews Seeks an Investment In 2003, Petitioner William H. Mathews, a retired school teacher and librarian, had owned and managed his rental properties for more than 40 years. At that time, he owned eleven rental properties near the campus of Towson University; he rented those properties primarily to students and faculty at the university. In response to anticipated deleterious changes in local zoning laws, Mr. Mathews decided to sell the properties. Ultimately, he was referred to Stephen Weiss, a real estate professional.

Mr. Weiss was then employed by W.C. Pinkard & Co., the predecessor in interest to Respondent Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc. (“Cassidy Turley”). 1 Mr. Mathews retained Cassidy Turley to market the properties, and in August 2004 the properties were sold to Bob Ward Companies for approximately $4 million. Mr. Mathews paid approximately $176,000 to Cassidy Turley as a commission. In order to receive more favorable tax treatment of the proceeds of the sale, Mr. Mathews sought to re-invest the proceeds in other real estate shortly after the sale. With Mr. Weiss’ advice, Mr. Mathews ultimately used much of the proceeds to purchase five fractional interests in various com ⁵⁹³ mercial office buildings located throughout the United States. 2 These fractional interests were called “Tenants in Common Interests” (“TICs”).

Mr. Weiss provided Mr. Mathews with binders containing various documents that described the particular TICs under consideration. TICs Each of the TICs in question was created by a company called DBSI, Inc., located near Boise, Idaho, or an affiliated company. The structure of the TICs are set forth in various written agreements and other materials. DBSI would purchase real estate, typically an office building, and divide it into TICs that it would then sell to investors.

Investors in the TICs were required, as a condition of the purchase, to agree to retain DBSI 3 as property manager, 4 in return for which DBSI promised a specified annual rate of return on the investment. DBSI would locate sub-tenants who would occupy the property and pay the rent that produced a revenue stream. Under the property management agreement, replacement of DBSI as property manager required a majority vote of all TIC owners of a given piece of property, as well as ⁵⁹⁴ indemnification of DBSI against any and all claims, actions, costs, damages, liabilities, deficiencies or expenses relating to the property. In the event that DBSI was terminated as property manager, a unanimous vote by the TIC owners was required to appoint a new manager.

Under the terms of a TIC agreement, there was no provision for direct control of the property by the TIC owners. Mr. Mathews received steady payments with respect to his TICs over the next few years and sold one of them. 5 However, in 2008, things changed. DBSI Bankruptcy; Examiner’s Report In 2008, Mr. Mathews learned that DBSI would be suspending payments for certain of the TICs. Mr. Mathews then contacted Mr. Weiss, who, according to Mr. Mathews, assured him that payments would resume and that he should not worry. 6 In November 2008, DBSI filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. 7 All of the properties underlying Mr. Mathews’ TICs became the subject of foreclosure proceedings.

The bankruptcy court appointed an attorney from a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm as an examiner to conduct an investigation into DBSI. In re: DBSI, Inc., No. 1:08-bk-12687 (D. Del. filed November 10, 2008). The examiner’s report describes a downward spiral fueled by related party transactions, conflicts of interest, growing debt disguised as equity, limited sources of revenue, complex and sloppy accounting, and the misleading of investors. Among other things, the ⁵⁹⁵ report describes the structure and marketing of the DBSI TICs.

The bankruptcy court ultimately made findings similar to those of the examiner in concluding that many of DBSI’s transactions were “either constructively or actually fraudulent” and that it would be futile to attempt to unravel many of the related party transactions. Licensing and Registration Status At the time Mr. Mathews purchased his TICs, Cassidy Turley was licensed by the Maryland Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. Neither Mr. Weiss nor Cassidy Turley was licensed under the Maryland Securities Act to act as an investment adviser, investment adviser representative, securities broker-dealer, or agent. Investigations of DBSI Following the collapse of DBSI, the Securities Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office undertook an investigation of the offer and sale of DBSI TICs in Maryland.

In April 2009, the Securities Division contacted Mr. Mathews as part of that investigation. No action was ultimately taken by the Securities Division against DBSI or Cassidy Turley, although Cassidy Turley did refund to Mr. Mathews the fees and commissions it was paid in connection with his TIC transactions. Federal authorities were also conducting a parallel investigation. 8 Procedural Background Complaint On March 23, 2010, Mr. Mathews filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County against Mr. Weiss and Cassidy Turley. 9 Mr. Mathews’ complaint alleged that Cassi ⁵⁹⁶ dy Turley owed Mr. Mathews legal and fiduciary duties to disclose material facts and to act with the care and skill of a “professional financial adviser.” It alleged that Cassidy Turley had misled Mr. Mathews concerning the suitability of the TIC investment for his financial situation, the safety of the investment, and the soundness of DBSI. It also alleged that Cassidy Turley had failed to inform him of other material information, including its lack of research into the investment, its receipt of a commission from the sale of the TICs, and the risks associated with the investment.

It alleged that Cassidy Turley actively concealed its alleged wrongdoing from him and lulled him into relying upon it, even after the DBSI bankruptcy, until he was contacted by the Securities Division. The complaint included common law tort claims for fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence, as well as a claim for breach of contract. It also included a claim under the Maryland Securities Act, Maryland Code, Corporations & Associations Article, (“CA”) § 11-703. The parties conducted discovery.

After the completion of discovery, they filed cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as motions in limine related to evidence anticipated to be offered at trial. Rulings on Pretrial Motions At the pre-trial motions hearing on December 5, 2011, the Circuit Court, among other things, granted a motion in limine ⁵⁹⁷ that precluded Mr. Mathews from mentioning or introducing into evidence at trial the bankruptcy examiner’s report on the basis that it was inadmissible hearsay, although the court held open the possibility that it would reconsider that ruling at trial. Later in the hearing, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cassidy Turley as to all counts. With respect to the alleged violations of the Maryland Securities Act, the court ruled that the TICs were not securities as defined by the Maryland Securities Act.

The court also held that, even if the TICs were securities, Mr. Mathews’ claims under the Securities Act were barred by limitations, as were his common law claims. Specifically, the court ruled that Mr. Mathews’ Maryland Securities Act claims were time-barred because the limitations period governing those claims could not legally be tolled and that Mr. Mathews’ common law fraud claims were time-barred because he should have discovered the injury early enough that tolling would not have been sufficient to bring his filing within the limitations period. Cassidy Turley had also sought summary judgment on the common law claims on the ground that Mr. Mathews did not plan to present expert opinion testimony on the scope of duty of a real estate broker and that, without such testimony, Mr. Mathews could not prove his common law tort claims as a matter of law. The court declined to grant summary judgment for that reason.

Appeal Mr. Mathews filed a timely notice of appeal, and Cassidy Turley filed a cross-appeal. Prior to briefing and argument in the Court of Special Appeals, Mr. Mathews filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. Discussion The parties have asked us to resolve five issues, which we describe as follows: 1. Are the DBSI TICs “securities”? 2.

Are Mr. Mathews’ claims under the Maryland Securities Act barred by limitations? ⁵⁹⁸ 3. Are Mr. Mathews’ common law tort claims barred by limitations? 4. Should the Circuit Court have also awarded summary judgment in favor of Cassidy Turley because Mr. Mathews did not intend to present expert testimony on the standard of care of a real estate broker? 5. Would the DBSI bankruptcy examiner’s report be admissible in evidence at a trial under the hearsay exception for public records and reports?

May it be relied upon by securities law experts who may testify at trial? We address each of these issues in turn after reviewing briefly the relevant standards of appellate review. Standard of Review Under the Maryland Rules, a circuit court may grant summary judgment if there is no dispute as to material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maryland Rule 2 — 501(f).

The court is to consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and consider any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the undisputed facts against the moving party. Because the circuit court’s decision turns on a question of law, not a dispute of fact, an appellate court is to review whether the circuit court was legally correct in awarding summary judgment without according any special deference to the circuit court’s conclusions. Ross v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 430 Md. 648, 666-67 , 63 A.3d 1 (2013). If an appellate court comes to a different conclusion on the pertinent question of law and reverses a grant of summary judgment by a trial court, the appellate court will not ordinarily seek to sustain the grant of summary judgment on a different ground.

See Geisz v. GBMC, 313 Md. 301 , 314 n. 5, 545 A.2d 658 (1988). Such action would interfere with the discretion that a trial court normally enjoys to deny, or to defer until trial, consideration of the merits of summary judgment on certain issues. Henley v. Prince George’s County, 305 Md. 320, 333 , 503 A.2d 1333 (1986). Of course, that ⁵⁹⁹ rationale would not pertain if the circuit court would have no discretion as to the particular issue.

With respect to the admissibility of evidence, such as the bankruptcy examiner’s report, the standard of appellate review depends on the basis for admission or exclusion of a particular item of evidence. Some matters, such as the weighing of the relevance of proffered evidence as against unfair prejudice or other considerations, are left to the “sound discretion” of the trial court. Hall v. UMMS, 398 Md. 67, 82 , 919 A.2d 1177 (2007). Such decisions will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.

Other evidentiary rulings are based on a “pure legal question.” Id. In those circumstances, an appellate court considers the legal question without deference to the decision of the trial court. Whether a DBSI TIC is a security under the Maryland Securities Act Maryland Securities Act The Maryland Securities Act, which is codified at Maryland Code, Corporations & Associations Article (“CA”) § 11-101 et seq., regulates the offer and sale of securities in Maryland, as well as the individuals who advise on and effect such transactions. In particular, any security offered for sale must be registered pursuant to the Act, unless the particular security is excepted from the registration requirement by statute or regulation.

CA § 11-501. Subject to certain exceptions, securities broker-dealers (popularly known as brokerage firms) and their agents (popularly known as stockbrokers) must be registered under the Act. CA §§ ll-4-01(a), ll-402(a). Similarly, firms and financial advisers that fit the statute’s definitions of “investment adviser” and “investment adviser representative” are also subject to a registration requirement.

CA §§ 11 — 401(b), ll-402(b). 10 ⁶⁰⁰ The statute contains several anti-fraud provisions. Pertinent to the allegations in this case, CA § 11-301 broadly prohibits fraud in the offer or sale of securities 11 ; CA § 11— 302 similarly prohibits fraud and misrepresentation in connection with advisory activities. 12 ⁶⁰¹ The Act creates the position of Maryland Securities Commissioner (“Commissioner”) and the Maryland Securities Division within the Office of the Attorney General and charges them with various regulatory duties under the Act. CA § 11— 201 et seq. The Commissioner is to adopt regulations implementing the Act and to coordinate with federal and state securities officials in other jurisdictions in the interpretation and enforcement of the securities laws.

CA § ll-203(a), (b). The Commissioner may investigate alleged violations of the Act and institute administrative and judicial actions to enforce the provisions of the Act. CA § 11-701 through § 11-702. The Act also provides a private cause of action to enforce various provisions of the Act.

CA § 11-703. In particular, under CA § 11 — 703(a)(l)(i), a purchaser of a security has a cause of action against the seller for a registration violation, a misleading statement concerning the significance of registration, or a failure to comply with a regulation concerning approval of advertising. Under CA § ll-703(a)(l)(ii), a purchaser has a cause of action against the seller for untrue statements — or omissions — of material fact in connection with the offer or sale of a security. Under CA § ll-703(a)(2), a seller of a security has a cause of action for false statements— or omissions — of material fact by the buyer.

CA § 11— 703(a)(3) creates a cause of action against persons acting as investment advisers or investment adviser representatives for registration violations and fraud. The General Assembly has directed that the Maryland Securities Act be construed to carry out the general purpose of encouraging uniformity in state laws regulating securities and investment professionals and “to coordinate the interpretation and administration of this title with the related federal regulation.” CA § 11-804. This is no doubt related to the shared lineage of the Act with the federal securities laws and securities laws of many other states 13 and the need to coordi ⁶⁰² nate regulation of an industry that conducts business nationwide. Securities Count of the Complaint Count VI of the complaint asserts a cause of action under the Maryland Securities Act, although it is not precise in describing the violation or violations that it alleges.

That count cites to the Act generally, refers to the “unlawful offer and sale of the unregistered DBSI TIC securities,” and alleges that the “Defendants engaged in a scheme, device and/or artifice to defraud Mathews____” The count does not specify a particular subsection or paragraph of CA § 11-708 and, indeed, appears to combine more than one type of violation. In any event, a predicate question as to the viability of this cause of action is whether the DBSI TICs are securities. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents on Count VI stating, in an oral ruling, that “I’m not convinced that the interests that were sold and purchased by Mr. Mathews were securities.” The court did not elaborate and conceded that its “degree of confidence” in that ruling was not as great as with respect to other rulings it was making. “Security” The Maryland Securities Act defines “security” by listing examples: (r)(l) “Security” means any: (i) Note; (ii) Stock; ⁶⁰³ (iii) Treasury stock; (iv) Bond; (v) Debenture; (vi) Evidence of indebtedness; (vii) Certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement; (viii) Collateral-trust certificate; (ix) Preorganization certificate or subscription; (x) Transferable share; (xi) Investment contract; (xii) Voting-trust certificate; (xiii) Certificate of deposit for a security; (xiv) Certificate of interest or participation in an oil, gas, or mining title or lease or in payments out of production under the title or lease; (xv) In general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”; or (xvi) Certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase any of the preceding. (2) “Security” does not include any insurance or endowment policy or annuity contract under which an insurance company promises to pay money either in a lump sum, periodically for life, or some other specified period.

CA § ll-101(r). The definition of “security” in CA § 11-101 closely matches that in federal law. 14 Of the examples set out in the statutory definition of “security,” Mr. Mathews identifies the DBSI TIC as an “investment contract” — a species of security that also appears in the federal definition. See CA § ll-101(r)(xi); 15 U.S.C. § 77b (a)(1). 15 Given the mandate in the Act to coordinate ⁶⁰⁴ with related federal regulation and the lack of other precedent in Maryland, the interpretation of an identical phrase in the federal securities laws is persuasive as to construction of the Maryland statute. See Caucus v. Maryland Securities Commissioner, 320 Md. 313, 324-37 , 577 A.2d 783 (1990) (following Supreme Court precedent under federal securities law in determining whether promissory notes fit the definition of “security” in the Maryland Securities Act).

This Court has not previously addressed the meaning of “investment contract” in the Maryland Securities Act. Early in the last decade, the Court of Special Appeals had occasion to do so, in the context of a different type of investment. In Ak’s Daks Communications v. Maryland Securities Division, 138 Md.App. 314 , 771 A.2d 487 , cert. denied, 365 Md. 473 , 781 A.2d 778 (2001), the intermediate appellate court considered whether an interest in a limited liability company (which offered two-way radio services), coupled with a contract with the promoters to manage the LLC, was an “investment contract” for purposes of the Maryland Securities Act. The court appropriately looked to the Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946), the foundational federal case construing “investment contract” under the federal securities law. 16 In Howey , the Supreme Court held that “an investment contract for purposes of the [federal] Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise.” 328 U.S. at 298-99 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 .

The Court observed that the traditional understanding of investment contract involved disregarding ⁶⁰⁵ form in favor of substance and an emphasis on “economic reality.” Id. at 298 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . It is immaterial, therefore, “whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value.” Id. at 301 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . “It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.” Id. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have re-affirmed the Howey definition of “investment contract” for purposes of the federal securities laws. 17 A significant number of state courts that have construed the same phrase in state securities laws have also adopted the Howey definition of “investment contract.” See Annotation, What constitutes an “investment contract” within the meaning of state blue sky laws, 47 A.L.R.3d 1375 . Given the mandate of CA § 11-804 to promote uniformity in the securities laws, it is appropriate to apply the Howey test as part of Maryland securities law.

As indicated above, in its original statement of the Howey standard, the Supreme Court stated that an investor’s expectation of profits derives “solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.” 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 (emphasis added). But neither federal nor state courts have interpreted that articulation to exclude the exertion of any efforts by the investors. In SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., 474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.1973), the Ninth Circuit explained the need for a flexible interpretation. The investment in Turner required that “the investor, or purchaser, must himself exert some efforts if he is to realize a return on his initial cash outlay.” 474 F.2d at 482 .

Therefore, any profit to that investor would not be, strictly speaking, “solely” due to the efforts of the promoter or a third party. If the Supreme Court’s use of the ⁶⁰⁶ term “solely” was taken literally, such an investment would not be an “investment contract.” In rejecting the result that would necessarily follow from applying a strict interpretation, the Ninth Circuit stated: Adherence to such an interpretation could result in a mechanical, unduly restrictive view of what is and what is not an investment contract. It would be easy to evade by adding a requirement that the buyer contribute a modicum of effort. Thus the fact that the investors here were required to exert some efforts if a return were to be achieved should not automatically preclude a finding that the Plan or Adventure is an investment contract.

To do so would not serve the purpose of the legislation. Rather we adopt a more realistic test, whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise. Id. at 482 (emphasis added). This interpretation of the Howey standard has been nearly universally adopted by the federal circuits 18 as well as by at least six states. 19 In United Housing Found., Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 , 95 S.Ct. 2051 , 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1975), the Supreme Court acknowledged the Ninth Circuit’s Turner decision but, noting that the issue of what constitutes “solely from the efforts of ⁶⁰⁷ others” was not actually at issue in the case before it, expressly declined to comment on the correctness of that interpretation.

Id. at 852 n. 16, 95 S.Ct. 2051 . Nonetheless, the Court observed that “[t]he touchstone is the presence of an investment in a common venture premised on a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others” — a formulation in which the word “solely” does not appear. Id. at 852 , 95 S.Ct. 2051 . The Court then went on to hold that the interests in the case before it were not investment contracts because those interests offered no possibility for profit.

Id. at 854-55 , 95 S.Ct. 2051 . 20 Although the Court declined to comment on Turner and the issue was irrelevant to the decision of that case, a number of state courts have read the Court’s “touchstone” formulation as an indication that the Court does not exclude the possibility that an investment contract may contemplate some effort by investors. 21 The Court of Special Appeals expressed such an understanding in Alt’s Daks in applying the Howey test for purposes of the Maryland Securities Act 22 and we take this occasion to affirm that understanding. Cassidy Turley does not dispute that the Howey test defines “investment contract” under the Maryland Securities Act. Rather, it argues that the application of the Howey test to the DBSI TICs leads to a conclusion that the TICs were not securities. ⁶⁰⁸ Application of the Howey Test to the DBSI TICs The Howey test essentially involves three elements: (1) an investment of money; (2) in a common enterprise; (8) with an expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others. There appears to be no dispute as to the first two elements.

Mr. Mathews undeniably made an investment of money. And Cassidy Turley does not appear to contest that it was part of a “common enterprise.” 23 The sole point of contention is whether Mr. Mathews and his fellow investors had an expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others. It is undisputed that Mr. Mathews was to receive a specified annual income stream derived from profits obtained by DBSI’s rental of the TIC properties. What is in dispute is whether the anticipated profits would be based significantly on the efforts of the promoter or a third party.

The DBSI TICs were sold with a pre-existing agreement that laid out the operation and management of the investment. Individual investors, like Mr. Mathews, had no authority to manage the investment. Under the pre-existing management agreement with DBSI — in the form of a sublease — DBSI would locate sub-tenants and undertake the management of the property. The TIC purchasers were largely passive investors.

Only by acting collectively could the TIC investors ⁶⁰⁹ remove DBSI and put in place new management. That collective action was contingent on a unanimous decision to install a new manager and an obligation to indemnify DBSI. 24 In the case of the TIC investments, the efforts made by those other than the investor — in the case of these TICs, DBSI, the manager — are no less dominant, significant, and essential to the failure or success of the enterprise than are the efforts of a corporation’s management. The third requirement of the Howey test is satisfied. 25 As the requirements of the Howey test are satisfied, the TIC investment is a security for purposes of the Maryland Securities Act. 26 ⁶¹⁰ Whether Mr. Mathews’ claims are barred by statutes of limitations The Circuit Court granted summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint on the basis of limitations. Mr. Mathews has appealed that determination.

The court devoted most of its analysis to the claim under the Securities Act, as have the parties on appeal, perhaps because the Securities Act has its own statute of limitations while the common law claims are governed by the general limitations provision. Accordingly, we address the application of limitations to the statutory and common law claims separately. Claim under the Maryland Securities Act Count VI of the complaint seeks relief pursuant to the Maryland Securities Act. The section of the Maryland Securities Act that establishes a private cause of action sets forth specific periods of limitations for the various types of claims that might be brought under the Act.

CA § 11 — 703(f). 27 None of the periods set forth in the statute is longer than three years from the date of sale of a security or the rendering of investment advice. It appears that the Circuit Court simply held that any claim that Mr. Mathews had under the Securities Act accrued in October 2004 when he purchased the DBSI TICs (i.e., there was no basis for tolling accrual of a claim), ⁶¹¹ noted that he filed his initial complaint in March 2010, and found that the interval between the two dates exceeded three years. Mr. Mathews argues that his complaint was timely filed because the accrual of his claims under the Maryland Securities Act was delayed. He relies on a judicially-created “discovery rule,” under which a cause of action accrues when the wrong is discovered or when with due diligence it should have been discovered.

Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 634 , 431 A.2d 677 (1981). In addition, he argues that a statute that delays accrual of causes of action when a plaintiff remains ignorant of a cause of action due to a defendant’s “fraudulent concealment” should be applied to find his claims timely. That statute provides: If the knowledge of a cause of action is kept from a party by the fraud of an adverse party, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue at the time when the party discovered, or by the exercise of ordinary diligence should have discovered the fraud. Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”), § 5-203.

Mr. Mathews asserts that Cassidy Turley fraudulently concealed critical information and that he was not on notice of his claims under the Maryland Securities Act until he met with representatives of the Maryland Securities Commissioner in April 2009. Cassidy Turley argues, in turn, that the limitations scheme of the Securities Act includes statutes of repose that cannot be tolled by the discovery rule or CJ § 5-203. This Court recently discussed the distinction between statutes of limitation and statutes of repose in Anderson v. United States, 427 Md. 99 , 46 A.3d 426 (2012). Although the phrases “statute of limitations” and “statute of repose” are often used interchangeably, one practical difference between the two is that a statute of repose is not subject to tolling rules such as the discovery rule or CJ § 5-203. 427 Md. at 121 , 46 A.3d 426 .

The chief feature of a statute of repose is that it runs from a date that is unrelated to the date of injury, whereas a statute ⁶¹² of limitations always runs from the time the wrong is complete and actionable — and injury is always the final element of a wrong. Id. at 119, 46 A.3d 426 . As a result, a statute of repose can sometimes foreclose a remedy before an injury has even occurred and before any action could have been brought. In Anderson , the Court considered the appropriate characterization 28 of CJ § 5-109(a)(l), which provides that a medical malpractice action must be brought “within the earlier of’ five years from the time of injury or three years from the date the injury was discovered.

The Court acknowledged the overlapping features of statutes of limitation and statutes of repose and chose not to rely on any single feature of the statute. 427 Md. at 123 , 46 A.3d 426 . It noted that the Legislature had elected to measure the periods set forth in CJ § 5-109(a)(l) from the time of injury, as opposed to some date unrelated to the injury, and that the period was explicitly subject to tolling for fraudulent concealment and minority — factors at odds with a conclusion that it was a statute of repose. Id. at 125-26, 46 A.3d 426 . The Court concluded that, despite prior disparate characterizations of the statute, CJ § 5-109(a)(l) was more appropriately classified as a statute of limitations.

Id. at 127, 46 A.3d 426 . Like CJ § 5-109(a)(l), the limitations provisions for private causes of action under the Maryland Securities Act are phrased in terms of the “the earlier to occur” of two alternative time periods. Our task in this case is easier than in Anderson in that there is no need to settle on a precise classification of the provisions in the Securities Act as statutes of repose or statutes of limitations in order to apply them; our task is more difficult in that there are different provisions to apply, depending on the nature of the violation alleged. ⁶¹³ Our application of the relevant limitations periods under the Securities Act to Mr. Mathews’ complaint is hampered by the fact that the single count of the complaint under the Maryland Securities Act appears to combine several different claims, in that it alleges generally both fraud and lack of registration. Mr. Mathews’ pre-trial statement, and submissions to the court in connection with cross-motions for summary judgment, are somewhat more specific in explaining that he means to assert “multiple violations of the Maryland Securities Act.” There appear to be four theories of recovery for which the Act provides a cause of action in CA § 11 — 708(a) 29 : (1) that Cassidy Turley sold an unregistered security (CA § ll-708(a)(l)(i)); (2) that Cassidy Turley acted as a securities broker-dealer without being registered under the Act (CA § 11— 703(a)(l)(i)); (3) that Cassidy Turley made misrepresentations or omissions of material fact in connection with the sale of a security (CA § ll-703(a)(l)(ii)); and (4) that Cassidy Turley acted as an investment adviser without being registered under the Act and made material misrepresentations in that capacity (CA § 11— 703(a)(3)).

The Act sets forth, in CA § 11 — 703(f), the period of time within which each of these causes of action must be asserted. We consider the application of those limitations periods, and whether the tolling rules apply, with respect to each of these causes of action. 1. Sale of unregistered, security First, it appears that Mr. Mathews alleges that Cassidy Turley was involved in the offer and sale of an unregistered security — i.e., the DBSI TICs — in violation of CA § 11-501. 30 ⁶¹⁴ The private cause of action for such a violation is found in CA § ll-703(a)(l)(i). Under CA § 11-703(0(1) & (2)(i), such a cause of action may not be brought “after the earlier to occur” of (1) three years after the contract of sale or purchase or (2) one year after the violation.

As the sale occurred in October 2004, the latest possible date for filing such a cause of action under this provision might well be October 2005, and certainly no later than October 2007. CA § ll-703(a)(l) creates liability only in favor of a purchaser of a security, not in favor of one to whom a security is merely offered. Moreover, the statute provides a remedy only when a sale has been completed. CA § ll-703(b)(l).

The fact that a discovery provision was inserted in the other limitations provisions in CA § 11 — 703(f), but not in the provision related to registration violations, suggests that discovery was not expected to be an issue and it is therefore inappropriate to apply the judicially-created discovery rule in this context. 31 Given that a reasonably prudent buyer could determine at the time of sale from publicly available information whether a security is registered, tolling under the fraudulent concealment provision of CJ § 5-203 is not appropriate. The overall scheme with respect to registration violations thus operates as a statute of repose with respect to registration ⁶¹⁵ violations. Courts have reached a similar conclusion with respect to a limitations provision related to registration violations in the federal securities law. See, e.g., Sagehorn v. Engle, 141 Cal.App.4th 452, 461 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 136 (2006); see also Blatt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 916 F.Supp. 1343, 1353 (D.N.J.1996); Lubin v. Sybedon Corp., 688 F.Supp. 1425, 1451 (S.D.Cal.1988).

To the extent that Mr. Mathews asserts a claim for sale of unregistered securities, that claim is time-barred. 2. Transacting business as securities broker-dealer or agent without being registered The complaint states that neither Cassidy Turley nor DBSI were licensed to offer and sell securities, apparently alleging a violation of CA §§ ll-401(a) and ll-402(a). Such a cause of action also falls under CA § ll-703(a)(l)(i). 32 Accordingly, it would be subject to the same limitations provision as the claim for sale of an unregistered security. For the reasons set forth in the previous section, the period of limitations related to such a claim expired prior to the tiling of the complaint, and neither the discovery rule nor CJ § 5-203 tolls the period within which a suit had to be brought.

Such a claim is also time-barred. 3. Fraud in the offer or sale of a security The complaint alleges that, in soliciting Mr. Mathews to purchase the DBSI TICs, Cassidy Turley “engaged in a scheme, device, and/or artifice to defraud Mathews” in violation of the Act and further that the violations were “evidenced by repeated misstatements of fact and/or omissions of fact” by Cassidy Turley. This appears to assert a claim under CA § ll-703(a)(l)(ii) & (c), which provides a cause of action for ⁶¹⁶ the buyer of a security against the seller — and any “broker-dealer or agent who materially aids” the seller — for fraud or misrepresentation in the offer or sale of the security. 33 Under CA § ll-70S(f)(l) & (2)(ii), such a cause of action may not be brought “after the earlier to occur” of (1) three years after the contract of sale or purchase or (2) one year after “discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after the discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” There is a discovery rule built into this period of limitations, but that discovery rule is limited in application to three years after the contract of sale or purchase, as the statute expires upon the “earlier to occur” of the alternative time periods. The scheme is indistinguishable from a one year statute of limitations running from the time of sale with a statutory discovery rule that may toll its expiration for up to two years.

It would be inconsistent with this scheme to apply the judicially-created discovery rule to allow for equitable tolling beyond three years. The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion when it interpreted a similar limitations provision governing civil actions under the federal securities law. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 363-64 , 111 S.Ct. 2773 , 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). The Court was concerned with whether the statute should be tolled due to the plaintiffs failure to discover the injury.

The Court reasoned that indefinite tolling until discovery was inconsistent with the clear intent of the statute because it would ⁶¹⁷ render meaningless the legislative choice to include a more limited discovery rule. The limitations scheme became part of the Maryland Securities Act in a 1968 amendment. 34 At that time, this Court had not yet enunciated the broad discovery rule that it later adopted in Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 , 431 A.2d 677 (1981). Subsequent to Poffenberger , however, the Legislature amended the limitations provisions of CA § ll-703(f) — in particular, to add a limitations provision for causes of action related to investment advisers, as discussed below 35 — but did not modify the limited discovery rule for actions alleging fraud in the offer or sale of securities. Given that the Legislature chose to retain a limited discovery rule for securities fraud actions even after Poffenberger’s adoption of a broad one indicates a legislative intent to retain a limited discovery rule for actions under the Securities Act.

Moreover, application of the more open-ended judicially-created discovery rule in this context would render the more limited statutory discovery rule meaningless — an outcome that counsels against application of the Poffenberger discovery rule here. GEICO v. Ins. Com’r, 332 Md. 124, 132 , 630 A.2d 713, 717 (1993) (interpretations that would render legislative language “meaningless, surplusage, superfluous or nugatory” are disfavored). We therefore conclude that the Poffenberger discovery rule does not toll a cause of action for securities fraud under CA § 11— 703(a).

Tolling on the basis of a defendant’s fraudulent concealment, pursuant to CJ § 5-203, may still apply, however. Tolling under that provision arises from affirmative misconduct by the defendant, not just the exercise of due diligence by the plaintiff. The predecessor of CJ § 5-203 pre-dates the Maryland Securities Act by nearly a century and the General ⁶¹⁸ Assembly presumably contemplated that it would apply to actions under the Securities Act, particularly those involving allegations of fraud. 36 Cf. Geisz v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, 313 Md. 301, 321-22 , 545 A.2d 658 (1988) (CJ § 5-203 may toll limitations as to both statutory and common law claims); see also Morley v. Cohen, 610 F.Supp. 798, 820 (D.Md.1985).

There is no suggestion otherwise in the history of the Maryland Securities Act. 37 Thus, the running of limitations for fraud in the offer or sale of securities may be tolled pursuant to CJ § 5-203 if the plaintiffs acquisition of knowledge is hindered by fraudulent concealment by the defendant. This is inevitably a fact-intensive inquiry. The Circuit Court apparently determined that, on the undisputed facts, Mr. Mathews was sufficiently on notice of a potential claim such that the discovery rule would not toll accrual of a cause of action 38 Although Mr. Mathews relied ⁶¹⁹ upon CJ § 5-203 in his submissions and briefly argued it at the motions hearing, it is not clear that the Circuit Court considered tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment separately from the issue of tolling under the discovery rule. With respect to tolling under CJ § 5-203, Mr. Mathews argues that he viewed Mr. Weiss and Cassidy Turley as his trusted advisers with respect to the TIC investment, that he relied upon them to vet the financial stability of DBSI and the appropriateness of the TIC investment for a person in his circumstances, and that they concealed material information from him that would have undermined that reliance.

There appears to be a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue. Mr. Mathews asserts that Mr. Weiss and Cassidy Turley fraudulently concealed the fact that they were acting as an agent for DBSI in connection with the transaction and received a fee, in the amount of approximately $93,000 from DBSI, out of the proceeds of the transaction. He asserts that these facts were concealed from him until he met with the Securities Division in 2009 and Cassidy Turley refunded fees to him. In an affidavit and deposition testimony, Mr. Mathews described a perfunctory review of the materials in Mr. Weiss’ presence, execution of the transactional documents at Mr. Weiss’ behest, and shock at the revelation that the person he perceived as his adviser was being paid by the other party to the transaction.

Cassidy Turley contends that Mr. Mathews knew, or should have known, based on his experience as an investor in real estate, that Cassidy Turley would be receiving a fee from DBSI. Cassidy-Turley also asserts that Mr. Mathews evaluated the transaction himself and was well-equipped to do so. It points to Mr. Mathews’s receipt of binders with transaction documents, as well as descriptions of the particular properties, prior to the purchase; to statements in the transaction docu ⁶²⁰ merits in which the purchaser affirms that the purchaser has performed due diligence and consulted with independent advisers; and to Mr. Mathews’ experience in owning and managing rental properties near Towson University. At one point in the motions hearing, the Circuit Court appeared to make a credibility determination as to some of the contentions concerning fraudulent concealment. 39 To the extent that determination was a factor in the court’s consideration of tolling under CJ § 5-203, it was inappropriate in the context of summary judgment.

Whether a plaintiffs failure to discover a cause of action was attributable to fraudulent concealment by the defendant is ordinarily a question of fact to be determined by the factfinder, typically a jury. Frederick Road Ltd. Partnership v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 96-100 , 756 A.2d 963 (2000); O’Hara v. Kovens, 305 Md. 280, 294-95 , 503 A.2d 1313 (1986). In any event, the court did not explicitly consider whether the undisputed facts negated tolling under CJ § 5-203. Accordingly, we reverse the award of summary judgment as to the count under the Securities Act to the extent it asserted a claim for fraud.

A Investment adviser violations Finally, Mr. Mathews seeks recovery against Cassidy Turley for acting as an investment adviser without being registered under the Maryland Securities Act, which would ⁶²¹ violate CA §§ 11-401 (b), 11 — 402(b), and for making material misrepresentations to Mr. Mathews in that capacity, which would violate CA § ll-302(c). There is a private cause of action for such violations under CA § ll-703(a)(3). 40 Pursuant to CA § 11 — 703(f)(3), such a claim must be brought no later than the earlier of “3 years after the date of the advisory contract or the rendering of investment advice, or the expiration of 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation.... ” Again, there is a discovery rule built into this statute of limitations, but it is capped at three years after the date of the rendering of investment advice (there being no advisory contract in this case). As indicated in the previous section, the presence of a discovery rule within this statutory scheme suggests that it is inappropriate to apply a judicially-created discovery rule that would render the statutory discovery rule meaningless. But, for the same reasons explained in the previous section of this opinion, there appears to be no reason why tolling, pursuant to CJ § 5-203, as a result of a defendant’s fraudulent concealment could not be applied with respect to a claim that a defendant made material misrepresentations in the course of rendering investment advice.

Again, the issue of fraudulent concealment is largely factual inquiry. Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to this claim for the same reasons as in the previous section. ⁶²² Limitations with respect to common law claims The next question is whether the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment on limitations grounds in favor of Cassidy Turley on Mr. Mathews’ common law claims. The complaint includes four tort claims and one claim for breach of contract. The written motion for summary judgment that Cassidy Turley filed did not seek summary judgment on the basis of limitations with respect to the common law claims.

However, at the pre-trial motions hearing in December 2011, after the Circuit Court had granted