A Maryland appeals court affirmed a jury’s findings against a house flipper that sold a Columbia home “as is,” because the jury found misrepresentation and a consumer-protection violation and the seller’s renovation contractor’s relevant knowledge was imputed to it on the facts of the case. The court did not make flippers automatically liable for defects: it affirmed the merits but vacated the attorney-fee award and sent that issue back to the trial court.
Why “as is” did not end this buyer’s case
In 3919 NEH, LLC v. Salinas, Maryland’s Appellate Court affirmed the merits of a jury verdict arising from the sale of a renovated single-family home in Columbia. The contract described the property as “as is,” but the jury also found intentional concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The appeals court left those merits findings standing. Read the court’s October 5, 2026 opinion.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Essentials of Practical Real Estate Law | $80.75 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Property Law For Dummies | $22.31 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
National Real Estate Salesperson License Exam Prep: Everything You Need to Become a Real Estate... | $29.69 | Buy on Amazon |
An “as is” term addresses the condition in which a property is being sold; it does not, by itself, erase claims based on alleged concealment or misleading statements. The court rejected the seller’s argument that Maryland’s disclosure statute displaced the buyer’s other remedies. It explained that common-law misrepresentation claims and a Consumer Protection Act claim can remain available in an appropriate case. That is a case-specific distinction, not a ruling that “as is” language has no effect in Maryland sales.
What happened at the Columbia home
- 3919 NEH, LLC bought a single-family home, renovated it, and sold it to Erick Galban Salinas. An LLC member signed a disclosure statement reporting no known latent defects.
- Before settlement, the buyer’s home inspector found animal waste beneath attic insulation and identified a health risk. The seller agreed to remediation.
- The renovation contractor returned to the property, a wildlife service inspected it, and an invoice represented the issue as repaired.
- After moving in, the family noticed odor and sounds. A later inspection found extensive animal waste beneath new insulation.
The opinion describes the contractor’s relationship with NEH and the property-related information acquired during that relationship, including information about animals, waste, chimney and fireplace issues, ineffective vent screening, and remediation. The appellate court concluded that the contractor’s relevant knowledge about the property was imputable to NEH.
#1 Best Overall
Mortgage Professional reported that the jury awarded $15,579.02. That figure is reported by the trade publication; it should not be treated as a general estimate of seller liability or remediation cost.
How the contractor’s knowledge was attributed to the seller
The court applied agency principles, including the general rule that an agent’s knowledge is treated as the principal’s knowledge. The opinion quotes that rule from Anderson v. General Casualty Ins. Co., 402 Md. 236, 248 (2007): “One of the general principles of an agency relationship is that the knowledge of the agent is knowledge of the principal.”
Rank #2
The court held that Distinct Construction’s knowledge acquired during its relationship with NEH about this particular property was imputable to the seller. It did not say that every independent contractor is an agent or that every contractor’s knowledge automatically binds a property owner. The opinion noted that an independent contractor can be an agent in appropriate circumstances. It also noted a procedural limit: NEH did not adequately brief the contractor-agency issue on appeal, a qualification to bear in mind when assessing how broadly to read the decision.
What Maryland’s disclosure statute requires
Maryland Real Property Article § 10-702 applies to specified single-family residential property of four or fewer units, subject to statutory exclusions. A vendor generally provides either a condition disclosure statement or a disclaimer statement. The Maryland General Assembly’s official text of § 10-702 defines a latent defect, in relevant part, as one a purchaser would not reasonably be expected to find through careful visual inspection and that would pose a direct threat to the purchaser’s or an occupant’s health or safety.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
A disclaimer is not permission to omit an actually known latent defect that meets those criteria. The statutory form says the buyer receives the property “as is,” with defects, subject to the contract, and tells buyers that seller disclosure is not a substitute for an independent home inspection. The statute does not require a seller to undertake an independent investigation or inspection to make statutory disclosures.
That disclosure framework and a separate claim about a seller’s or agent’s statements are different questions. The court’s holding was that the statute did not wipe out the buyer’s misrepresentation and consumer-protection remedies; it did not create a general duty for every seller to inspect every property.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the ruling did—and did not—decide
- It did: affirm the jury’s merits findings against NEH, including the misrepresentation and Consumer Protection Act findings.
- It did: conclude on this record that the contractor’s relevant property knowledge was imputable to NEH.
- It did not: declare that an “as is” clause is ineffective in every Maryland transaction, or that a defect alone establishes seller liability.
- It did not: hold that every seller must independently inspect a home before making statutory disclosures.
- It did: vacate the attorney-fee award and remand that issue for the trial court to reconsider the relevant fee factors. The fee issue should not be confused with the affirmed merits judgment.
Practical checks for Maryland home buyers
The statute cautions that a seller’s disclosure is not a replacement for an independent inspection. In a home with an attic, a buyer can make the inspection’s scope and access explicit rather than assuming that an inspection or disclosure form answers every condition question.
Quick Recap
- Confirm in writing what areas the inspector could access, including the attic, and which areas or conditions were outside the inspection’s scope.
- Read written inspection findings closely, including health or safety concerns, and ask what remediation was completed and by whom.
- Keep disclosure forms, inspection reports, invoices, and communications together. If a seller’s statements appear inconsistent with contractor or service records, seek clarification and preserve the records.
- For advice about a particular contract, disclosure, or potential claim, consult a Maryland real-estate attorney. A checklist or inspection tool cannot establish what a seller knew or replace legal advice.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →
