Nancy Moran

                                   *
Fairway Woods, LLC                 *  IN THE
28 East 25th Street                *
Baltimore, Maryland  21218         *  CIRCUIT COURT
                                   *
           Plaintiff               *  FOR
                                   *
      v.                           *  BALTIMORE CITY
                                   *
Nancy Moran                        *  Case No.  24-C-99-005295
550 Saint Mary Street              *
Baltimore, Maryland  21201         *  CIVIL
                                   *
           Defendant               *
                                   *
******************************************************************************


                  RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT IN EJECTMENT,
                 REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON THE MERITS,
                        MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
                       MOTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES

      Comes now the Defendant proceeding pro se in Response to Complaint in Ejection filed
by Fairway Woods, LLC by and through their attorney Geoffrey L. Forman of Cohen, Alpert and
Forman.  Defendant avers:

      1.   That Plaintiff in the "Complaint in Ejectment" cites the 1st date of July, 1996, to
refer to a parcel in Baltimore City matching the description of a property Defendant bought and
paid for in a settlement on June 27, 1997 and took possession of the next day.  There is evidence
of a June 27, 1997 settlement in numerous documents (see Exhibit A, for one).

      2.   That neither Plaintiff Fairway Woods nor related company MAR Properties has
ever contacted Defendant by mail, by phone or by fax.  Defendant's sole contact has been by a
letter threatening ejectment and charging $200 in fees from Attorney Forman dated March 5,
1999 (Exhibit B) and by the instant action.  Forman's letter of March 5, 1999, among other
things, bills for ground rent applicable to the previous owner six months before settlement.  The
letterhead was amended by hand to indicate "LLC" and the name of one member of the firm is
blacked out.  Defendant, in fact, responded to the letter in a fax dated March 11, 1999
(Exhibit C) and cross-notified Settlement Attorney Sopher.  No response to the fax of March 11
from Attorney Forman was ever received.  The fax of March 11 states in pertinent part:

      Though you cite two and a half year's worth of "non-payment", your letter of
      March 5 is the first and sole indication I have ever had directly that Fairway
      Woods is or has been seeking remedy of an alleged debt.  ... You, he [Sopher] or
      another member of your firm are free to contact me by phone, fax or mail at any
      time.

      3.   That the first indication Defendant had that "550 St. Mary Street" in fact consisted
of a double lot was a "Final Notice" from the ground rent owner mailed to the previous owner
at Defendant's address dated May 7, 1998 demanding 24 months ground rent on "552 St.
Mary's".  Defendant received the "Notice" and the contents could be determined by holding the
envelope up to the light.  The "Notice" was transmitted to the previous owner of "550 St. Mary
Street", Theodore Douglas, as was customary with all his mail in the first few months of
occupancy, with the direction for him to pay the amount due.

      4.   In view of the notice mentioned above from Fairway Woods to the previous
owner, readable through the envelope, after numerous telephone calls to the Settlement Attorney's
office, on June 14, 1998, almost a year after settlement, exercising due diligence, I wrote
(Exhibit D):

      ... You now tell me the property I purchased was not one but two parcels but that
      I now own both save for ground rent on one of the parcels.  You have offered to
      handle all the details pertaining to the other parcel if only I pay out another
      $312.50.  Please remember that it was only at the time of settlement that I found
      out "ground rent" was one thing and fees and expenses to record the transaction
      in fact added significantly to the purchase.

(Of note, at settlement on June 27, 1997, Defendant had had a contention with Jerry Sopher
("Settlement Attorney") to the extent that Defendant had agreed to buy the ground rent for the
"550" property for a quoted sum of $312.50 but for the first time at settlement was informed
about significant search and registration fees, inflating the total amount significantly.)

      5.   That in a letter dated June 23, 1998 (Exhibit E), almost a year after the June 27,
1997 settlement and only after the letter of June 14, 1998, Attorney Sopher explained in detail
why the property was not fully closed at settlement and emphasizing the second parcel was not
in the original settlement.  He made reference to a Confirmatory and Corrective Deed signed by
the previous owner the previous February.  Attorney Sopher attached to the June 23 letter a copy
of a letter from Marcie Klitzner of the ground rent department of MAR Properties, Inc. dated
January 21, 1998 (Exhibit G) or six months earlier than his letter to Defendant of June 23, 1998
(Exhibit E).  Among other things, Ms. Klitzner stated:

      ... I need to know what was found when you did the title search as the city is
      showing this as one combined property even though the original leases [1843]
      show two and billing it as one to the homeowner.  There is now a question as to
      who is the owner of a property that the city does not acknowledge as existing.
      (emphasis added)

      Please research this and respond in writing as I will have to forward your findings
      to my attorney.  ...

Defendant is not privy to any communications that ensued as a result of Ms. Klitzner's letter,
but as seen below, the prior owner of the property, Theodore Douglas, sign the Confirmatory and
Corrective Deed in February, 1998 without knowledge of or notice to Defendant.

      6.   That, significantly, the Sopher letter of June 23, 1998, prompted by the letter of
June 14, 1998, was the first mention Defendant ever had of "Fairway Woods, LLC":

      ... As we are all now aware, the ground rent for 552 Saint Mary Street is still
      titled in the ground rent owner (Fairway Woods, LLC) and we have requested and
      received the title report for the same.

Attorney Sopher added perhaps by way of conciliation and I understand by recent phone
conversation the offer still stands:

      ... If you desire to redeem the other ground rent, the redemption price is also
      $312.50 which will have to be advanced by yourself.  This office will absorb all
      other costs of the redemption for recording, deed drafting, transfer taxes and
      documentary stamps, title search and judgment reports as we previously did in
      preparing and recording the aforementioned confirmatory deed for the leasehold
      interest in 552 Saint Mary Street.

      7.   Defendant replied to the Sopher letter of June 23, 1998 in a letter of July 20, 1998
(Exhibit H) and stated in pertinent part:

           It would appear at this juncture that either:  1) the title search was not
      done as thoroughly as it might have; 2) MAR Properties at least by January, 1998
      or sooner ought to have taken note of any "discrepancy" and notified Continental
      (if not myself) in a timely manner if not sooner; OR  3) some sequence of events
      occurring after 1843 and before 1997 was overlooked somehow by both MAR and
      Continental during the property transfer process from Teddy Douglas to me.  ...

      ... there is nothing in my records to confirm the $312.50 ground rent I did pay to
      buy.  I also have nothing in the way of contact from MAR or Fairway Woods for
      that matter, although I do by now have a series of water bills and a property tax
      notice in my name.

      ... I would be interested to know now (as I had never been told before) the
      correspondence and proofs submitted, exchanged or shared among the ground rent
      and settlement attorney parties subsequent to that date.

           It is my position at this time that if there be a dispute with regard to
      "550", the dispute is by and between the ground rent owner and the
      settlement company.  I have complied with my end of the deal from front to
      back.  (emphasis added)


WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT PRAYS:

1.  That this Court grant a hearing to explore and verify Defendant's contentions.

2.  That the Court issue a finding that Plaintiff has erred by alleging July 1st of 1996 is the
    date of Defendant's occupancy on the parcel known as 552 St. Mary Street and enter a new
    date of June 27, 1997, the date of settlement of sale indicated in Exhibit A.

3.  That the property known as 550 Saint Mary Street includes not one but two parcels of land,
    the first of which was purchased outright by Defendant at settlement on June 27, 1997, the
    second remains at dispute in this action.

4.  That Plaintiff was fully aware sometime between January 21, 1998 and June 23, 1998
    (probably by February, 1998) of the second lot as well as Defendant's purchase of the first
    on June 27, 1997 and never made any effort whatsoever to notify Defendant of any kind
    of ground rent amount due.

5.  That non-payment of ground rent, if any, was due to Plaintiff's negligence and oversight.

6.  That Plaintiff has made no action to collect a just debt but instead has resorted to charging
    exorbitant attorney fees and threats of court action many months later, finally using this
    court with anticipated enforcement and/or extortionate settlement.

7.  That if there is a justiciable dispute at all, it is by and between Plaintiff and the Settlement
    Attorney Sopher.  If a cause of action by Defendant against Attorney Sopher exists,
    evidence of same shall await future discovery in the instant suit.

8.  That the instant "Complaint in Ejectment" be dismissed on its face, to wit, as being dilatory,
    harassing and abusive of legal process, not leading to a just result, but fabricated to obtain
    maximum leverage toward monetary yield to the Plaintiff while acting in the absence of
    good faith.

9.  That the instant "Complaint in Ejectment" be dismissed on its face, to wit, defective by date
    of possession, disregard of prior correspondence, and for predatory abuse of the judicial
    process in that no attempt other than court action was ever communicated to collect a just
    debt.

10. That the Defendant be granted good and marketable ownership of the second parcel of land
    in dispute without cost, without fees and without additional attorney costs for search or
    recordation from Fairway Woods.

11. That this Court assign any court costs or fees to Plaintiff.

12. That the Defendant be granted an additional $500.00 in damages and fees in defending this
    matter.


Signed and affirmed,



Nancy Moran


This _______ day of December, 1999.



                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    This is to certify that the foregoing RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT IN EJECTMENT,
REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON THE MERITS, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND MOTION TO
RECOVER DAMAGES was mailed certified first class postage prepaid to the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City c/o Frank M. Conaway, Clerk, Courthouse East, 111 North Calvert Street,
Room 462, Baltimore, Maryland  21202, and to Geoffrey L. Forman, Cohen, Alpert and Forman,
334 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland  21202.  A courtesy copy was mailed first class postage
prepaid to Fairway Woods, LLC, 28 East 25th Street, Baltimore, Maryland  21218.


Signed and affirmed,



Nancy Moran


This _______ day of December, 1999.

nm