ÿWPC% ¿¶QnÜcämÞä,|ë™N/ð’Þf2v&”]ùûbA.¶wCñæY1–’ ®LÂæÔÑÙ—™„tZ”Ûlž"4‹Œ"¦Ú&Âú X”ò¥¼—1vkÉO‘ecSꕆŒÜWµ$…€ *VÆ!R®œLæC2 «Ð4Rà¡ßôfÑÑïŸ/†w‡ëħ7–Qã욀_Oð|‚ÖjgS½íLV“elD8#ùQ5ƒteȳp´ñjç²û0§Ü÷ÀÏvØe^Oω ²™¿‘뛆ø˜6˜Su8¥^ôõeæE]ýÂ%FÌqª2®²¢CªxøÁ"kCâŸØTcÔŸª› ²ùkÙª6&ˆÞÜDάŸT7üS–^²Ó•[ê{Ïò‹±œ,©uüÄ‚»sœ¿Tªþ´ùa38ÞX0ÙòèÈ×ÙIóÀGY• ä•!É9EåÚqÙ´Y>½¤ì„`&観 ?̾z¨¼šÞ9ÙÆËzY®‚†œ£ ÐÅe„©œj¸µ¬ì0£ÿÛFWÈf„ŠÛÛLŽ7~vÝ~ –gˆd¹ðƈj|®¡ƒZ/Hšcœš%¨0ó‘œ0¨gòüˆsãL=ÚEk%0—ðET)žé‚/YÚ*C”.#!„UN¥ %ó 0(ùw@!4au„ m†N^ ŸF« 0 lñ 0 D]UF¡ççÜïï%Ë€ð]pÍÍTšbî-öÆ# >é!ª'#'#'#'#'#'#'#'#'#'# BÑ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$Ñ$4î$˜Acrobat PDFWriter,ð,,,,,ð0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ M<™N<O<DP<UQ<UR<S<T<DU<V<«Mq)3|xV<ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀµŽ)Þ <Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€€In€their€complaint,€appellants€allege€that€Vivian€M.€¢Hickman£€was€ð ða€general€partner€of€LouisÐ ° ÐJ.€¢Hickman£ðð€in€the€development€of€the€land€in€question,€an€allegation€denied€by€appellees€in€theirÏanswer€to€the€complaint.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular  ÒÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€€The€Mississippi€statute€of€repose€at€issue€provided:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àNo€action€may€be€brought€to€recover€damages€for€injury€to€property,€real€or€personal,Ïor€for€an€injury€to€the€person,€arising€out€of€any€deficiency€in€the€.€.€.€construction€of€anÏimprovement€to€real€property,€.€.€.€against€any€person,€firm€or€corporation€performingÏor€furnishing€the€design,€planning,€supervision€of€construction€or€construction€of€suchÏimprovement€to€real€property€more€than€six€(6)€years€after€the€written€acceptance€orÏactual€occupancy€or€use,€whichever€occurs€first,€of€such€improvement€by€the€ownerÏthereof.€€This€limitation€shall€apply€to€actions€against€persons,€firms€and€corporationsÐ € Ð U Ðperforming€or€furnishing€the€design,€planning,€supervision€of€construction€or€constructionÏof€such€improvement€to€real€property€for€the€State€of€Mississippi€or€any€agency,Ïdepartment,€institution€or€political€subdivision€thereof€as€well€as€for€any€private€orÏÔ_Ô¢nongovernmental£Ô_Ô€entity.€.€.€.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMiss.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€15„1„41€(1972)€(amended€1995).€€While€this€statute€of€repose€differs€fromÐ ’ â ÐMarylandððs€in€that€it€specifically€identifies€the€class€of€defendants€covered,€like€the€Maryland€statute,€itÏcovers€injuries€to€real€or€personal€property€arising€out€of€a€defect€in€an€improvement€to€real€property. Ñ € ÑØØ vÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€€The€statute,€as€originally€enacted,€provided:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àActions€for€damages€resulting€from€defective€or€unsafe€real€propertyÏimprovements.€€Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNo€action€to€recover€damages€for€injury€to€property€real€or€personal,Ïor€for€bodily€injury€or€wrongful€death,€arising€out€of€the€defective€andÏunsafe€condition€of€an€improvement€to€real€property,€nor€any€action€forÏcontribution€or€indemnity€for€damages€incurred€as€a€result€of€said€injuryÏor€death,€shall€be€brought€more€than€twenty€years€after€the€saidÏimprovement€was€substantially€completed.€€This€limitation€shall€notÐ tÄ   Ðapply€to€any€action€brought€against€the€person€who,€at€the€time€theÏinjury€was€sustained,€was€in€actual€possession€and€control€as€owner,Ïtenant,€or€otherwise€of€the€said€improvement.€€For€purposes€of€thisÏsection,€"substantially€completed"€shall€mean€when€the€entireÏimprovement€is€first€available€for€its€intended€use.Ð ` x` x ÐÌIn€1973,€Article€57,€ðð€20€was€repealed€and€¢CJ£€ðð€5„108(a)€enacted.€€Subsequent€amendments€to€ðð€5„¼108€added€other€subsections,€€but€left€untouched€subsection€(a),€which€is€found€in€its€current€iteration.€Ï1979€Md.€Laws€ch.€698;€1980€Md.€Laws€ch.€605;€1991€Md.€Laws€ch.€271.€ SÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€€The€Minnesota€statute€of€repose€provided,€in€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àExcept€where€fraud€is€involved,€noÔ_Ô€action€by€any€person€in€contract,€tort,€or€otherwiseÏto€recover€damages€for€any€injury€to€property,€real€or€personal,€or€for€bodily€injury€orÏwrongful€death,€arising€out€of€the€defective€and€unsafe€condition€of€an€improvement€toÏreal€property€.€.€.€shall€be€brought€against€any€person€performing€or€furnishing€theÏdesign,€planning,€supervision,€materials,€or€observation€of€construction€or€constructionÐ Œ Ü U Ðof€the€improvement€to€real€property€or€against€the€owner€of€the€real€property€more€thanÏtwo€years€after€discovery€of€the€injury.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMinn.€Statóó.€ðð€541.051,€¢subd£.€1(a)(1996). ÃÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€€The€Massachusetts€statute€of€repose€provided:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àActions€of€tort€for€damages€arising€out€of€any€deficiency€or€neglect€in€the€design,Ïplanning,€construction€or€general€administration€of€an€improvement€to€real€property€shallÏbe€commenced€only€within€three€years€next€after€the€cause€of€action€accrues;€provided,Ïhowever,€that€in€no€event€shall€such€actions€be€commenced€more€than€six€years€afterÏthe€performance€or€furnishing€of€such€design,€planning,€construction€or€generalÏadministration.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ_ÔòòMass.€Gen.€Lawsóó€ch.€260,€ðð€¢2B£€(1968)(amended€1973). JÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€€The€Michigan€statue€of€repose€provided,€in€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àNo€person€may€maintain€any€action€to€recover€damages€for€any€injury€to€property,€realÏor€personal,€or€for€bodily€injury€or€wrongful€death,€arising€out€of€the€defective€andÏunsafe€condition€of€an€improvement€to€real€property,€nor€any€action€for€contribution€orÏindemnity€for€damages€sustained€as€a€result€of€such€injury,€against€any€state€licensedÏarchitect€or€professional€engineer€performing€or€furnishing€the€design€or€supervision€ofÏconstruction€of€the€improvement,€or€against€any€contractor€making€the€improvement,Ïmore€than€6€years€after€the€time€of€occupancy€of€completed€improvement,€use,€orÏacceptance€of€the€improvement,€or€1€year€after€the€defect€is€discovered€or€should€haveÏbeen€discovered,€provided€that€the€defect€constitutes€the€proximate€cause€of€the€injuryÏor€damage€for€which€the€action€is€brought€and€is€the€result€of€gross€negligence€on€theÐ n¾   Ðpart€of€the€contractor€or€licensed€architect€or€professional€engineer.€€However,€no€suchÏaction€shall€be€maintained€more€than€10€years€after€the€time€of€occupancy€of€theÏcompleted€improvement,€use,€or€acceptance€of€the€improvement.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòMich.€Comp.€Lawsóó€ðð€600.5839(1)(1986).- ù- #Ñ#€uXÿÿd#Ñ ¼Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔThis€doctrine€was€ð ðan€early€common€law€rule€that€denied€recovery€to€third„€party€plaintiffsÐ ° Ð[who€were€not€in€privity€of€contract€with€the€defendant].€€Abolition€of€this€rule€meant€that€constructionÏindustry€professionals€and€workers€could€be€liable€for€negligence€to€a€variety€of€potential€plaintiffs.ðð€ÏRandall,€òòsupraóó,€at€1000. 4Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ôð ðUnder€the€completed€and€accepted€rule,€an€ownerððs€acceptance€of€a€finished€productÐ ° Ðterminated€the€liability€of€those€involved€in€the€construction€of€the€product.ðð€€Randall,€òòsupraóó,€at€1000.  Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ôð ð[¢A]doption£€of€the€discovery€rule€as€the€criterion€for€triggering€the€running€of€the€statute€ofÐ ° Ðlimitation€served€to€prolong€potential€liabilityðð€because€it€delayed€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitationsÏuntil€the€date€on€which€the€injury€was€actually€discovered.€€òòóóRandall,€òòsupraóó,€at€1001. dƒQ)Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý›ÒÀ°ÒÔ€X*yXXXÔÓ  Óò òÑ  Ñó óò òà@5ôàREPORTEDó óˆÐ ° Ðà@ôô9ôàòòˆÌÌà@cc*ôàIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóˆÐ T¤ Ðà@EE4ôàòòOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ 5… ÐÌÌÌà@ÂÂ5ôàNo.€€2241ˆÌÌÌÌà@/ôàSeptember€Term,€1999ˆÌ_________________________________ñR<ñ__ñR<ñÌÌÌà@-ôàTHOMAS€J.€CARVEN,€et€ux.ˆÌÌÌà@ww8ôàv.ˆÌÌÌÓ  Óà@@  ,ôàVIVIAN€M.€Ô_Ô¢HICKMAN£Ô_Ô,€PERSONALÏREPRESENTATIVE€OF€THE€ESTATE€OFÏLOUIS€J.€Ô_Ô¢HICKMAN£Ô_Ô,€et€al.ÌÓùÓÌ_________________________________ñS<ñ__ÌñS<ñÌÌà  àÔ_Ô¢Sonner£Ô_Ô,Ìà  àÔ_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,Ìà  àSmith,€Marvin€H.,Ìà  à€€(Ô‡ôpÍõXX*yÔRetired,€specially€assignedÔ#†X*yXõôpÍ‹#Ô)Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.ÌñT<ñÌñT<ñ__________________________________ñU<ñ_›ÌñU<ñÌÌà@••.ôàOpinion€by€Ô_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,€J.ˆÌÌ_________________________________ñV<ñ_ñV<ñ_ÌÌÌà  àFiled:ñN<ñ€December€22,€2000ñN<ñÐ  º( $) Ðò òà@5ôàREPORTEDó óˆÐ ° Ðà@ôô9ôàòòˆÌÌà@cc*ôàIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóˆÐ T¤ Ðà@EE4ôàòòOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ 5… ÐÌÌÌà@ÂÂ5ôàNo.€€2241ˆÌÌÌà@/ôàSeptember€Term,€1999ˆÌ_________________________________¼__ÌÌÌà@-ôàTHOMAS€J.€CARVEN,€et€ux.ˆÌÌÌà@ww8ôàv.ˆÌÌÌÓ  Óà@@  ,ôàVIVIAN€M.€Ô_Ô¢HICKMAN£Ô_Ô,€PERSONALÏREPRESENTATIVE€OF€THE€ESTATE€OFÏLOUIS€J.€Ô_Ô¢HICKMAN£Ô_Ô,€et€al.ÌÓ·ÓÌÌ_________________________________¼__ÌÌÌà  àÔ_Ô¢Sonner£Ô_Ô,Ìà  àÔ_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,Ìà  àSmith,€Marvin€H.,Ìà  à€€(Ô‡ôpÍõXX*yÔRetired,€specially€assignedÔ#†X*yXõôpÍA#Ô)Ð “"ã" ÐÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ì_________________________________¼__ÌÌÌà@••.ôàOpinion€by€Ô_Ô¢Krauser£Ô_Ô,€J.ˆÌÌ_________________________________¼__ÌÌÐ -o(. Ðà  àFiled:ñO<ñÐ  °($+ ÐñO<ññQ<ñÌÌÌÌñQ<ññP<ñÌñP<ññM<ñÒ°ÀÒñM<ñÓÓÑ€ñÑÑ€¼éÑà  àThe€issue€presented€by€this€case€is€whether€the€statute€ofÏrepose,€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€ðð€5„108€of€the€MarylandÏCode€Annotated€(1973,€1998€Repl.€Vol.),€bars€a€claim€against€anÏowner€developer€who,€after€allegedly€removing€the€headstonesÏfrom€his€family€graveyard,€sold€it,€as€part€of€a€residentialÏlot,€without€notifying€the€purchasers€of€its€existence€orÏremoving€the€graves€or€their€occupants.€€The€ultimate€andÏunwitting€purchasers€of€that€lot€were€appellants,€Thomas€andÏDeborah€Carven.Ìà  àIn€1986,€appellants€built€their€home€on€the€lot€in€question,Ïand€in€1995€they€discovered€that€they€were€not€the€only€ones€whoÏoccupied€it.€€In€approving€the€plans€for€appellantsðð€home€inÏaccordance€with€the€propertyððs€restrictive€covenants,€the€ownerÏdeveloper,€Louis€J.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô,€and€his€wife€and€alleged€partner,ÏVivian€M.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô,¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€had€failed€to€mention€the€graveyard€or€thatÐ ±!! ÐMr.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€had€left€no€headstone€unturned€in€preparing€theirÏproperty€for€sale.€€In€1997,€Mr.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€passed€away.Ìà  àOn€December€16,€1997,€appellants€filed€suit€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Worcester€County€against€Vivian€M.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô,Ð ¹( $) ÐÑ ñ¼éÑâ âÑ€ÑØØâ âÑ8€*yXXdáXXdú8Ñâ âÑ  Ñindividually€and€as€personal€representative€of€the€estate€of€herÐ ° Ðdeceased€husband,€Louis€J.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô,€appellees,€for€deceit,Ïbreach€of€covenant€of€special€warranties,€and€negligence.€€InÏresponse,€appellees€filed€an€answer€and€later€an€amended€answerÏand€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€From€the€granting€of€thatÏmotion,€appellants€appeal.ÌÌà@{{%ìàò òBACKGROUNDó óˆÐ þN  Ðà  àOn€February€29,€1944,€Louis€J.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€acquired€theÏð ðWarrington€Farmðð,€a€200„acre€farm€near€Ô_Ô¢Bishopville£Ô_Ô,€Maryland.€ÏFrom€that€raw€parcel€of€farmland,€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€and€his€wife€andÏalleged€partner,€Vivian€M.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô,€developed€a€200„acreÏresidential€subdivision€with€over€150€lots€now€known€as€HolidayÏHarbor.€€Pursuant€to€a€development€plan,€the€Ô_Ô¢Hickmans£Ô_Ô€dugÏcanals,€built€roads,€installed€underground€electric€service,Ïgranted€rights€of€way€for€utilities€and€roads,€and€subdividedÏthe€property€through€a€series€of€plats€to€create€lots€that€couldÏbe€conveyed€separately.€€Those€plats€were€recorded€among€theÏland€records€of€Worcester€County.Ìà  àRestrictive€covenants€were€placed€on€the€lots€of€theÏdevelopment€by€deed.€€One€such€covenant€prohibited€a€"graveyard"Ïfrom€being€"erected,€permitted,€maintained€or€operated"€upon€anyÏportion€of€the€subdivision.€€Another€required€that€the€Ô_Ô¢Hickmans£Ô_ÔÐ ^+®&, Ðfirst€approve€the€construction€plans€of€a€lot€owner€before€he€orÏshe€could€proceed€with€construction.€€In€1964,€appellants€claim,ÏMr.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€ð ðremoved€the€tombstones,€markers,€and€other€surfaceÏevidence€of€the€graveyard€with€the€use€of€a€bulldozer,€whileÏleaving€the€graves€underground.ððÌà  àOn€June€30,€1964,€Plat€No.€2€was€recorded€among€the€landÏrecords€of€Worcester€County.€€That€plat€created€Lot€No.€96,€butÏgave€no€indication€of€the€presence€of€a€graveyard€on€thatÏproperty.€€Moreover,€the€Ô_Ô¢Hickmans£Ô_Ô,€according€to€appellants,Ïfailed€to€advise€the€county€of€its€existence€when€they€soughtÏcounty€approval€of€their€plat.Ìà  àThe€Ô_Ô¢Hickmans£Ô_Ô€later€conveyed€Lot€No.€96€to€Preston€L.€Ô_Ô¢Tubbs£Ô_Ô,ÏLouis€P.€Ô_Ô¢Tubbs£Ô_Ô,€and€Louise€T.€Lynch€by€deed€dated€August€25,Ï1975.€€They,€in€turn,€conveyed€it€by€deed€dated€June€11,€1984€toÏEdward€J.€Bryant€and€Betty€B.€Bryant,€who€thereafter€conveyed€itÏto€their€son„in„law€and€daughter,€Thomas€and€Deborah€CarvenÏ("Ô_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô"),€by€deed€dated€April€2,€1986.Ìà  àThe€Ô_Ô¢Hickmans£Ô_Ô€had€Ô_Ô¢had£Ô_Ô€no€contact€with€the€Ô_Ô¢Bryants£Ô_Ô€or€theÏÔ_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô€before€the€Ô_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô€acquired€title€to€Lot€No.€96.€€AfterÏacquiring€title€to€that€lot,€however,€the€Ô_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô€met€with€theÏÔ_Ô¢Hickmans£Ô_Ô€to€obtain€the€¢Hickmans£ðð€approval€of€their€homeÏconstruction€plans€as€they€were€required€to€do€by€the€covenants.€ÏAt€that€meeting,€Mr.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€reviewed€and€approved€the€Ô_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_ÔððÐ \+¬&, Ðplans.€€At€no€time,€however,€did€either€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€inform€theÏÔ_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô€of€the€existence€of€a€graveyard€on€their€lot.€€That€sameÏyear,€the€Ô_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô€began€constructing€their€family€residence.ÏThey€did€not€discover€the€graveyard€on€their€property€duringÏconstruction,€but,€nine€years€later,€on€January€11,€1995,€theyÏdid.Ìà  àOn€September€29,€1997,€Mr.€Ô_Ô¢Hickman£Ô_Ô€died.€€Several€months,Ïlater,€on€December€16,€1997,€the€Ô_Ô¢Carvens£Ô_Ô€filed€their€complaintÏin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Worcester€County€against€appellees,Ïalleging€deceit,€breach€of€covenant€of€special€warranty,€andÏnegligence.€€In€response,€appellees€filed€an€answer€and€thenÏlater€an€amended€answer€and€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ìà  àOn€June€30,€1999,€the€circuit€court€granted€appelleesððÏmotion€for€summary€judgment€as€to€the€breach€of€covenant€ofÏspecial€warranties€claim€on€the€ground€that€the€special€warrantyÏin€question€did€not€extend€to€subsequent€owners,€but€denied€itÏas€to€the€remaining€claims,€stating€that€ðð€5„108€(the€statute€ofÏrepose)€did€not€apply€to€the€conduct€alleged€in€the€complaint.€ÏAppellees€filed€a€motion€for€reconsideration€of€that€ruling.€ÏUpon€reconsideration,€the€circuit€court,€in€a€written€opinionÏdated€September€27,€1999,€granted€summary€judgment€as€to€theÏâ âremaining€counts€of€the€complaint€on€the€ground€that€they€wereÐ š)ê$* Ðbarred€by€the€statute€of€repose.€€Appellants€then€noted€thisÏappeal.Ìâ âÌò òÓ  ÓDISCUSSIONó óÐ ö F Ðò òIó óÐ º  ÐÓy$Óà  àAppellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€grantingÏappelleesðð€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€thatÏappellantsðð€claims€were€time€barred€by€the€statute€of€repose.€ÏThat€statute,€ðð€5„108,€provides,€in€part:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€òòInjury€occurring€more€than€20€yearsÐ †Ö Ðlateróó:€ð"ð€€Except€as€provided€by€thisÐ tÄ Ðsection,€no€cause€of€action€for€damagesÏaccrues€and€a€person€may€not€seekÏcontribution€or€indemnity€for€damagesÏincurred€when€wrongful€death,€personalÏinjury,€or€injury€to€real€or€personalÏproperty€resulting€from€the€defective€andÏunsafe€condition€of€an€improvement€to€realÏproperty€occurs€more€than€20€years€after€theÏdate€the€entire€improvement€first€becomesÏavailable€for€its€intended€use.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÅ%ÓCiting€that€statute,€the€circuit€court€found€that€the€creationÏof€the€subdivision€and€preparation€of€lots€for€sale€constitutedÏan€ð ðimprovement€to€real€propertyðð€and€that€ð ðthe€injury€[toÏappellant]€accrued€more€than€20€years€after€the€date€theÏimprovement€first€became€available€for€its€intended€use,ðð€which,Ïâ âaccording€to€that€court,€was€the€date€on€which€Plat€No.€2€wasÐ ×('$) Ðrecorded.€€On€that€basis,€it€granted€summary€judgment€in€favorÏof€appellees.Ìâ âà  àIn€evaluating€appellantsðð€contention€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€so€ruling,€we€observe€that€summary€judgment€isÏappropriate€only€when,€after€viewing€the€motion€and€response€inÏfavor€of€the€non„moving€party,€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact,€and€€the€party€in€whose€favor€judgment€is€enteredÏis€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòÔ_Ô¢Pittman£Ô_Ô€v.€AtlanticÐ þN  ÐRealty€Co.óó,€127€Md.€App.€255,€269,€òòÔ_Ô¢revððd£Ô_Ô€on€other€groundsóó,€359Ð Ú* ÐMd.€513€(2000);€€Md.€Rule€2„501(e).€€The€standard€of€review€weÏare€to€apply€ð ðis€whether€the€trial€court€was€legally€correct.ðð€ÏÔ_ÔÔ_Ô€òòHeat€&€Power€Corp.€v.€Air€Prods.€&€Ô_Ô¢Chems£Ô_Ô.óó,€Inc.,€320€Md.€584,Ð :Š Ð591€(1990).€€In€making€that€determination,€ð ðwe€do€not€accordÏdeference€to€the€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusions.ðð€€òòÔ_Ô¢Lopata£Ô_Ô€v.Ð Ø( ÐMilleróó,€122€Md.€App.€76,€83,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€351€Md.€286€(1998).Ð ´ Ðà  à€As€the€facts€pertinent€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgmentÏare€not€in€dispute,€we€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€theÏcircuit€court€was€ð ðlegally€correctðð€in€applying€ðð€5„108€to€theseÏfacts.€€In€deciding€that€question,€we€shall€consider€the€purposeÏand€intent€of€the€Legislature€in€enacting€that€statute.Ìà  àð ðThe€cardinal€rule€of€statutory€construction€is€toÏeffectuate€and€carry€out€legislative€intent.ðð€€òòRose€v.€Fox€PoolÐ *l%* ÐCorp.óó,€335€Md.€351,€358€(1994).€€Because€every€statute€furthersÐ ø+H', Ðsome€underlying€purpose,€we€must€construe€a€statute€according€toÏits€general€purposes€and€policies.€€òòIdóó.€at€358„59.€€InÐ r Ðinterpreting€a€statute€such€as€the€one€before€us,€we€look€firstÏto€the€words€of€the€statute,€giving€them€their€ð ðnatural€andÏordinary€signification,€bearing€in€mind€the€statutory€aim€andÏobjective.ðð€€òòRichmond€v.€Stateóó,€326€Md.€257,€262€(1992).€€ð ðIfÐ ” ä  Ðthe€words€of€the€statute,€construed€according€to€their€commonÏand€everyday€meaning,€are€clear€and€unambiguous€and€express€aÏplain€meaning,€we€will€give€effect€to€the€statute€as€it€isÏwritten.ðð€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€336€Md.€255,€261€(1994).Ð ¶ Ðà  àEven€if€the€statute€is€clear€and€unambiguous,€however,€ð ðweÏare€not€ððprecluded€from€consulting€legislative€history€as€partÏof€the€process€of€determining€the€legislative€purpose€or€goalððÏof€the€law.ðð€€òòMorris€v.€Prince€Georgeððs€Countyóó,€319€Md.€597,€604Ð Ø( Ð(1990).€€Moreover,€ð ðthe€legislative€history€of€a€statute,Ïincluding€amendments€that€were€considered€and/or€enacted€as€theÏstatute€passed€through€the€Legislature,€and€the€statuteððsÏrelationship€to€earlier€and€subsequent€legislation€are€ððexternalÏmanifestationsðð€or€ððpersuasive€evidenceðð€of€legislative€purposeÏthat€may€be€taken€into€consideration.ðð€€òòRoseóó,€335€Md.€at€360.Ð ~&Î!& Ðà  àWe€next€address€the€question€of€what€is€a€statute€of€reposeÏâ âand€then€what€purpose€does€it€serve?€€Ð *l%* Ðà  àGenerally,€a€ð ðstatute€of€repose€creates€a€substantive€rightÏâ âin€those€protected€to€be€free€from€liability€after€aÏlegislatively-determined€period€of€time,ðð€which€is€ð ðtypically€anÏabsolute€time€limit€beyond€which€liability€no€longer€exists€andÏis€not€tolled€for€any€reason.ðð€€òòFirst€United€Methodist€Church€ofÐ ¸  ÐÔ_Ô¢Hyattsville£Ô_Ô€v.€United€States€Gypsum€Co.óó,€882€F.2d€862,€866€(4òòthóóÐ ” ä  ÐCir.€1989).€€It€is€a€substantive€grant€of€immunity€derived€fromÏa€legislative€balance€of€economic€considerations€affecting€theÏgeneral€public€and€the€respective€rights€of€potential€plaintiffsÏand€defendants.€€òòIdóó.Ð ¶ Ðà  àA€statute€of€repose€is€different€from€a€statute€ofÏlimitations,€which€is€ð ða€procedural€device€that€operates€as€aÏdefense€to€limit€the€remedy€available€from€an€existing€cause€ofÏaction.ðð€òò€Idóó.€at€865.€€Unlike€a€statute€of€limitations,€aÐ Ø( Ðstatute€of€repose€is€not€triggered€by€the€discovery€rule.€€òòIdóó.Ð ´ Ðat€865„66.€Nor€is€it€tolled€by€a€defendantððs€fraudulentÏconcealment€of€the€cause€of€a€plaintiffððs€injury.€€òòIdóó.€at€866.€Ð R!¢  ÐInstead,€it€ð ðÔ_Ô¢shelter[s£Ô_Ô]€legislatively€designated€groups€fromÏproperty€and€personal€injury€actions€after€a€period€of€time€hasÏelapsed...€and€is€unrelated€to€when€an€accident€or€discovery€ofÏdamages€occurs.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Susan€C.€Randall,€Comment,€òòDue€ProcessÐ t(Ä#( Ðâ âChallenge€to€Statutes€of€Reposeóó,€40€òòSw.€¢L.J.£óó€997,€998€(1986).Ð P* %* Ðà  àThe€catalyst€for€enacting€such€statutes€in€manyÏâ âjurisdictions,€including€Maryland,€was€the€dramatic€expansion€inÏthe€liability€of€builders,€contractors,€architects,€engineers,Ïand€developers€resulting€from€three€developments:€1)€theÏelimination€of€the€ð ðprivity€of€contractðð€doctrineœ×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€as€a€defense,Ð ¸  Ðòòsee€Roseóó,€335€Md.€at€362;€òòWhiting„Turner€Contracting€Co.€v.Ð z Ê  ТCoupard£óó,€304€Md.€340,€349€(1985)òò;€óóand€òòRandall,€supraóó,€at€1000;Ð V¦  Ð2)€the€declining€acceptability€of€ð ðthe€completed€and€exceptedÏrule,ððœ×ƒx×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€òòsee€Randall,€supraóó,€at€1000„01;€and€3)€the€applicationÐ ôD Ðof€the€ð ðdiscovery€ruleððœ×ƒ4×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€to€state€statutes€of€limitations.€€òòSeeÐ Ð  ÐRoseóó,€335€Md.€at€362;€òòWhiting„Turneróó,€304€Md.€at€349;€andòòÐ ¬ü ÐRandall,€supraóó,€at€1001.€ð ðTaken€together€these€three€legalÐ ˆØ Ðdevelopments€meant€that€architects,€engineers,€contractors,€andÏothers€involved€in€construction€could€be€held€liableÏindefinitely€for€property€damage€and€personal€injury€caused€byÏtheir€work.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Randall,€òòsupraóó,€at€1001.€Thus,€ð ð[¢a]rchitects£Ð ªú Ðand€engineers,€particularly€concerned€by€these€developments,Ïturned€to€state€legislatures€for€protection€from€this€expandedÏliability.ðð€€òòRoseóó,€335€Md.€at€362.€The€possibility€thatÐ 4„ Ðseemingly€endless€liability€would€deter€such€professionals€fromÏexperimenting€with€new€materials,€designs,€or€procedures€spurredÏthe€state€legislatures€into€action.€€òòSeeóó€Randall,€òòsupraóó,€atÐ ” ä  Ð1000„02;€Josephine€Herring€Hicks,€òòThe€Constitutionality€ofÐ pÀ  ÐStatutes€of€Repose:€Federalism€Reignsóó,€38€òò¢Vand£.€L.€Revóó.€627,€633Ð Lœ  Ð(1985);€€òòWhiting„Turneróó,€304€Md.€at€354€(agreeing€with€theÐ (x ÐSupreme€Court€of€Michigan€that€legislation€was€needed€toÏð ðððreduce€the€potential€liabilityðððð€of€professionals€toÏð ðððencourage€experimentationðððð)(quoting€òòOððBrien€v.€¢Hazelet£€&Ð ˆØ ТErdal£óó,€299€¢N.W.2d£€336,€342€(1980)).€In€Maryland,€the€LegislatureÐ d´ Ðresponded€by€enacting€Ch.€666€of€the€1970€Laws€of€Maryland,Ïformally€codified€in€Article€57,€ðð€20€of€the€Maryland€Code,€theÏprecursor€to€ðð€5„108.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£Ð Ä Ðà  àThe€Revisorððs€Note€to€ðð€5„108€indicates€that€the€purpose€ofÏthis€statute€was€to€impose€a€limit€on€the€expansion€of€liabilityÏfor€professionals€involved€in€making€improvements€to€realÏproperty.€€It€states:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€section€is€new€language€derived€fromÏArt.€57,€ðð20.€€It€is€believed€that€this€isÏan€attempt€to€relieve€builders,€contractors,Ïlandlords,€and€Ô_Ô¢realtors£Ô_Ô€of€the€risk€ofÏlatent€defects€in€design,€construction,€orÏmaintenance€of€an€improvement€to€realtyÏmanifesting€themselves€more€than€20€yearsÏafter€the€improvement€is€first€put€in€use.€ÏThe€section€is€drafted€in€the€form€of€aÏstatute€of€limitation,€but,€in€reality,€itÏgrants€immunity€from€suit€in€certainÏinstances.Ó IÓÐ ` x` x Ðà  àAccording€to€that€note,€therefore,€the€purpose€of€ðð€5„108Ïwas€to€protect€builders,€contractors,€Ô_Ô¢realtors£,Ô_Ô€and€landlordsÏfrom€suits€for€latent€defects€in€design,€construction,€orÏmaintenance€of€an€improvement€to€real€property€that€are€broughtÏmore€than€twenty€years€after€the€improvement€is€first€put€toÏuse.€€In€granting€immunity€from€such€suits€after€twenty€yearsÏhas€elapsed,€the€Legislature€appeared€to€be€striking€a€balanceÐ ±!! Ðbetween€encouraging€innovation€in€the€construction€industry€andÏensuring€public€safety.€€One€thing,€however,€is€abundantlyÏclear:€€the€Legislature€did€not€intend€for€ðð€5„108€to€encompassÏa€developerððs€desecration€of€a€graveyard€and€his€subsequentÏconcealment€of€its€existence€to€facilitate€its€sale€as€part€ofÏa€residential€lot.Ì€€€The€purpose€and€intent€of€the€statute€of€repose€wasÏconsidered€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòRoseóó,€335€Md.€at€361„74.€Ð þN  ÐIn€that€case,€the€principal€issue€before€the€Court€was€ð ðwhetherÏðð€5„108(a)€applies€to€a€cause€of€action€brought€against€theÏmanufacturer€of€a€residential,€in„ground€swimming€pool€forÏinjuries€caused€by€an€alleged€defect€in€the€poolððs€design.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ  p Ðat€354.€€The€trial€court€held€that€it€did€and€granted€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant€manufacturer€on€the€groundÏthat€ðð€5„108(a)€barred€the€plaintiffððs€suit.€€òòId.óó€at€358.€€TheÐ €Ð ÐCourt€of€Appeals€agreed€with€the€trial€court€that€the€statute€ofÏrepose€applied€to€the€facts€of€that€case€but€nonethelessÏreversed€the€judgment€of€that€court€on€the€ground€that€ð ðthereÏ[was]€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€theÏplaintiffððs€injury€occurred€more€than€20€years€after€the€dateÏthe€entire€improvement€first€became€available€for€its€intendedÏâ âuse.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€354„55.Ð è)8%* Ðà  àIn€reaching€that€conclusion,€the€Court€of€Appeals€statedÏâ âthat€ð ð[¢t]he£€specific€statutory€language€of€ðð€5„108(a)€precludesÏall€actions€which€meet€two€requirements:€(1)€the€plaintiffððsÏinjuries€must€have€resulted€from€the€alleged€defective€andÏunsafe€condition€of€ððan€improvement€to€real€propertyðð;€and€(2)Ï20€years€must€have€passed€since€the€ððentire€improvement€firstÏÔ_Ô¢bec[ame£Ô_Ô]€available€for€its€intended€use.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€360.Ð <Œ  ÐÌà@oo)ìàò òIIó óˆÐ Ú* Ðà  àThe€first€requirement€„€that€ð ðthe€plaintiffððs€injuries€mustÏhave€resulted€from€the€alleged€defective€and€unsafe€condition€ofÏððan€improvement€to€real€propertyðððð€„€€has€three€components:€€1)Ïan€improvement€to€real€property,€2)€a€defective€and€unsafeÏcondition€of€that€improvement,€and€3)€injuries€resulting€fromÏthe€defective€and€unsafe€condition.€€Unfortunately,€neither€theÏlanguage€of€the€statute€nor€its€legislative€history€providesÏmuch€assistance€in€defining€these€three€components.€€Indeed,€asÏto€the€first€component,€the€Court€of€Appeals€observed€thatÏð ðSection€5„108€itself€does€not€define€ððimprovement€to€realÏpropertyðð€and€there€is€no€clear€indication€in€the€legislativeÏhistory€of€the€statute€as€to€what€the€term€was€meant€toÏâ âencompass.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€375.€Ð ¶)%* Ðà  àIn€defining€that€term,€the€Court€of€Appeals€then€prescribedÏâ âa€ð ðcommon€sense€approachðð€and€adopted€the€Blackððs€Law€DictionaryÏdefinition€of€ð ðan€improvement€to€real€property.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€376.Ð 4„ ÐThat€text€defines€such€an€improvement€as:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€valuable€addition€made€to€propertyÏ(usually€real€estate)€or€an€amelioration€inÏits€condition,€amounting€to€more€than€mereÏrepairs€or€replacement,€costing€labor€orÏcapital,€and€intended€to€enhance€its€value,Ïbeauty€or€utility€or€to€adapt€it€for€new€orÏfurther€purposes.€€Generally€has€referenceÏto€buildings,€but€may€also€include€anyÏpermanent€structure€or€other€development,Ïsuch€as€a€street,€sidewalks,€sewers,Ïutilities,€etc.€€An€expenditure€to€extendÏthe€useful€life€of€an€asset€or€to€improveÏits€performance€over€that€of€the€originalÏasset.€€Such€expenditures€are€capitalized€asÏpart€of€the€asset's€cost.€€Ð ` x` x ÐÓˆYÓÌòòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó€757€(6th€ed.€1990).€€The€Court€then€set€forthÐ Ã Ðthe€factors€that€should€be€considered€in€determining€whetherÏsomething€qualifies€as€an€ð ðimprovement€to€real€property.ðð€€TheyÏare€ð ðthe€nature€of€the€addition€or€betterment,€its€permanenceÏand€relationship€to€the€land€and€its€occupants,€and€its€effectÏon€the€value€and€use€of€the€property.ðð€òòRoseóó,€355€Md.€at€376„77.Ð #Ý# Ѐ€€€€€Although€the€decisions€of€our€sister€state€courts€are€notÏbinding€on€us,€we€find€their€definitions€of€this€term€to€beÏhelpful€to€our€analysis.€Other€state€courts€have€defined€thisÏterm€to€mean€ð ðerection€of€a€building;€replacing€old€buildingsÐ ¯*ÿ%+ Ðwith€new€ones;€substantial€repairs€to€a€building€necessary€toÏpreserve€a€building;€the€making€of€substantial€additions€to€orÏchanges€in€existing€buildings;€construction€of€sidewalks;Ïerection€of€fences;€and€the€preparation€of€land€for€buildingÏsites,ðð€òòÔ_Ô¢Noll£Ô_Ô€by€Ô_Ô¢Noll£Ô_Ô€v.€Harrisburg€Area€YMCAóó,€643€A.2d€81,€87Ð ¸  Ð(Pa.€1994)Ô_ÔÔ_Ô€(internal€citations€omitted),€as€well€as€a€circuitÏbox€and€transformer€that€provided€power€to€equipment€in€aÏcomputer€room,€òòTravelers€Ins.€Co.€v.€Guardian€Alarm€Co.€ofÐ h  ÐMichiganóó,€586€¢N.W.2d£€760,€762€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1998),€and€theÐ ôD Ðconstruction€of€a€road.€€Ô_Ôòò¢Milligan£Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_Ô¢Tibbetts£Ô_Ô€Engineering€Corp.óó,Ð Ð  Ð461€¢N.E.2d£€808,€809€(Mass.€1984).Ìà  àEqually€helpful€are€the€things€that€these€courts€have€foundÏnot€to€be€improvements€to€real€property:€€temporary€gas€metersÏinstalled€in€a€newly€constructed€shopping€mall,€òòAllentown€PlazaÐ òB ÐAssoc.€v.€Suburban€Propane€Gas€Corp.óó,€43€Md.€App.€337,€346Ð Î Ð(1979),€demolition€work€to€gut€a€building€to€prepare€it€forÏrenovations,€òòBrandt€v.€Ô_Ô¢Hallwood£Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔManagementÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€560€Ô_Ô¢N.W.2d£€396,Ð l!¼  Ð399„400€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1997),Ô_Ԣ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£Ô_Ô€ð ða€survey€[of€land]€and€a€planÐ H#˜" Ðdividing€property€into€lots,€at€least€where€the€plan€isÏunrelated€to€any€proposed€construction€or€changes€in€theÏtopography€of€the€land,ðð€òòÔ_Ô¢Raffel£Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_Ô¢Perley£Ô_Ôóó,€437€¢N.E.2d£€1082,€1083Ð 4„ Ð(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1982),Ô_Ԣ׃x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£Ô_Ô€and€ð ðthe€€removal€of€an€undergroundÐ  ` Ðstorage€tank.ðð€€òòÔ_Ô¢Pitsch£Ô_Ô€v.€ESE€Michigan,€Inc.óó,€593€¢N.W.2d£€565,Ð Ò " Ð577€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1999),€òòappeal€deniedóó,€595€¢N.W.2d£€844€(Mich.Ð ® þ  Ð1999).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€common€denominator€in€all€of€these€examples€is€thatÐ ŠÚ  Ðan€improvement€to€real€property€is€a€tangible€thing€that€isÏconstructed,€added,€or€developed€as€a€permanent€structure€orÏpart€of€a€permanent€structure€on€property.€€These€examples€areÏtherefore€consistent€with€the€Blackððs€Law€Dictionary€definitionÏof€ð ðan€improvement€to€real€property,ðð€adopted€by€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€in€òòRoseóó,€which€states€that€an€improvement€to€realÐ z Ê  Ðproperty€ð ð[¢g]enerally£€has€reference€to€buildings,€but€may€alsoÏinclude€any€permanent€structure€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionary€óóatÐ h  Ð757.Ìà  àIn€developing€the€farmland€in€question,€appellees€dugÏcanals,€built€streets,€and€installed€underground€electricalÏservice€so€that€the€property€could€be€subdivided€into€individualÏlots€for€sale.€€While€each€of€these€items€alone€(canals,Ïstreets,€and€underground€electrical€service)€may€qualify€as€anÏimprovement€to€real€property,€none€of€these€improvements€isÏrelevant€to€our€consideration€of€the€applicability€of€theÏstatute€to€the€instant€case;€appellants€do€not€allege€that€theyÏsuffered€any€injury€resulting€from€the€defective€and€unsafeÏcondition€of€any€of€those€improvements.€While€appelleesðð€effortsÐ n$¾$ Ðin€preparing€Warrington€Farm€for€sale€improved€the€condition€ofÏthat€property€and€adapted€it€for€new€purposes,€these€effortsÏwere€not€challenged€as€the€ones€creating€a€defective€and€unsafeÏcondition,€causing€appellantsðð€injuries.Ìà  àInstead,€the€change€in€the€land€at€issue€here€was€theÏremoval€of€headstones€from€a€graveyard€to€conceal€its€existenceÏfrom€potential€buyers.€€This€act€hardly€qualifies€as€anÏimprovement.€It€did€not€alter€the€status€of€that€property;€itÏmerely€concealed€it.€€It€certainly€did€not€constitute€ð ðaÏvaluable€addition€to€property€.€.€.€or€an€amelioration€in€itsÏcondition,€amounting€to€more€than€mere€repair€or€replacement,Ïcosting€labor€or€capital,€and€intended€to€enhance€its€value,Ïbeauty€or€utility€or€to€adapt€it€for€new€or€further€purposes.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€€Nor€did€it€constitute€a€ð ðpermanent€structureðð€or€part€ofÐ ŠÚ Ðone.€€òòIdóó.€€If€we€place€it€in€the€context€of€prevailing€Ô_Ô¢caselaw£Ô_Ô,Ð f¶ Ðit€is€more€akin€to€the€type€of€activity€that€other€state€courtsÏhave€declined€to€define€as€improvements,€such€as€demolition€workÏinside€a€building€to€prepare€it€for€renovations,€see€òòBrandtóó,€560Ð Æ"" ТN.W.2d£€at€399„400,€or€ð ðthe€removal€of€an€underground€storageÏtank.ðð€€òòÔ_Ô¢Pitsch£Ô_Ôóó,€593€¢N.W.2d£€at€577.€€But€even€these€actions,Ð d&´!& Ðwhich€have€been€rejected€by€other€courts€as€ð ðimprovementsðð€toÏreal€property,€were€at€least€arguably€steps€taken€in€theÏdirection€of€improving€a€property.€€The€removal€of€headstones,Ð Ä+', Ðwithout€any€intention€of€removing€the€graves€themselves,€doesÏnot€even€rise€to€that€level,€let€alone€constitute€an€improvementÏitself.€€Ìà  àEven€if€we€were€to€find€that€appelleesðð€conduct€amounted€toÏan€improvement€to€real€property,€we€find€that€¢that£€improvementÏwas€not€in€a€ð ðdefective€and€unsafe€conditionðð€as€that€term€hasÏbeen€defined€by€Ô_Ô¢caselaw£Ô_Ô€and€the€statute€of€repose€or€itsÏlegislative€history.€€€The€principal€injury€claimed€byÏappellants€is€that€ð ðtheir€realty€and€improvementsðð€to€thatÏrealty€ð ðare€worthlessðð€because€of€the€existence€of€a€graveyardÏon€their€property.€Ìà  à€The€legislative€history€cited€above€indicates€that€theÏLegislature€intended€a€defective€and€unsafe€condition€to€coverÏlatent€defects€in€parts€that€were€used€in€the€improvement,€flawsÏin€design€that€were€relied€upon€in€constructing€the€improvement,Ïor€defects€in€workmanship€in€the€construction€of€theÏimprovement.€€òòSee€¢Hilliard£€&€¢Bartko£€Joint€Venture€v.€¢Fedco£Ð Ð   ÐSystemsóó,€Inc.,€309€Md.€147,€161€(1987)€and€Revisorððs€Note€to€ððÐ ¬"ü" Ð5„108(a).€€For€example,€the€defective€and€unsafe€condition€toÏreal€property€found€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòRoseóó€was€a€designÐ J&š!& Ðflaw€in€the€construction€of€the€swimming€pool,€which€was€allegedÏâ âto€have€caused€Roseððs€personal€injuries.Ð è)8%* Ðà  àHere,€it€is€difficult€for€us€to€ascertain€what€the€defectiveÏâ âand€unsafe€condition€is€under€the€statute€of€repose€because€itÏis€unclear€what€the€improvement€is.€€But€whether€we€find€thatÏthe€alleged€ð ðimprovementðð€at€issue€here€was€the€removal€of€theÏheadstones€or,€as€the€circuit€court€asserted,€the€creation€of€aÏsubdivision€and€preparation€of€lots€for€sale,€the€defective€andÏunsafe€condition€can€only€conceivably€be€the€graves€remainingÏunderground€on€appellantsðð€property.€€These€graves€do€not€amountÏto€an€òòunsafeóó€or€even€defective€condition€of€an€improvement,€asÐ À Ðall€graveyards€by€definition€have€graves.€€On€the€other€hand,€ifÏby€ð ðdefectiveðð€the€parties€are€referring€to€the€effect€that€anÏunmarked€and€unrecorded€graveyard€has€on€the€title,€we€observeÏthat€there€is€no€Ô_ÔprecedentÔ_Ô€for€finding€that€a€defective€titleÏconstitutes€ð ða€defective€and€unsafe€conditionðð€under€the€statuteÏof€repose.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€as€a€condition€ofÏapplicability,€the€statute€of€repose€requires€the€improvement€beÏboth€defective€and€unsafe.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€theÏgraveyard€in€question€is€unsafe,€only€unmarked.Ìà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€question€of€whether€the€injury€allegedÏby€appellants€is€one€that€the€statute€of€repose€was€intended€toÏaddress.€€Appellants€assert€that€the€principal€injury€theyÏsustained€was€a€Ô_ÔdiminutionÔ_Ô€in€the€value€of€their€propertyÏbecause€of€the€presence€of€the€graveyard€on€their€lot€or€theÐ v+Æ&, Ðcost€of€disinterment.€€This€injury€does€not€fall€within€theÏpurview€of€the€statute€of€repose€for€two€reasons.€€First,€thatÏinjury€did€not€result€ð ðfrom€the€defective€and€unsafe€conditionððÏof€an€improvement€to€real€property,€at€least€not€the€improvementÏidentified€by€the€circuit€court,€namely,€the€creation€of€aÏsubdivision€and€the€preparation€of€lots€for€sale.€€As€notedÏearlier,€the€presence€of€the€graveyard€on€appellantsðð€propertyÏmay€not€have€enhanced€the€value€of€their€property€but€it€did€notÏconstitute€a€ð ðdefective€and€unsafe€condition.ðð€Consequently,Ïthere€is€no€connection€between€the€improvement€identified€by€theÏcircuit€court€and€the€injury€claimed€by€appellant.Ìà  àSecond,€a€financial€injury€of€the€kind€suffered€byÏappellants€is€not€covered€by€the€statute€of€repose.€Although€noÏMaryland€appellate€court€has€yet€addressed€this€issue,€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€of€Mississippi€recently€did.€òòAir€Comfort€Systems,Ð Lœ ÐInc.€v.€Honeywell,€Inc.óó,€760€So.€2d€43€(Miss.€2000).€€InÐ (x Ðconsidering€a€statute€of€repose€similar€to€our€own,¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€that€courtÐ !T  Ðheld€that€a€financial€injury€caused€by€correcting€an€allegedÏdefect€in€a€building,€not€because€of€its€unsafe€condition€butÏbecause€a€subcontractor€used€an€incorrect€part,€is€not€the€typeÏof€injury€contemplated€by€the€statute€of€repose€because€it€ð ðisÏnot€damage€to€property€or€personal€injury€under€the€statute.ðð€Ð ¸  ÐòòIdóó.€at€48.€€In€arriving€at€this€conclusion,€the€MississippiÐ z Ê  Ðcourt€pointed€out€that€what€the€plaintiff€was€really€seekingÏthere€was€contract€damages€arising€out€of€a€breach€of€contract,Ïnot€out€of€an€injury€to€person€or€property€as€contemplated€byÏthe€Mississippi€statute€of€repose.€€òòIdóó.€at€47„48.€The€courtÐ œì Ðexplained:€ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€obvious€problem€for€[plaintiff]€is€thatÏwhat€it€is€seeking€are€contract€damages€forÏan€alleged€breach,€not€damages€arising€outÏof€an€injury€to€person€or€property.€€True,Ïthe€contract€concerned€real€property.€Yet€ifÏthe€claim€relating€to€construction€of€aÏbuilding€is€solely€for€failure€to€place€theÏcontracted„for€quality€of€shingles€on€aÏroof,€or€to€use€the€correct€brand€ofÏplumbing€fixtures,€or€to€meet€the€contractÏschedule€for€completion,€that€is€a€contractÏclaim€and€not€a€personal€injury€or€propertyÏdamage€claim.€.€.€.€However,€if€water€damageÐ Æ"" Ðinside€the€structure€proximately€resultedÏfrom€using€a€lower€quality€shingles€on€aÏroof€than€was€required€under€the€contract,Ïthe€statute€of€repose€would€be€relevant€to€aÏclaim€for€that€property€damage.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓT‡ÓòòIdóó.€€Ð ö F Ðà  àWe€find€the€reasoning€of€that€court€sound.€€We€thereforeÏconclude€that€a€purely€financial€injury,€such€as€that€claimed€byÏappellants,€does€not€fall€within€the€purview€of€the€MarylandÏstatute€of€repose.€€The€Ô_ÔdiminutionÔ_Ô€in€the€value€of€a€residentialÏproperty€caused€by€the€discovery€of€the€presence€of€a€Ô_ÔcemeteryÔ_ÔÏon€that€property€and€the€cost€of€disinterring€the€bodies€of€thatÏgraveyard€are€not€the€injury€to€personal€or€real€property,€orÏpersonal€injury,€contemplated€by€the€Maryland€œstatute›€of€repose.€Ìà  àBecause€we€find€that€none€of€the€elements€of€the€firstÏrequirement€set€forth€in€òòRoseóó€for€statute€of€repose€coverage€areÐ ¤ô Ðsatisfied,€we€need€not€consider€the€second€requirement€(whetherÏ20€years€passed€since€the€ððentire€improvement€first€Ô_Ô¢bec[ame£Ô_Ô]Ïavailable€for€its€intended€use.ðððð).ÌÌà@{{%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ˆ$Ø$ Ðà  àIn€sum,€we€find€that€the€circuit€court€erred€in€grantingÏsummary€judgment€based€on€the€statute€of€repose,€becauseÏappellantsðð€claims€did€not€involve€a€personal€injury€or€anÏinjury€to€personal€or€real€property€resulting€from€a€defectiveÐ ’+â&, Ðand€unsafe€condition€of€an€improvement€to€real€property.€ÏAccordingly,€we€shall€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€circuit€courtÏand€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.ÌÌÌÒÀ°Òò òÓÓJUDGMENT€OF€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FORÐ <Œ  ÐÔ_ÔWORCESTERÔ_Ô€COUNTY€REVERSED€AND€CASEÏREMANDED€FOR€FURTHER€PROCEEDINGSÏCONSISTENT€WITH€THIS€OPINION.ÌÌCOSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLEES.ó óÐ ¦ö ÐÒ°ÀÒœ