ÿWPC7O &‹ |°„`í™ “¼¦ÎúW9ÓqÊ{· \Ó´9¸ nøWë°{ÿ„ÛwwÁ ‡£eðfu7ý¤Ï ì2daû š*ÿœÊFEñ™ù~f˜ÑàgØ/ \paßbT»ä÷ì,w¸_}˜dëÇB—?WÌ\s¶ä¡eó® O¬“¡ LJ@Ð"}ªv.‰ü ÖqºþËMí¡Ev¥).?ØÐô»7¸$بîBg)ñ-žÑÎJ;M{¹6—›Ñ– ÈÒ¾ò½¥õ»‰G6§ÂéÞZé¸ÿ‡\ áÏ&ïkLÏ<RÏ2ŸµÜ®Ë+JãjüŠ7OÚÒÛ=I]DDì™B‰T/íÊâÍuÙ&á•ò\R¢˜$“¯)ޝɒ:“¶‚­?Bk…ÄhWF-ÜJŒgG&úIùg7"€äá¬kank ­ ‡†Ü}Ï÷^Oòl¡^Ü ¾è\§³‰¢`î­Ò!ŽÑ£çc>Úü¤Æi»u¹Æ.ÆLIà†åñbls”]ÕúT½çì¥Çöò‡¾‡úBÀ<ÿ¯ µjK¦9ÕKRëݪS£Ó6Wá‹ Ü:a©øu»¯‹’3½8ôB]’‚¾eQº•9S]#!UF7 %} 0ƒU:E w@ 4¿ Ó â mä ¢û 0 0D£ Õç ¿¼ { uúÇoƒ6þ¹ 0‰· 1m@ 0c­Lø\†TÕÚ ¯!;Á"ãü$¢ß%ú&4{/ 0ƒ/ 0v0 0vˆ0 0¥þ0 0‰£1 B,2 0>I2b ‡2 0Ü“2 0ïo3 0±^4 05 06 0)&7 0<O8 0N‹9áÙ: 0aº; 0Ú= 0¯õ= 0¯¤> 0ÎS?!@ 0Ç)@ 0Æð@ 0ä¶A 0®šB 0®HC 0zöC 0¹pD )E 0=:E 0FwE 0P½E 1“ F 0® F 1NG 0·SH 0Ý I 1·çIžJ 1gžJVKK–KEN4ŸNŸNŸNŸNŸNŸNb³N4»NÏN4çN4ûN4O4#O˜Acrobat PDFWriter,ð,,,,,ð0´4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New RegularX(šG$¡¡Ó  ÓѰ°ÑÓÓÑ  ÑѰ°ÑÑ€))ÑÑ8€æ}XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ !! Ñ<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi J#K#DL#M#N#EO#P#DQ#R#S#D«Mq)À ƒ3|xS#7ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›¢Driggs£€did€not€have€an€interest€in€Freedom€Air,€Inc.(¶(3¢Ä$¤¤Ý ƒG!ÝÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÓÓÑ  ÑѰ°ÑÑ€)ÑÑ8€æ@XXdÈdÖ8ÑÑ ! ÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ËÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€note€was€initially€given€to€Nationsbankððs€predecessor,Ð ° ÐMaryland€National€Bank. µÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Code€(1975,€2000€Repl.€Vol.),€ðð11-212€of€the€Comm.€LawÐ ° Ðart. uÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€court€did€not€offer€¢Zachair£€the€option€of€a€new€trialÐ ° Ðrather€than€¢remittitur£€of€the€punitive€damages€award,€andÏneither€party€suggests€that€it€was€required€to€do€so.€€òòSeeÐ r Ðgenerally€Bowden€v.€Caldoróó,€350€Md.€4,€47€(1998).€ kÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›òòIdóó. ½Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Code€(1957,€1996€Repl.€Vol.,€1999€Cum.€Supp.),€ðð286(g)€ofÐ ° Ðart.€27. yÝ ƒ q˜$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€\X—XXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€point€out€in€their€brief€that€in€March€ofÐ ° Ð1995,€toward€the€end€of€the€five€month€period€in€question,€¢Zachair£Ïfiled€a€motion€to€enjoin€the€mining€operations€on€Hyde€Field.€€InÏa€memorandum€in€support€of€the€motion,€¢Zachair£€asserted€that€¢TDC£Ïhad€ceased€mining€operations€upon€the€sale€to€¢Zachair£€but€hadÏrecently€resumed€them.€€The€motion€was€supported€by€the€affidavitsÏof€€two€Freedom€Air€employees€who€stated,€in€essence,€that€miningÏoperations€had€ceased€in€early€November€of€1994€but€had€resumed€inÏlate€February€of€1995.€€¢Zachair£€attorney€Nelson€¢Deckelbaum£Ïtestified€at€trial€that€he€was€laboring€under€a€misunderstandingÏwhen€he€prepared€the€motion€and€that€he€learned€one€day€afterÏfiling€it€that€¢TDC£€had€been€mining€the€property€all€along.€€ThereÏis€little€explanation€in€the€record€as€to€why€the€two€Freedom€AirÏemployees€stated€in€their€affidavits€that€mining€and€ceased€for€aÏperiod€of€time.€€In€any€event,€the€jury€discounted€the€affidavits,Ïand€ð ð[¢i]t£€is€axiomatic€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€and€theÐ :Š   Ðcredibility€of€witnesses€are€always€matters€for€the€jury€toÏdetermine€when€it€is€the€trier€of€facts.ðð€€òòBinnie€v.€Stateóó,€321€Md.Ð †Ö Ð572,€580€(1991). ôÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€parties€tacitly€concede€that€this€figure€representsÐ ° Ð$1,875,000.00€in€mining€revenues€and€$100,000.00€in€airparkÏrevenues.V1 ×ß8Document[8]Document Styleà0..àà8` ..` àÛ  ÛÌÌ# e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³´$´´Ô2 eÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à BÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€point€out€in€their€brief€that€in€March€ofÐ ° Ð1995,€toward€the€end€of€the€five€month€period€in€question,Ï¢Zachair£€filed€a€motion€to€enjoin€the€mining€operations€on€HydeÏField.€€In€a€memorandum€in€support€of€the€motion,€¢Zachair£Ïasserted€that€¢TDC£€had€ceased€mining€operations€upon€the€sale€toÏ¢Zachair£€but€had€recently€resumed€them.€€The€motion€was€supportedÏby€the€affidavits€of€€two€Freedom€Air€employees€who€stated,€inÏessence,€that€mining€operations€had€ceased€in€early€November€ofÏ1994€but€had€resumed€in€late€February€of€1995.€€¢Zachair£€attorneyÏNelson€¢Deckelbaum£€testified€at€trial€that€he€was€laboring€underÏa€misunderstanding€when€he€prepared€the€motion€and€that€heÏlearned€one€day€after€filing€it€that€¢TDC£€had€been€mining€theÏproperty€all€along.€€There€is€little€explanation€in€the€recordÏas€to€why€the€two€Freedom€Air€employees€stated€in€theirÏaffidavits€that€mining€and€ceased€for€a€period€of€time.€€In€anyÏevent,€the€jury€discounted€the€affidavits,€and€ð ð[¢i]t£€isÏaxiomatic€that€the€weight€of€the€evidence€and€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses€are€always€matters€for€the€jury€to€determine€when€itÏis€the€trier€of€facts.ðð€€òòBinnie€v.€Stateóó,€321€Md.€572,€580Ð ‚Ò Ð(1991). îÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€record€extract€includes€neither€the€full€transcript€ofÐ ° Ðthe€motion€for€judgment,€the€transcript€of€the€post€trialÏmotions,€nor€any€memoranda€in€support€of€the€motion€for€judgmentÏor€the€post€trial€motions.€€We€shall€assume€without€decidingÏthat€the€arguments€presented€by€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€are€properlyÏbefore€this€Court.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Md.€Rules€2-519€and€8-131(a). |Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Driggs€does€not€join€in€this€argument€on€appeal.€€AtÐ ° Ðtrial,€Driggs€admitted€that,€through€Southern,€he€sought€toÏrenew€the€mining€permit€long€after€Hyde€Field€was€sold€atÏauction€to€Zachair€and,€through€the€LP,€he€sought€to€have€theÏspecial€exception€withdrawn. ËÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›It€is€not€clear€from€the€record€extract€whether€ReedÐ ° Ðtestified€as€an€expert€witness. Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›òòSee€generallyóó€Md.€Code€(1982,€1996€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Cum.Ð ° ÐSupp.),€ðððð15-301€„€15-312€of€the€¢Envir£.€art€(regarding€permitÏprocedures). 1Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€court€declined€to€permit€¢Deckelbaum£€to€testify€as€anÐ ° Ðexpert€witness€for€any€other€purpose,€apparently€because€¢Zachair£Ïcommitted€a€discovery€violation€by€failing€to€timely€reveal€thatÏit€intended€to€call€¢Deckelbaum£€as€an€expert.€€The€courtÏexplained:€ð ðHe€may€give€opinions€...€if€he€has€any€legalÏbills,€he€may€give€opinions€on€that.€...€He€may€not€giveÏopinions€on€ultimate€issues€that€he€had€nothing€to€do€withÏ....ðð€€ ÙÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›òòSee€generallyóó€Prince€Georgeððs€County€Code€(1999€ed.),Ð ° Ððððð27-314€of€Zoning€Ordinance. ˜Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›òòSee€generallyóó€Md.€Rules€14-207(d)€and€14-305(d). ðÝ ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›We€recognize€that€the€jury€determined€that€¢TDC£€did€notÐ ° Ðconspire€against€¢Zachair£.€€¢Zachair£€does€not€argue€on€appeal€thatÏthe€verdicts€were€therefore€fatally€inconsistent,€and€any€suchÏargument€would€have€been€unavailing.€€Assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€theÐ S£ Ðverdicts€were€inconsistent,€this€Court€explained€in€òòEagle„¢Picher£Ð A‘ ÐIndus.,€Inc.€v.€¢Balbos£óó,€84€Md.€App.€10,€35€(1990),€òòaffððd€in€partÐ /  Ðand€revððd€in€part€on€other€groundsóó,€326€Md.€179€(1992),€that€inÐ  m Ðcivil€as€well€as€criminal€casesÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[¢i]nconsistent£€verdicts€generally€are€notÏsufficient€grounds€for€an€appellate€court€toÏreverse€a€juryððs€verdict.€...€ð ðThat€theÏverdict€may€have€been€the€result€ofÏcompromise,€or€of€a€mistake€on€the€part€ofÏthe€jury,€is€possible.€€But€verdicts€cannotÏbe€upset€by€speculation€or€inquiry€into€suchÏmatters.ðð€...Ð ` x` x ÐÌ(Citations€omitted.)€€We€further€explained:ÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à...€[¢W]e£€are€reluctant€ð ðto€interfere€withÏthe€results€of€unknown€jury€interplayðð€atÏleast€without€proof€of€ð ðactualÏirregularity.ðð€...€We€recognize€thatÏinconsistency€may€be€the€product€of€lenity,Ïmistake,€or€a€compromise€to€reach€unanimity.€ÏThe€continual€correction€of€such€mattersÏwould€undermine€the€historic€role€of€theÏjury€as€the€arbiter€of€questions€put€to€it.Ï...Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€36€(citations€omitted).€€òòSee€also€Adams€v.€Owens„Ð # s ÐIllinois,€Inc.óó,€119€Md.€App.€395,€408€(1998)€(ð ðAlthoughÐ !a  Ðirreconcilably€defective€verdicts€may€be€subject€to€rejection,Ïinconsistent€verdicts€generally€are€notðð).€€òòCompare€S€&€R,€Inc.Ð à"0" Ðv.€Nailsóó,€85€Md.€App.€570,€590€(1991)€(ð ðWhere€the€answer€to€oneÐ Î## Ðof€the€questions€in€a€special€verdict€form€would€require€aÏverdict€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€an€answer€to€another€wouldÏrequire€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€the€verdict€isÏirreconcilably€defectiveðð),€òòvacated€in€part€on€other€grounds,óóÐ _'¯"'  Ð334€Md.€398€(1994).V$‡›8Document[4]Document Styleà..àò òòòÛ  Û.óó€€ó óV äå8Document[6]Document Styleà8..àÛ  ÛÌÌV Äã8Document[5]Document Styleà0..àÛ  ÛÌÌV:ä8Document[2]Document StyleÌò òÛ  ÛÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÌó óóóV1 ·Ý8Document[7]Document Styleà0..àà0` ..` àÛ  ÛÌÌ d>$"Small Circle- ù -z` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersàÐ.. àÛ  ÛÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€ˆà°..°àà0..àÌÌzs BÇ:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..ààÐ` ..øàÛ  ÛÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0` ..` àÌÌVJ8Document[3]Document StyleÌà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌó óz† Çû:Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` ààи ..P àÛ  ÛÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€ˆà` ..` àà0¸ ..¸ àÌÌz™ &ò:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ ààÐ..¨ àÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€ˆà¸ ..¸ àà0..àÌÌz­ {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààÐh..ˆàÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0h..hàÌÌzÀ Ä´:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÐÀ..ààÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€ˆàh..hàà0À..ÀàÌÌzÒ Ž:Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..ÀààÐ..°àÛ  ÛÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€ˆàÀ..Ààà0..àÌÌ ×Ý ƒ ¢Ä$ÝÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›That€left€approximately€$11,000.00€of€the€total€bill€forÐ ° Ðother€work,€which€Reed€did€not€discuss.zå :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..Ààà..ààÐp..àÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0p..pàÌÌVcÒ08Document[1]Document StyleÌÔ  Ôà@ì..^àòòò òÔ  ÔÛ  ÛÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔˆÌÌóóó ól= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól= …:Technical[6]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól:%ÊÀ:Technical[2]Technical Document StyleÌò òÛ  ÛÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔóóÌÌà..àó ó l7!›:Technical[3]Technical Document StyleÌò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌà..àó ól6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Styleò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌà..àó ólE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document StyleÌòòò òÔ  ÔÛ  ÛÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÌóóà..àó ól<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól<a…:Technical[8]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó óR& ÿÿ8BibliogrphyBibliographyà0..àà°..°àÌÌfEÿÿ2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleÓ€@ÓÈÓ(€ D4%,"$#&  (ÓØØABC(ÿÿ$˜˜Ìà0 àà à(ÿÿ$™™à0 àà0 àà à((ÿÿ$ššà0 àà0 àà0 àà à4%,"$#& ÿÿA_ekqw‡DocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jDÿÿ4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleÓ(€ F;79:56<= (ÓØØ;79:56<= ÿÿCuy±ÉåTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?ãt2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperÓÈÓÑ °ÑÑè°ÑÖ€NÿÿÖ(µ2ü¬$¨¨Ý ƒG!ÝÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÓÓÑ  ÑѰ°ÑÑ€)ÑÑ8€æ@XXdÈdÖ8ÑÑ ! ÑÝ  Ý*+-./013 ÿÿCƒ‰•›£«±Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)$ÿÿ35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a)(1)(a)i)  ŒÝ ƒHr(ÝÝ  ÝÔ€rXXXÔÓÈÓÒX°ÒÒ°°ÒÓÿÿÀ°œXÓß?€'O'ü°ø*–dEü°ø*?ßß?€'O'°ø*–dE°ø*?ßÌÌàHHÀà1ˆÌÌàHHÀà2ˆÌÌàHHÀà3ˆÌÌàHHÀà4ˆÌÌàHHÀà5ˆÌÌàHHÀà6ˆÌÌàHHÀà7ˆÌÌàHHÀà8ˆÌÌàHHÀà9ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà10ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà11ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà12ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà13ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà14ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà15ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà16ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà17ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà18ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà19ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà20ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà21ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà22ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà23ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà24ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà25ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà26ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà27ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà28Ô  à.À+Ô- ù- ØØÝ ƒG!ÝÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÓÓÑ  ÑѰ°ÑÑ€)ÑÑ8€%XXdádá8ÑÑ ! ÑÝ  Ý›Ó=€%XXdÐd=ÓÌò ò¢HEADNOTES£:ó ó€€òò¢Zachair£,€Ltd.€v.€John€A.€¢Driggs£€and€The€¢Driggs£Ð ‘á Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€Corporationóó,€No.€2865,€September€Term,€1999Ð Ï ÐÌÌÌœ______________________________________________________________ñR#ñ¼___ñR#ñ›ÌÌÌò òòòDAMAGES€„€PUNITIVE€DAMAGES€„€REDUCTION€OF€JURY€AWARD€BY€TRIALÐ ³   ÐCOURTóó€ñN#ñð"ðñN#ñ€€ó óÐ • å  ÐÌà0  àTrial€court€may€review€juryððs€award€of€punitive€damages€forÏexcessiveness€„€trial€courtððs€review€of€juryððs€award€ofÏpunitive€damages€is€legal€function€„€where€amount€ofÏpunitive€damages€awarded€by€jury€outweighed€gravity€ofÏwrong,€exceeded€defendantsðð€ability€to€pay,€and€wasÏexcessive€in€comparison€to€other€punitive€damages€awards€inÏMaryland,€trial€court€properly€reduced€award.Ð (#(# ÐÌò òòòDAMAGES€„€EVIDENCE€„€SUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCE€TO€ESTABLISHÐ `° ÐDAMAGES€FOR€CONVERSION€OF€MINING€PRODUCTSóó€„ó ó€Ð B’ ÐÌà0  àPlaintiffððs€evidence€supported€with€reasonable€certaintyÏjuryððs€award€of€damages€for€conversion€of€mining€productsÏeven€though€evidence€did€not€establish€precisely€whatÏmining€products€were€taken,€where€jury€priced€products€inÏmiddle€of€range€of€prices€for€all€plaintiffððs€miningÏproducts,€and€evidence€established:€period€of€time€duringÏwhich€mining€by€defendant€took€place;€amount€of€materialsÏtaken;€type€of€mining€products€on€property€and€prices€ofÏvarious€products€ð"ð€where€defendant€failed€to€provideÏplaintiff€with€mining€records€and€plaintiff€could€notÏotherwise€determine€with€precision€what€was€taken,Ïdefendant€cannot€complain€of€resulting€uncertainty.à Ð àà @Ð àÐ #¼" "(#(#! #ÐÑ  ÑÑ€X+ÑÔ‡X%XXXÔÓC€ K ÿÿ$#CÓÓ=€%XXdXXd=ÓÒ°ÒÒh°ÒÓ<( pÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.81°œX<ÓÑä°Ñà@ÐÐ;ÄàREPORTEDˆÐ ä Ðà p àà È àà  àÌòòà@330ÄàIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóˆÐ ¦Â ÐÌà@:ÄàòòOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ h „ ÐÌÌà@SS:ÄàNo.€2865€€ˆÌÌà@ââ5ÄàSeptember€Term,€1999ˆÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌà@˜˜9Äà¢ZACHAIR£,€¢LTD£.ˆÌà@ÄÄ?ÄàˆÌÌÌà@GG>Äàv.ˆÌÌÌÌÌà@__6ÄàJOHN€A.€¢DRIGGS£€ANDˆÌà@ee4ÄàTHE€¢DRIGGS£€CORPORATIONˆÌÌœñS#ñÌÌÌñS#ñ›ÌÌ___________________________________Ìà p àDavis,Ìà p à¢Sonner£,Ìà p àAlpert,€Paul€E.Ì€€€€€€(Ret.,€specially€assigned)ÌÌ____________________________________ÌÌà@¤¤5ÄàOpinion€by€Alpert,€J.ˆÌ____________________________________ÌÌÌFiled:ñQ#ñ€November€30,€2000ñQ#ñÐ  Î+ê$*r ÐÑX+Ñâ XâØØâ XâÑ  ÑѰäÑÒ°ÒÒ°hÒØØÑ€V)ÑÑ8€%XXdáXXdá8ÑÔ#†X%XXX%Ñ#ÔÓÓÓ  Óà  àIn€this€appeal,€we€are€asked€to€resolve€a€long„standingÐ ° Ðdispute€involving€a€424„acre€tract€of€land€in€Prince€GeorgeððsÏCounty€known€as€Hyde€Field,€on€which€both€an€airport€and€aÏsand€and€gravel€mining€operation€are€located.€€In€the€courseÏof€this€resolution,€we€address€interesting€problemsÏconcerning,€òòinter€aliaóó,€punitive€damages€and€the€conversion€ofÐ z Ê  Ðmining€products.Ìà@77'ìàò òPARTIESó óˆÐ h  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€and€cross„appellee€is€¢Zachair£,€Ltd.Ï("¢Zachair£"),€the€current€owner€of€the€property.€€¢Zachair£€wasÏformed€by€Dr.€¢Nabil£€¢Asterbadi£€for€the€purpose€of€acquiringÏHyde€Field€at€a€foreclosure€auction.€€The€former€owner,ÏWashington€Executive€Airpark€Limited€Partnership€(ð ðthe€LPðð),Ïhad€purchased€Hyde€Field€in€1988.€€To€effectuate€thatÏpurchase,€the€LP€had€given€notes,€totaling€nearlyÏ$4,000,000.00€and€apparently€secured€by€deeds€of€trust,€toÏNationsbank׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€to€the€previous€owner€of€the€property.Ð ì <  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellees€and€cross„appellants€are€John€¢Driggs£Ï(ð ð¢Driggs£ðð)€and€The€¢Driggs£€Corporation€(ð ð¢TDC£ðð).€€¢Driggs£€ownedÏand€controlled€Washington€Executive€Airport,€Inc.€(ð ð¢WEA£ðð),Ïwhich€was€the€sole€general€partner€of€the€LP.€€Thus,€¢Driggs£Ð ô'D#( Ðcontrolled€the€LP€that€owned€Hyde€Field.€€The€LP€contractedÏwith€¢WEA£€to€operate€the€airport,€and€¢WEA£€in€turn€subcontractedÏthe€job€to€Freedom€Air,€Inc.¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€The€LP€contracted€with€SouthernÐ 4„ ÐMaryland€Sand€and€Gravel€Corporation€(ð ðSouthernðð),€which€wasÏalso€owned€and€controlled€by€¢Driggs£,€to€run€the€miningÏoperation.€€In€1992,€Southern€was€replaced€as€mining€vendor€byÏ¢TDC£,€another€corporation€owned€and€controlled€by€¢Driggs£.Ìà@´´(ìàò òFACTSó óˆÐ þN  Ðà  àà ` àDr.€¢Asterbadi£€was€an€amateur€pilot€who€took€flyingÏlessons€at€Hyde€Field.€€He€eventually€became€interested€inÏbuying€the€property.€€¢Asterbadi£€initiated€discussions€withÏ¢Driggs£€in€1991,€but€¢Driggs£€was€not€interested€in€selling.Ìà  àà ` à¢Asterbadi£€subsequently€learned€from€¢TDC£ððs€in„houseÏcounsel,€James€¢Berard£,€that€both€¢Driggs£€and€the€LP€were€inÏbankruptcy€proceedings€in€the€United€States€Bankruptcy€CourtÏfor€the€District€of€Maryland€and€that€the€LPððs€notes€toÏNationsbank€and€the€previous€owner€were€in€default.€€UnbeknownÏto€¢Driggs£,€¢Asterbadi£€began€negotiations€later€in€1991€toÏpurchase€the€notes.€€In€1994,€¢Asterbadi£€finally€purchased€theÏnotes€for€$500,000.00.€€¢Asterbadi£€eventually€foreclosed€on€theÏâ âdeeds€of€trust€and€an€auction€was€held€on€November€3,€1994.€Ð Ú'*#( ТZachair£€was€the€high€bidder€at€the€auction,€purchasing€theÏproperty€for€$1,500,000.00.Ìâ âà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€presented€evidence€at€trial€that€establishedÏthat€¢Driggs£€and€the€various€entities€he€controlled€threw€aÏnumber€of€obstacles€in€the€path€of€¢Zachair£ððs€acquisition€ofÏHyde€Field.€€In€particular,€¢Zachair£€presented€evidence€that,Ïafter€¢Asterbadi£€purchased€the€notes€from€Nationsbank€and€theÏprevious€owner€of€Hyde€Field,€the€LP€filed€a€motion€inÏconnection€with€its€bankruptcy€proceedings€to€establish€thatÏthe€notes€were€invalid,€then€appealed€from€the€denial€of€theÏmotion.€€In€this€way,€the€LP€delayed€the€foreclosure€auction.Ìà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€also€presented€evidence€that€Jeffrey€Frost€„¼„€who€was€then€counsel€for€¢Driggs£,€counsel€to€¢TDC£,€a€memberÏ¢TDC£ððs€board€of€directors,€and€a€member€of€¢WEA£ððs€board€ofÏdirectors€„„€attended€the€auction€along€with€two€of€¢Driggs£ððsÏfriends,€Charles€Shapiro€and€Bruce€Jaffe.€€The€men€disruptedÏthe€auction€by€raising€numerous€objections.Ìà  àà ` àThe€evidence€indicated€that,€after€¢Zachair£€purchasedÏthe€property€at€auction,€¢Driggs£,€¢TDC£,€and€the€LP€filedÏexceptions€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Prince€Georgeððs€County€toÏhave€the€sale€set€aside.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€¢WEA£€and€¢TDC£€refused€to€vacate€theÐ Ø'(#( Ðproperty€and€continued€to€conduct€airport€and€miningÐ š)ê$* Ðoperations€and€to€reap€the€profits€therefrom,€turning€overÏonly€a€little€more€than€$3,000.00€in€mining€profits€toÏ¢Zachair£.Ìà  àà ` àEven€after€the€exceptions€to€the€sale€were€deniedÏand€the€sale€was€ratified€on€February€3,€1995,€¢WEA£€and€¢TDC£Ïrefused€to€vacate€the€property,€and€an€eviction€was€scheduledÏfor€March€17,€1995.€€On€that€date,€¢TDC£€filed€an€emergencyÏmotion€to€stay€the€eviction€on€the€ground€that€an€appeal€toÏthis€Court€had€been€noted€from€the€ratification€of€the€sale.€ÏAn€appeal€bond€was€never€filed,€however,€and€the€eviction€wasÏrescheduled€for,€and€carried€out€on,€March€29,€1995.Ìà  àà ` àThe€evidence€indicated€that€Southern,€which€held€aÏmining€permit€issued€by€the€Bureau€of€Mines€of€the€MarylandÏDepartment€of€the€Environment,€and€which€allowed€¢TDC£€to€useÏthe€permit€to€mine€Hyde€Field,€refused€to€permit€¢Zachair£€toÏuse€the€permit€and€refused€to€consent€to€a€transfer€of€theÏpermit€to€¢Zachair£.€€In€order€to€obtain€the€permit,€¢Zachair£€hadÏto€file€a€declaratory€judgment€action€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÏBaltimore€City€to€establish€that€Southernððs€consent€to€theÏtransfer€was€not€necessary.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€The€declaratory€judgment€actionÐ &f!& Ðwas€not€resolved€until€February€of€1996,€and€Southern€thenÐ Ø'(#( Ðappealed€the€decision€to€this€Court.€The€appeal€was€ultimatelyÏdismissed,€and€the€permit€was€transferred€to€¢Zachair£.Ìà  àà ` àUpon€the€LPððs€application€at€the€time€it€acquiredÏHyde€Field,€the€Prince€Georgeððs€County€Council,€acting€as€theÏDistrict€Council,€had€granted€a€special€exception€to€itsÏzoning€ordinance,€allowing€surface€mining€at€Hyde€Field.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рz Ê  ÐAfter€the€eviction,€the€LP,€through€Jeffrey€Frost,€sought€toÏwithdraw€the€application€and€to€thus€abolish€the€specialÏexception.€€A€Zoning€Hearing€Examiner€for€the€District€CouncilÏdenied€the€LPððs€attempt,€and€the€LP€appealed€ð"ð€unsuccessfullyÏð"ð€to€the€District€Council.Ìà  àà ` àIn€October€of€1997,€¢Zachair£€filed€suit€against:Ï¢Driggs£;€¢TDC£;€Southern;€¢WEA£;€and€Charles€Shapiro€and€BruceÏJaffe,€the€two€men€who,€with€Frost,€attended€the€foreclosureÏauction.€€The€LP€was€not€named€in€the€suit,€apparently€becauseÏit€was€bankrupt€when€the€suit€was€filed.€€The€suit€soughtÏcompensatory€and€punitive€damages€in€connection€with€theÏvarious€acts€that€impeded€and€delayed€¢Zachair£ððs€acquisitionÏand€operation€of€Hyde€Field.€€It€contained€counts€againstÏvarious€combinations€of€the€defendants€for€trespass,Ïconversion,€tortious€interference€with€contractual€or€economicÐ Ø'(#( Ðrelations,€breach€of€contract,€unjust€enrichment,€fraud,Ïmalicious€use€of€process,€abuse€of€process,€and€conspiracy.Ìà  àà ` àA€jury€trial€was€held€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÏPrince€Georgeððs€County€(Platt,€J.€presiding)€in€October€ofÏ1999.€€Before€the€case€went€to€the€jury,€¢Zachair£€voluntarilyÏdismissed€the€counts€for€trespass,€breach€of€contract,€unjustÏenrichment,€and€fraud.€€Further,€¢Zachair£€voluntarily€dismissedÏ¢WEA£€and€Southern€from€the€case€because€the€testimonyÏestablished€that€they€were€ð ðbasically€defunct.ðð€€The€caseÏagainst€Shapiro€was€stayed€due€to€Shapiroððs€bankruptcy.Ìà  àà ` àThe€remaining€counts€against€¢Driggs£,€¢TDC£,€and€JaffeÏthen€went€to€the€jury.€€The€jury€found€that€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£Ïhad:€converted€the€property€of€¢Zachair£€and€were€thus€jointlyÏand€severally€liable€for€$1,975,000.00€in€compensatoryÏdamages;€tortiously€interfered€with€the€contractual€orÏbusiness€relations€of€¢Zachair£€and€were€thus€jointly€andÏseverally€liable€for€$275,000.00€in€compensatory€damages;Ïmaliciously€used€process€against€¢Zachair£€and€were€thus€jointlyÏand€severally€liable€for€$2,596,550.00€in€compensatoryÏdamages,€including€$346,000.00€in€attorney€fees;€and€abusedÏprocess€against€¢Zachair£€and€were€thus€jointly€and€severallyÏliable€for€$2,596,550.00€in€compensatory€damages,€includingÏ$346,000.00€in€attorney€fees.€€The€court€merged€the€awards€forÐ \+¬&, Ðmalicious€use€of€process€and€abuse€of€process,€withoutÏobjection€from€¢Zachair£,€making€the€total€award€of€compensatoryÏdamages€$4,846,550.00.€€The€jury€further€found€that€the€actsÏof€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£,€as€to€each€of€these€counts,€wasÏð ðaccompanied€by€evil€motive,€intent€to€injure€or€ill€will.ðð€ÏThe€jury€found€in€favor€of€Jaffe€as€to€all€counts,€however,Ïand€determined€that€neither€¢Driggs£€nor€¢TDC£€had€conspiredÏagainst€¢Zachair£.Ìà  àà ` àIn€light€of€the€findings€that€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€hadÏacted€with€ð ðevil€motive,€intent€to€injure€or€ill€will,ðð€theÏcase€was€returned€to€the€jury€for€a€determination€as€toÏpunitive€damages.€€After€further€deliberations,€the€juryÏimposed€punitive€damages€against€¢TDC£€of:€$1,500,000.00€forÏconversion;€$1,000,000.00€for€tortious€interference€withÏcontractual€or€business€relations;€$1,500,000.00€for€maliciousÏuse€of€process;€and€$1,000,000.00€for€abuse€of€process.€€Thus,Ïit€imposed€a€$5,000,000€award€of€punitive€damages€against€¢TDC£.€ÏThe€jury€imposed€a€punitive€damage€award€of€$170,000.00Ïagainst€¢Driggs£,€consisting€of:€$40,000.00€for€conversion;Ï$50,000.00€for€tortious€interference€with€contractual€orÏbusiness€relations;€$50,000.00€for€malicious€use€of€process;Ïâ âand€$30,000.00€for€abuse€of€process.Ð š)ê$* Ðà  àà ` à¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€moved€for€judgment€notwithstandingÏâ âthe€verdict€and,€alternatively,€for€a€new€trial,€to€revise€theÏverdict,€or€for€a€¢remittitur£.€€The€court€granted€in€part€theÏmotion€for€a€¢remittitur£.€€Subject€to€¢Zachair£ððs€election€toÏaccept€the€¢remittitur£€or€demand€a€new€trial,€the€court€reducedÏthe€combined€award€of€compensatory€damages€for€malicious€useÏof€process€and€abuse€of€process€to€$346,000.00,€the€amountÏrepresenting€attorney€fees.€€The€court€explained:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àLess€attorneyððs€fees,€the€damagesÏawarded€for€the€Abuse€of€Process€andÏMalicious€Use€of€Process€claims€totalÏ$2,250.550.€€Of€this€amount,€DefendantsÏcontend€that€$550€represents€eviction€costsÏthat€were€not€recoverable€under€theseÏcounts.€€I€agree€and€for€that€reason€theÏcompensatory€award€of€the€merged€count€willÏbe€remitted€by€$550€in€addition€to€theÏfurther€¢remittitur£€that€follows.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àDefendants€assert€the€remainingÏdamages,€$2,250,000€represents€an€improperÏdouble€recovery,€based€on€the€fact€that€itsÏamount€is€equal€to€the€sum€of€the€amountsÏawarded€for€the€Tortious€Conversion€andÏTortious€Interference€with€ContractualÏRelations€counts.€€On€this€point,€I€agreeÏwith€Defendants.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà@´´(ìà...ˆÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àI€find€that,€plainly,€damages€wereÏduplicated€here.€€The€remaining€$2,250,000Ïaward€for€the€Abuse€of€Process€andÏMalicious€Use€of€Process€claims€can€onlyÏrepresent€compensation€for€damagesÏresulting€from€the€retained€airport€andÏmining€revenues,€and€the€interference€withÏ[a€contract€entered€by€¢Zachair£€with€aÐ =,'- Ðmining€vendor].€€I€need€not€engage€inÏimproper€speculation€in€order€to€determineÏthat€these€damages€were€already€awarded€inÏfull€in€the€counts€for€Conversion€andÏInterference€with€Contractual€Relations.€ÏConsequently,€I€conclude€that€theÏcompensatory€damages€award€in€this€case€isÏexcessive€and€should€be€reduced€byÏ$2,250,[550].Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€court€further€reduced€the€awards€of€punitiveÏdamages€from€$5,000,000.00€against€¢TDC£€to€$650,000.00,€andÏfrom€$170,000.00€against€¢Driggs£€to€$125,000.00.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€The€courtÐ þN  Ðexplained€that,€in€doing€so,€it€was€ð ðguided€by€theÏconsiderations€applied€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòBowden€v.Ð ‚Ò ÐCaldoróó[׃.×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×]€....ðð€€The€court€recognized€that€the€ratio€ofÐ ^® Ðpunitive€damages€to€compensatory€damages€was€ð ðapproximately€aÏmodest€1:1,ðð€but€determined€that€the€punitive€damages€awardsÏwere€ð ðsimply€disproportionate€to€the€gravity€of€DefendantððsÏwrongful€conduct.ðð€€It€observed€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€conduct€wasÏobviously€not€life€threatening€nor€the€type€of€conduct€thatÏwould€lead€to€permanent€or€even€temporary€physical€injuries,ððÏand€thatÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthe€economic€injuries,€while€substantial,Ï[were]€certainly€no€greater€and€not€in€needÐ i%¹ % Ðof€greater€deterrence€and/or€punishment,Ïthan€that€which€the€Maryland€GeneralÏAssembly€contemplated€when€it€prescribedÏ$500,000.00€as€the€maximum€fine€for€a€so„¼called€ð ðcommercial€crimeðð€under€theÏMaryland€antitrust€statute,€andÏ$1,000,000.00€as€the€maximum€fine€for€aÏsingle€criminal€offense€under€the€drugÏkingpin€statute.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€considered€ð ðthe€tax€returns€andÏother€financial€documents€admitted€into€evidence€of€both€JohnÏA.€¢Driggs£€and€The€¢Driggs£€Corporationðð€and€concluded€that€ð ðtheÏrespective€awards€against€each€are€excessive€in€relation€toÏthe€Defendantððs€ability€to€pay.ðð€€It€added€that€the€awardÏagainst€¢TDC£€was€several€times€higher€than€the€largest€criminalÏfine€or€civil€penalty€prescribed€by€the€Legislature€for€anyÏoffense€or€misconduct.€€The€court€surmised€that€the€awardÏð ðappears€excessiveðð€in€comparison€to€other€punitive€damagesÏawards€in€Maryland,€and€that€the€separate€awards€of€punitiveÏdamages€for€malicious€use€of€process€and€abuse€of€process€wereÏduplicative.Ìà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€noted€an€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððsÏruling,€and€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€noted€a€cross„appeal.Ìà@uu'ìàò òISSUESó óˆÐ &f!& Ðà  àà ` àIn€its€appeal,€¢Zachair£€argues,€in€essence,€thatÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àI.€The€trial€court€erred€in€reducingÏthe€award€of€punitive€damages.Ð ` x` x Ðâ âÐ ^+®&, ÐÓÓà  àà ` àIn€their€cross„appeal,€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€argue,€inÏâ âessence,€that:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àII.€The€trial€court€erred€by€failingÏto€grant€their€motion€for€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€the€verdict€as€toÏconversion,€in€that€(¢i£)the€evidence€as€toÏthe€mining€damages€amounted€to€nothing€moreÏthan€€speculation€and€conjecture,€andÏ(ii)there€was€no€evidence€that€¢TDC£Ïconverted€airpark€revenues.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIII.€The€trial€court€erred€byÏsubmitting€the€issue€of€attorney€fees€toÏthe€jury€with€the€counts€for€malicious€useÏof€process€and€abuse€of€process,€then€byÏfailing€to€grant€their€motion€for€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€the€verdict€as€to€any€awardÏof€attorney€fees.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIV.€The€trial€court€erred€by€failingÏto€grant€judgment€notwithstanding€theÏverdict€in€favor€of€¢TDC£€as€to€the€tortiousÏinterference€count,€in€that€(¢i£)there€wasÏno€evidence€that,€once€evicted€from€HydeÏField,€¢TDC£€interfered€with€¢Zachair£ððsÏrelationship€with€its€new€miningÏcontractor,€and€(ii)€the€evidence€did€notÏsupport€the€amount€of€the€award.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓ¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€add€that,€if€this€Court€finds€in€their€favor€asÏto€any€of€their€arguments,€compensatory€damages€wouldÏnecessarily€be€ð ðdrastically€reduced.ðð€€They€argue€that,€ifÏthat€is€the€case,€ð ð[¢t]he£€only€way€to€assure€a€well„groundedÏdecision€on€punitive€damages€is€to€reverse€the€judgment€andÏâ âorder€a€new€trial€on€punitive€damages.ððÐ ¹( $) Ðà  àà ` àWe€find€no€merit€in€any€of€the€arguments€presentedÏin€the€appeal€or€cross„appeal.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€We€therefore€affirm€theÐ r Ðâ âjudgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Because€we€do€not€find€that€anyÏof€the€awards€of€compensatory€damages€must€be€reversed,€weÏneed€not€address€the€argument€of€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€as€to€punitiveÏdamages.Ìà@{{%ìàò òDISCUSSIONó óˆÐ <Œ  Ðà@®®*ìàò òIó óˆÐ P  Ðà@" " ìàò òReduction€of€Punitive€Damages€Awardsó óˆÐ Ä Ðà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€points€out€that€the€ratio€of€punitiveÏdamages€to€compensatory€damages,€as€awarded€by€the€jury,€wasÏapproximately€one€to€one.€€It€posits€that€the€award€ofÏpunitive€damages€was€within€ð ðmodest€and€well„establishedÏbounds,ðð€and€that€the€trial€court€therefore€was€not€justifiedÏin€making€the€ð ðdrastic€eighty„percent€reduction€....ðð€Ï¢Zachair£€argues€that€ð ðnot€one€of€[the€trial€courtððs]€profferedÏreasons€for€substituting€its€judgment€for€the€juryððs€canÏâ âsurvive€even€the€most€glancing€examination.ððÐ ˜"è" Ðà  àà ` àIn€òòBowden€v.€Caldor,€Inc.óó,€350€Md.€4,€25€(1998),€theÐ ° Ðâ âCourt€of€Appeals€made€clear€that,€ð ðin€a€tort€case€whereÏpunitive€damages€are€allowable,€the€amount€of€punitive€damagesÏawarded€by€the€trier€of€fact€is€reviewable€by€the€court€forÏexcessiveness.ðð€€The€Court€€summarized€nine€principles€ofÏMaryland€common€law€that€are€applicable€to€judicial€review€ofÏpunitive€damages€awards€for€excessiveness:€(1)€ð ððð[¢T]he£€amountÐ V¦  Ðof€punitive€damages€must€not€be€disproportionate€to€theÏgravity€of€the€defendantððs€wrong.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€27€(citationÐ Ú* Ðomitted);€(2)ð ððð[¢T]he£€amount€of€punitive€damages€should€not€beÐ ¶ Ðdisproportionate€to€...€the€defendantððs€ability€to€pay.ððððÏòòId.óó€at€28€(citation€omitted);€(3)ð ðThe€deterrence€value€of€theÐ :Š Ðamount€awarded€by€the€jury,€under€all€the€circumstances€of€theÏcase,€is€relevant.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€29;€(4)ð ððð[¢S]ubstantial£€deferenceððððÐ Ø( Ðshould€be€accorded€ð ðððto€legislative€judgments€concerningÐ ´ Ðappropriate€sanctions€for€the€conduct€at€issue,ðððð€and€ð ðwhen€aÏpunitive€damages€award€is€several€times€higher€than€theÏlargest€criminal€fine€or€civil€penalty€prescribed€by€theÏLegislature€for€òòanyóó€offense€or€misconduct,€the€award€should€beÐ ¼$ $ Ðstrictly€scrutinized.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€31€(emphasis€in€original)Ð ˜&è!& Ð(citation€omitted);€(5)Awards€should€be€compared€ð ðwith€otherÏfinal€punitive€damages€awards€in€the€jurisdiction€andÏparticularly€with€awards€in€somewhat€comparable€cases.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ø+H', Ðat€31;€(6)ð ð[¢E]vidence£€of€other€final€and€satisfied€punitiveÏdamages€awards€against€the€same€defendant€for€the€same€conductÏmay€be€considered€by€the€trial€judge,ðð€as€well€as€ð ðevidenceÏindicating€that€there€have€been€no€other€such€awards€ofÏpunitive€damages€against€the€defendant€for€the€same€conductÏ....ðð€€òòId.óó€at€34;€(7)€ð ðWhen€the€total€amount€of€punitiveÐ z Ê  Ðdamages€awarded€against€the€defendant€is€based€on€separateÏtorts,€a€pertinent€consideration€...€is€whether€the€separateÏtorts€all€grew€out€of€a€single€occurrence€or€episode.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÐ Ú* Ð34;€(8)ð ðThe€plaintiffððs€reasonable€costs€and€expensesÏresulting€from€the€defendantððs€malicious€and€tortious€conduct,Ïincluding€the€expenses€of€the€litigation,€which€are€notÏcovered€by€the€award€of€compensatory€damages,€are€mattersÏwhich€appropriately€can€be€considered€....ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€36;€andÐ ¾ Ð(9)ð ðWhether€a€punitive€damages€award€bears€a€reasonableÏrelationship€to€the€compensatory€damages€awarded€in€the€caseÏis€...€a€factor€to€be€considered€.€...ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€39.Ð !n  Ðà  àà ` àThe€list€set€forth€in€òòBowdenóó€was€not€ð ðintended€to€beÐ ú"J" Ðexclusive€or€all€encompassing,ðð€and€ð ðnot€all€of€the€...Ïfactors€are€pertinent€in€every€case€involving€court€review€ofÏpunitive€damages€awards.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€41.€€òòSee€also€Merritt€v.Ð Z(ª#( ÐCraigóó,€130€Md.€App.€350,€371€(where€this€Court€relied€uponÐ 6*†%* Ðonly€four€of€the€principles€set€forth€in€òòBowdenóó€in€holdingÐ ,b', Ðthat€a€trial€court€properly€determined€that€a€punitive€damagesÏaward€of€$150,000.00€against€a€seller€of€real€property€was€notÏexcessive€in€a€fraud€case€where€the€seller€willfullyÏmisrepresented€the€condition€of€a€water€supply€system€and€theÏbuyer€was€entitled€to€nearly€$50,000.00€in€compensatoryÏdamages€or€recission€of€the€contract€of€sale),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð z Ê  Ð359€Md.€29€(2000).€€òòSee€generally€Alexander€&€Alexander,€Inc.Ð V¦  Ðv.€B.€Dixon€Evander€&€Associates,€Inc.óó,€88€Md.€App.€672,€715„Ð 2‚  Ð16€(where,€prior€to€the€òòBowdenóó€decision,€this€Court€set€forthÐ ^ Ða€list€of€factors,€similar€to€the€list€in€òòBowdenóó,€to€considerÐ ê: Ðin€determining€whether€an€award€of€punitive€damages€isÏexcessive),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€323€Md.€1€(1991),€323€Md.€2€(1991),Ð ˆØ Ðand€326€Md.€435€(1992).€€Ìà  àà ` àThe€òòBowdenóó€Court€explained€that€the€principles€forÐ &v Ðreviewing€an€award€of€punitive€damages€are€legal€principles,Ïand€thatÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àin€applying€legal€principles€to€reduce€aÏjuryððs€punitive€damages€award,€[a€court]€isÏperforming€a€legal€function€and€not€actingÏas€a€second€trier€of€fact.€€Although€theÏfunction€also€involves€the€evidence€in€theÏcase,€it€is€similar€to€the€legal€functionÏof€granting€a€judgment€notwithstanding€aÏverdict.Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€47.€€Thus,€in€reviewing€the€trial€courtððsÐ o)¿$) Ðdecision,€this€Court€is€reviewing€a€decision€of€law€ratherÐ K+›&+ Ðthan€a€finding€of€fact,€and€we€need€not€extend€deference€toÏthe€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€ð ðBecause€the€issue€...€onÏwhich€the€court€ruled€was€a€purely€legal€issue,€...€ourÏreview€is€expansive.ðð€€òòIn€re€Michael€G.óó,€107€Md.€App.€257,€265Ð ö F Ð(1995).Ìà  àà ` àOur€application€of€the€relevant€factors€set€forth€inÏòòBowdenóó€to€the€instant€case€convinces€us€that€the€reduction€ofÐ V¦  Ðpunitive€damages€was€proper.ÌÐ  ôD Ðà@   ìàòò„€Gravity€of€Wrong€„óóˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àIn€reducing€the€punitive€damages€awards€in€theÏinstant€case,€the€trial€court€expressly€recognized€that,€underÏòòBowdenóó,€ð ð[¢t]he£€most€important€legal€rule€in€this€area,Ð  ` Ðapplicable€to€every€punitive€damages€award,€is€that€the€amountÏof€punitive€damages€ððmust€not€be€disproportionate€to€theÐ ® þ  Ðgravity€of€the€defendantððs€wrong.ðððð€€òòBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€27Ð pÀ  Ð(citation€omitted).€€The€court€then€opined€that,€ð ðwhile€[theÏconduct€of€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€was]€clearly€wrong€and€deserving€ofÏsanction€in€the€form€of€punitive€damages,€the€gravity€of€theÏwrong€does€not,€if€placed€on€a€continuum€of€wrongful€conductÏwhich€has€in€this€state€justified€the€award€of€punitiveÏdamages,€reach€the€level€necessary€to€justify€an€award€of€theÏsize€given€here€by€the€jury.ððÌà  àà ` àThe€court€assigned€great€weight€to€the€undisputedÏfact€that€the€conduct€was€not€life€threatening€nor€of€the€typeÏto€lead€to€physical€injury.€€As€the€Court€of€Appeals€indicatedÏin€òòBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€42,€and€this€Court€indicated€inÐ à"0" ÐòòAlexander€&€Alexander,€Inc.óó,€88€Md.€App.€at€721,€theÐ ¼$ $ Ðassignment€of€such€weight€was€entirely€proper.€€In€òòBowdenóó,€aÐ ˜&è!& Ðjury€awarded€$9,000,000.00€in€punitive€damages€against€retailÏstore€Caldor€and€in€favor€of€a€teenage€employee€who€wasÏwrongfully€accused€of€theft€and€fired€by€Caldor.€€The€trialÐ ø+H', Ðcourt€reduced€the€award€as€excessive,€and€the€Court€of€AppealsÏagreed.€€The€Court€observed€that€the€award€was€ð ðabout€thirteenÏtimes€higher€than€the€largest€punitive€damages€award€everÏupheld€by€this€Court,ðð€and€was€ð ðone€hundred€and€fifty€timesÏhigher€than€the€compensatory€damages€awarded€in€this€case.ðð€Ï350€Md.€at€42.€€The€Court€concluded,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€sizeÐ z Ê  Ðof€the€award€was€not€justified€by€the€gravity€of€the€wrong.€ÏIt€explained:€ð ðAs€heinous€as€it€was,€...€Caldorððs€maliciousÏand€wrongful€conduct€was€not€life€threatening€or€the€type€ofÏconduct€which€would€likely€lead€to€permanent€physicalÏinjuries.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€42.Ð ^® Ðà  àà ` àIn€òòAlexander€&€Alexander,€Inc.óó,€88€Md.€App.€672,€aÐ :Š Ðjury€awarded€more€than€$40,000,000.00€in€punitive€damagesÏagainst€one€insurance€broker€and€in€favor€of€another€insuranceÏbroker€where€the€first€broker€interfered€with€the€secondÏbrokerððs€contract€with€a€client€and€thus€deprived€the€secondÏbroker€of€commissions.€€The€award€ð ðrepresent[ed]€nearly€fiftyÏtimes€the€...€compensatory€damages.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€720.€€The€trialÐ à"0" Ðcourt€reduced€the€award€to€$12,500,000.00,€but€this€CourtÏvacated€the€award€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial€as€toÏpunitive€damages.€€We€explained€that€in€those€cases€in€whichÏâ âhigh€awards€of€punitive€damages€have€been€allowed€to€stand,Ð *R%* Ðthe€harm€has€involved€death€or,€at€least,€substantial€healthÏor€environmental€damage.€€We€stated:Ìâ âÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àNothing€like€that€kind€of€harmÏoccurred€in€this€case.€€A€&€A€did€notÏendanger€the€public€health€or€safety;€itsÏconduct€was€not€life„threatening€to€anyone.€ÏWe€accept€the€conclusions€reached€belowÏthat€it€set€out€to€cause€economic€harm€to€aÏcompetitor,€that€it€used€inappropriateÏmeans€to€achieve€that€goal,€and€that€itÏshould€be€punished€for,€and€others€shouldÏbe€deterred€from,€engaging€in€that€conduct.€ÏBut€nothing€approaching€$12.5€million€isÏnecessary€to€achieve€either€goal.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€721.Ð ¡ñ Ðà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€also€evaluated€the€gravity€of€theÏconduct€by€comparing€it€to€certain€conduct€for€which€theÏLegislature€has€enacted€specific€penalties.€€It€pointed€toÏ(¢i£)ðð11-212€of€the€Commercial€Law€article,€which€establishesÏa€penalty€of€ð ða€fine€not€exceeding€$500,000€or€imprisonmentÏnot€exceeding€six€months€or€bothðð€for€ð ð[¢a]ny£€person€whoÏwillfully€violatesðð€certain€antitrust€provisions,€andÏ(ii)ðð286(g)€of€article€27,€which€provides€for€ð ð[a]€fine€ofÏnot€more€than€$1,000,000,ðð€in€addition€to€ð ð[¢i]mprisonment£€forÏnot€less€than€20€years€nor€more€than€40€years,ðð€for€drugÏkingpins€who€commit€certain€drug€offenses.€€The€courtÏrecognized€that€the€acts€proscribed€by€the€Legislature€are€notÏthe€same€as€the€acts€committed€by€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£.€€ItÐ •*å%+ Ðsuggested€that€the€proscribed€antitrust€and€drug€kingpinÏviolations€are€more€heinous€than€any€act€committed€by€theÏappellants,€yet€the€financial€aspects€of€the€penalties€forÏthose€violations€are€less€severe€than€the€penalty€imposed€uponÏthe€appellants€by€the€jury.Ìà@‡‡!ìàòò„€Ability€to€Pay€„óóˆÐ z Ê  Ðà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€explained€that,€ð ð[¢h]aving£Ïindependently€considered€the€tax€returns€and€other€financialÏdocuments€admitted€into€evidence€of€both€John€A.€¢Driggs£€andÏThe€¢Driggs£€Corporation,€[it]€found€that€the€respective€awardsÏagainst€each€are€excessive€in€relation€to€Defendantsðð€abilityÏto€pay.ðð€€The€trial€court€did€not€specify€precisely€whatÏevidence€indicated€that€¢Driggs£€or€¢TDC£€would€be€unable€to€payÏthe€juryððs€award.Ìà  àà ` àTax€returns€for€the€year€1997€which€were€enteredÏinto€evidence€established€that,€for€that€year,€¢Driggs£€and€hisÏwife€had€a€total€income€of€$679,684.00.€€Those€same€taxÏreturns€indicated€that,€for€1997,€the€¢Driggses£€suffered€nearlyÏ$100,000.00€in€losses€from€various€investments€and€paidÏ$87,874.00€in€home€mortgage€interest€and€points,€$232,000.00Ïin€mortgage€interest€to€banks€for€rental€real€estate,€taxes€ofÏmore€than€$185,000.00,€and€nearly€$45,000.00€in€legal€fees.€ÏTaking€into€account€that€the€¢Driggses£€no€doubt€had€otherÐ v+Æ&, Ðexpenses,€it€is€apparent€that€they€would€have€found€itÏextremely€difficult€to€pay€the€$170,000.00€award€of€punitiveÏdamages.Ìà  àà ` à¢TDC£ððs€tax€returns€for€1997€showed€that,€for€1997,Ï¢TDC£ððs€total€income€was€$10,257,679.00.€€¢TDC£ððs€taxable€income€„¼„€the€amount€left€after€payment€of€salaries€and€wages,€debts,Ïrents,€taxes,€and€other€expenses€ð"ð€was€only€$1,643,225.00.€€ItÏis€thus€apparent€that€the€$5,000,000.00€punitive€damages€awardÏagainst€¢TDC£€would€work€a€substantial€hardship€against€¢TDC£.Ìà  àà ` àIn€any€event,€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€both€¢Driggs£€andÐ ‚Ò ТTDC£€had€the€ability€to€pay€the€awards€against€them,€over€anÏextended€period€of€time€if€not€immediately,€that€alone€wouldÏnot€justify€the€awards.€€As€the€Court€of€Appeals€explained€inÏòòBowdenóó,€Ð ¤ô ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àmerely€because€a€defendant€may€be€able€toÏpay€a€very€large€award€of€punitive€damages,Ïwithout€jeopardizing€the€defendantððsÏfinancial€position,€does€not€justify€anÏaward€which€is€disproportionate€to€theÏheinousness€of€the€defendantððs€conduct.Ï...Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ððð[¢W]here£€a€defendant€has€not€committed€anÐ ˆ$Ø$ Ðact€that€would€warrant€a€large€punitiveÏdamages€award,€such€an€award€should€not€beÏupheld€upon€judicial€review€merely€becauseÏthe€defendant€has€the€ability€to€pay€it.ððððÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€28„29€(citation€omitted).Ð Î)%* Ðà@   ìàòò„€Deterrence€Value€„óóˆÐ ª+ú&, Ðà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€did€not€discuss€the€deterrence€valueÏof€the€amount€awarded,€except€to€observe€that€the€conduct€inÏquestion€€was€ð ðnot€in€need€of€greater€deterrence€and/orÏpunishmentðð€than€the€conduct€proscribed€by€MarylandððsÏantitrust€statute׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€drug€kingpin€statute.׃R×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€agree€thatÐ ¸  Ðthe€conduct€was€not€so€heinous€as€to€require,€for€deterrence,Ïwhat€would€be€one€of€the€largest€punitive€damages€awards€everÏmade€in€this€State.Ìà@Ò Ò ìàòò„€Legislative€Sanctions€„óóˆÐ À Ðà  àà ` àIn€òòBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€31,€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ œì Ðexplained€that,€ð ðwhen€a€punitive€damages€award€is€severalÏtimes€higher€than€the€largest€criminal€fine€or€civil€penaltyÏprescribed€by€the€Legislature€for€òòanyóó€offense€or€misconduct,Ð üL Ðthe€award€should€be€strictly€scrutinized.ðð€€(Emphasis€inÏoriginal.)€€As€the€trial€court€indicated,€the€punitiveÏdamages,€at€least€cumulatively,€were€several€times€higher€thanÏany€fine€or€penalty€authorized€by€the€Legislature,€even€if€theÏconduct€upon€which€the€damages€were€based€could€be€viewed€notÏas€a€single€action€but€as€several€different€actions€whichÏcould€warrant€several€different€fines€or€penalties.Ð d&´!& Ðà@™ ™ ìàòò„€Comparison€to€Other€Awards€„óóˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àParticularly€significant€in€determining€whether€anÏaward€of€punitive€damages€is€excessive€is€a€comparison€of€theÏaward€to€ð ðother€final€punitive€damages€awards€in€theÏjurisdiction.ðð€€òòBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€31.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ò " Ðconducted€such€a€comparison€and€determined€that,€ð ð[i]n€lightÏof€other€awards€upheld€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€the€awardÏagainst€The€Driggs€Corporation€appears€excessive.ðð€€In€ourÏview,€that€statement€applies€equally€to€the€award€againstÏDriggs.Ìà  àà ` àThe€òòBowdenóó€Court€conducted€an€exhaustive€review€ofÐ xÈ ÐMaryland€cases€involving€large€awards€of€punitive€damages.€ÏZachair€directs€us€to€no€Maryland€cases€involving€largerÏawards€that€œhave›€been€decided€since€òòBowdenóó€was€filed.€€TheÐ Ø( ÐòòBowdenóó€Court€summarized:Ð ´ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIn€òòAlexander€&€Alexander[,]€Inc.€v.€B.Ð à ÐDixon€Evander€&€Assoc.,€Inc.€óó88€Md.€App.Ð ~ Î Ð672,€720,€596€A.2d€687,€710„711€(1991),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€326€Md.€435,€605€A.2d€137Ð M"! Ð(1992),€Chief€Judge€Wilner€for€the€Court€ofÏSpecial€Appeals,€in€vacating€an€extremelyÏlarge€punitive€damages€award,€stated:Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàð ðOn€this€record€we€œdo›€not€believeÏthat€a€$12.5€million€punitiveÏaward€comports€with€[the€law].€ÏAlthough€we€cannot€say€withÏcomplete€certainty€that€it€is€theÏlargest€punitive€award€renderedÏby€a€Maryland€court,€it€is€theÐ ,U', Ðlargest,€by€far,€of€which€we€areÏaware.€€The€nearest€in€amount€wasÏ$7,500,000€rendered€in€òòPotomacÐ r ÐElectric€v.€Smithóó,€79€Md.€App.Ð `° Ð591,€558€A.2d€768€...€[,€òòcert.Ð Nž Ðdeniedóó,€317€Md.€393€(1989),Ð < Œ Ðòòoverruled€on€other€grounds€€inÐ * z ÐUnited€States€v.€¢Streidel£óó,€329Ð  h ÐMd.€533€(1993)],€and€the€nearestÏto€that€was€$1,000,000,€which€weÏvacated€in€òò¢Edmonds£€v.€Murphyóó,Ð È   Ð...€83€Md.€App.€133,€573€A.2dÏ853€[(1990),òò€affððdóó,€325€Md.€342Ð —ç  Ð(1992)].€€Most€of€the€punitiveÏawards€to€date€have€been€wellÏunder€$100,000;€other€than€theÏaward€in€òòPotomac€Electricóó,€theÐ (x Ðhighest€allowed€to€stand€wasÏ$910,000€against€ExxonÏCorporation€in€òòExxon€Corp.€v.Ð Ø( ТYarema£óó,€69€Md.€App.€124,€516€A.2dÐ Æ Ð990€(1986)[,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€309Ð ´ ÐMd.€47€(1987)].Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàà  à[¢T]he£€$12.5€million€allowedÏby€the€court€[is]€extraordinaryÏin€terms€of€Maryland€historyÏ....Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€cases€in€which€punitive€damagesÏawards€have€been€upheld€by€this€Court€areÏeven€more€striking.€€Apparently€the€largestÏaward€of€punitive€damages€which€has€everÏbeen€upheld€by€this€Court€was€$700,000,€andÏin€that€case€the€size€of€the€award€was€notÏan€issue€before€this€Court.€€òòFranklinÐ $_# ÐSquare€Hosp.€v.€¢Laubach£óó,€318€Md.€615,€617„Ð ý$M $ Ð618,€569€A.2d€693,€694„695€(1990).€€TheÏnext€ten€highest€awards€of€punitive€damagesÏupheld€by€us€seem€to€be€as€follows:Ï$107,875€(òòSt.€Luke€Church€v.€Smithóó,€318€Md.Ð Ž(Þ#( Ð337,€568€A.2d€35€(1990));€$100,000€each€forÏtwo€plaintiffs,€based€on€two€separate€actsÏof€fraud€(òòNails€v.€S.€&€R.óó,€334€Md.€398,Ð >+Ž&+ Ð639€A.2d€660€(1994));€$82,000€(òòLuppino€v.Ð ,,|', ÐGrayóó,€336€Md.€194,€647€A.2d€429€(1994));Ð ° Ð$50,000€(òòMacklin€v.€Loganóó,€334€Md.€287,€639Ð žî ÐA.2d€112€(1994));€$40,000€(òòEmbrey€v.€Hollyóó,Ð ŒÜ Ðòò...€óó293€Md.€128,€442€A.2d€966òò€óó[(1982)]);Ð zÊ Ð$36,000€(òòDrug€Fair€of€Md.,€Inc.€v.€Smithóó,Ð h¸ Ð263€Md.€341,€283€A.2d€392€(1971));€$35,000Ï(òòGeneral€Motors€Corp.€v.€Piskoróó,€281€Md.Ð 7 ‡ Ð627,€381€A.2d€16€(1977));€$30,000€(òòGreatÐ % u ÐAtl.€&€Pac.€Tea€Co.€v.€Paulóó,€256€Md.€643,Ð  c Ð261€A.2d€731€(1970));€$25,000€(òòMontgomeryÐ  Q  ÐWard€&€Co.€v.€Keulemansóó,€275€Md.€441,€340Ð ï ?  ÐA.2d€7705€(1975));€$25,000€(òòAmerican€StoresÐ Ý-  ÐCo.€v.€Byrdóó,€229€Md.€5,€181€A.2d€333Ð Ë  Ð(1962)).€€Moreover,€in€most€of€these€casesÏno€argument€was€made€that€the€punitiveÏawards€were€excessive.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWe€recognize€that€the€awards€involvedÏin€the€older€cases€cited€above,€if€adjustedÏfor€inflation,€would€be€larger€in€terms€ofÏpresent€dollars.€€Nonetheless,€a€multi„¼million€dollar€award€of€punitive€damages€isÏentirely€beyond€the€range€of€punitiveÏdamages€awards€previously€upheld€by€thisÏCourt.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€32„33.Ð &v Ðà  àà ` àIt€is€thus€apparent€that€the€$5,000,000.00€awardÏagainst€TDC€is€far€above€the€range€of€punitive€damages€awardsÏaccepted€in€Maryland,€and€the€$170,000,00€award€against€DriggsÏas€an€individual€is€somewhat€above€that€range.Ìà@Ò Ò ìàòò„€Duplication€of€Awards€„óóˆÐ  %Z $ Ðà  àà ` àIf€separate€punitive€damages€are€awarded€forÏseparate€torts,€but€ð ðthe€separate€torts€all€grew€out€of€aÏsingle€occurrence€or€episode,ðð€the€awards€may€be€duplicative.€ÏòòBowdenóó,€350€Md.€at€34.€€The€trial€court€determined€that€theÐ ,,|', Ðmalicious€use€of€process€and€abuse€of€process€claims€ð ð[b]othÏ...€arise€out€of€Defendantsðð€misuse€of€the€court€system,€andÏthus€may€be€said€to€have€their€basis€in€one€continuous€courseÏof€conduct.ðð€€By€this,€the€€court€indicated€that€one€reason€itÏwas€reducing€the€punitive€damages€awards€was€because€itÏbelieved€them€to€be,€in€part,€duplicative.Ìà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€now€suggests€that€the€ð ðmalicious€use€ofÏprocess€claim€involved€the€filing€of€multiple€frivolous€legalÏproceedings€from€1994€through€1997,ðð€while€the€ð ðabuse€ofÏprocess€claim€involved€defendantsðð€efforts€to€use€processÏ...€as€part€of€an€ulterior€scheme€to€force€¢Zachair£€off€[HydeÏField]€and€to€resume€lucrative€mining€operations.ðð€€At€theÏtrial€below,€however,€¢Zachair£€expressly€agreed€that€the€awardsÏof€compensatory€damages€for€malicious€use€of€process€and€abuseÏof€process€were€duplicative€and€should€be€merged.€€¢Zachair£€mayÏnot€be€heard€to€argue€otherwise€on€appeal.Ìà@ê ê ìàòò„€Relationship€to€Compensatory€Damages€„€óóˆÐ Ð   Ðà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€makes€much€of€the€fact€that€the€ratioÏbetween€the€€juryððs€awards€of€punitive€damages€andÏcompensatory€damages€is€approximately€one€to€one.€€¢Zachair£Ïcontends€that€ð ð[¢a]wards£€with€a€ratio€of€3:1€between€punitiveÏdamages€and€compensatory€damages€are€presumptively€proper€as€aÏmatter€of€law.ððÐ v+Æ&, Ðà  àà ` àIn€òòBowdenóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€explained€that€anÐ ° Ðaward€of€punitive€damages€should€bear€ð ða€reasonableÏrelationship€to€the€compensatory€damages€awarded.ðð€€òòBowdenóó,Ð Nž Ð350€Md.€at€39.€€The€court€noted€that€when€the€ratio€ofÏpunitive€damages€to€compensatory€damages€is€greater€than€threeÏto€one,€it€is€likely€ð"ð€but€by€no€means€certain€ð"ð€that€theÏrelationship€is€not€reasonable.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€39€n.11.€€TheÐ pÀ  Ðcourt€observed€that,€ð ðin€some€states€where€the€matter€isÏcontrolled€by€statutes,€there€are€statutory€provisions€thatÏthe€amount€of€a€punitive€damages€award,€where€authorized,€mayÏnot€exceed€three€times€the€amount€of€the€plaintiffððs€actual€orÏcompensatory€damages.ðð€€òòId.óó€€It€added:€ð ðThis€three€to€oneÐ T¤ Ðratio€corresponds€to€numerous€statutes€in€Maryland€andÏthroughout€the€country€...€authorizing€treble€damages€as€aÏcivil€penalty.ðð€€Id.€at€40€n.11.òò€óóÐ ´ Ðà  àà ` àContrary€to€¢Zachair£ððs€suggestion,€the€òòBowdenóó€CourtÐ à Ðdid€not€suggest€that€punitive€damages€should€not€be€deemedÏexcessive€unless€the€ratio€between€them€and€any€compensatoryÏdamages€awarded€exceeds€three€to€one.€€The€Court€specificallyÏstated:€ð ð[¢W]e£€do€not€suggest€that€punitive€damages€awards€inÏmost€cases€must€reflect€this€ratio.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€CourtÐ t(Ä#( Ðacknowledged,€moreover,€€that€ð ðthere€are€situations€in€whichÏlittle€or€no€consideration€should€be€given€to€the€relationshipÐ ,b', Ðwhich€punitive€damages€awards€bear€to€compensatory€damagesÏawards.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€40.€€We€are€satisfied€that€the€situation€atÐ r Ðhand€ð"ð€where€a€multi„million€dollar€award€of€compensatoryÏdamages€was€made€for€purely€economic€loss€ð"ð€is€just€such€aÏsituation.Ìà@“ “ ìàòò„€Propriety€of€Reduction€„óóˆÐ ” ä  Ðà  àà ` àThe€trial€courtððs€reduction€of€the€punitive€damagesÏawards€changed€the€ratio€of€punitive€damages€to€compensatoryÏdamages€from€approximately€one€to€one€to€approximately€one€toÏfive.€€Both€the€award€against€¢TDC£€and€the€award€against€¢Driggs£Ïremain€among€the€highest€punitive€damages€awards€ever€made€inÏthis€State,€however.€€While€certainly€egregious,€the€conductÏin€question€did€not€pose€a€risk€to€life€or€health€and,€as€theÏtrial€court€explained,€was€no€more€heinous€than€other€acts€forÏwhich€the€Legislature€has€prescribed€lesser€penalties.€€¢Driggs£Ïand€¢TDC£€were€engaged€in€a€battle€to€save€their€businesses.€ÏUnder€the€circumstances,€we€are€convinced€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€reduced€the€awards€of€punitive€damages.ÌÌà@oo)ìàò òIIó óˆÐ J&š!& Ðâ âà@==%ìà€ò òConversionó óˆÐ (^#( Ðà  àà ` àIn€the€cross„appeal,€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€first€take€issueÏwith€the€juryððs€award€of€$1,975,000.00׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€compensatoryÐ r Ðâ âdamages€for€converting€mining€products€and€airport€revenuesÏfrom€November€3,€1994,€when€¢Zachair£€purchased€Hyde€Field€atÏauction,€until€March€29,€1995,€when€the€eviction€occurred.ñH#ñÌñH#ññI#ñÌÐ  X ÐñI#ñà@Þ Þ ìàòò„€Conversion€of€Mining€Products€„óóˆÐ z Ê  Ðà  àà ` àAs€to€the€mining€products,€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€contendÏthat€¢Zachair£€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€as€to€theÏprecise€amount€and€type€of€materials€removed€from€theÏproperty,€as€well€as€the€value€of€the€materials.€€They€assertÏthat€the€only€credible€evidence€was€the€testimony€of€¢Driggs£ÏhimselfñJ#ñ,ñJ#ñ€to€the€effect€that€about€15,000€tons€of€bank€runÏgravel€was€removed€from€the€property€during€the€relevantÏperiod€and€was€sold€for€$2.00€to€$2.25€per€ton.€€¢Driggs£€andÏ¢TDC£€argue€that,€even€if€¢Zachair£€could€have€received€$2.50€perÏton€„„€a€figure€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€purportedly€base€on€numbersÏsupplied€by€¢TDC£€counsel€James€¢Berard£€to€Dr.€¢Asterbadi£€whenÏ¢Asterbadi£€first€inquired€about€purchasing€Hyde€Field€from€theÏLP€ð"ð€it€was€only€entitled€to€$41,755.07,€which€representedÏ$45,000€in€compensatory€damages€for€the€mining€products,€lessÏ$3,276.03€that€¢TDC£€already€paid€¢Zachair£.€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€thusÐ ò'B#( Ðargue€that€the€trial€court€should€have€either€reduced€theÏcompensatory€damages€awarded€for€conversion€to€$41,755.07€orÏgranted€a€new€trial.Ìà  àà ` àð ðIn€an€action€for€conversion€of€...€property,€aÏplaintiff€is€entitled€to€ððthe€fair€market€value€of€the€propertyÐ ¸  Ðat€the€time€of€conversion,€with€legal€interest€thereon€to€theÏdate€of€the€verdict.ðððð€òò¢Postelle£€v.€¢McWhite£óó,€115€Md.€App.€721,Ð <Œ  Ð728€(1997)€(citation€omitted).€€Indeed,€under€Code€(1974,€1998ÏRepl.€Vol.),€ðð11-202(b)€of€the€Cts.€&€Jud.€Proc.€art.,€whenÏthe€conversion€involves€mining€products€and€ð ðthe€minerals€wereÏabstracted€furtively€or€in€bad€faith[,]€the€measure€of€damagesÏis€the€value€of€the€minerals€ready€for€market€withoutÏallowance€for€labor€and€expenses.ðð€€There€is€no€dispute€thatÏthe€jury€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€determined€that€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£Ð ¤ô Ðacted€in€bad€faith.Ìà  àà ` àAs€a€general€rule,ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthe€evidence€to€warrant€damages€must€showÏthat€the€plaintiff€has€sustained€someÏinjury€and€must€establish€sufficient€dataÏfrom€which€the€court€or€jury€can€properlyÏestimate€the€extent€€of€the€damages.€ÏDamages€must€be€proven€with€reasonableÏcertainty,€or€some€degree€of€specificity,Ïand€may€not€be€based€on€mere€speculation€orÏconjecture.Ð ` x` x Ðâ âÐ í(=$) ÐÓÓ8€Maryland€Law€Encyclopedia,€òòDamagesóó€ðð193€at€159€(1985)Ð ° Ð(footnotes€omitted).€€As€to€the€degree€of€certainty€required,Ïthe€Court€of€Appeals€has€explained:Ìâ âÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àCourts€have€modified€the€ð ðcertaintyððÏrule€into€a€more€flexible€one€ofÏð ðreasonable€certainty.ðð€€In€such€instances,Ïrecovery€may€often€be€based€on€opinionÏevidence,€in€the€legal€sense€of€that€term,Ïfrom€which€liberal€inferences€may€be€drawn.€ÏGenerally,€proof€of€actual€or€evenÏestimated€costs€is€all€that€is€requiredÏwith€certainty.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSome€of€the€modifications€which€haveÏbeen€aimed€at€avoiding€the€harshÏrequirements€of€the€ð ðcertaintyðð€ruleÏinclude:€(a)€if€the€fact€of€damage€isÏproven€with€certainty,€the€extent€or€theÏamount€of€therefor€may€be€left€toÏreasonable€inference;€(b)€where€aÏdefendantððs€wrong€has€caused€the€difficultyÏof€proving€damage,€he€cannot€complain€ofÏthe€resulting€uncertainty;€(c)€mereÏdifficulty€in€ascertaining€the€amount€ofÏdamage€is€not€fatal;€(d)€mathematicalÏprecision€in€fixing€the€amount€of€damage€isÏnot€required;€(e)€it€is€sufficient€if€theÏbest€evidence€of€the€damage€which€isÏavailable€is€produced€....Ð ` x` x ÐÌÌÓÓòòM€&€R€Contractors€&€Builders,€Inc.€v.€Michaelóó,€215€Md.€340,Ð ¬"ü" Ð348„49€(1958)€(regarding€damages€for€lost€profits€in€breach€ofÏcontract€case).€€òòSee€also€David€Sloane,€Inc.€v.€Stanley€G.Ð J&š!& ÐHouse€&€Associates,€Inc.,óó€311€Md.€36,€40„41€(1987);€òòImpalaÐ &(v#( ÐPlatinum€Ltd.€v.€Impala€Sales,€Inc.óó,€283€Md.€296,€330„31Ð *R%* Ð(1978);€òòStuart€Kitchens,€Inc.€v.€Stevensóó,€248€Md.€71,€74„75Ð Þ+.', Ð(1967);€òòDella€¢Ratta£,€Inc.€v.€American€Better€CommunityÐ ° ÐDevelopers,€Inc.óó,€38€Md.€App.€119,€139€(1977)€(all€reiteratingÐ ŒÜ Ðsame€in€context€of€lost€profits€from€breach€of€contract).€€òòSeeÐ h¸ Ðgenerallyóó€Charles€T.€¢McCormick£,€òòDamagesóó€ðððð€26€and€27€(1935)Ð D ” Ð(discussing€the€certainty€rule€as€to€damages€and€theÏmodifications€thereto);€¢25A£€¢C.J.S.£,€òòDamagesóó€ðð162(2)€at€80„81Ð â 2  Ð(1966)€(ð ðProof€of€the€amount€of€loss€with€absolute€orÏmathematical€ñK#ñÌñK#ñcertainty€is€not€requiredðð).Ìà  àà ` àPreliminarily,€it€is€significant€that€¢Zachair£Ïpresented€evidence,€by€way€of€the€deposition€testimony€of€¢TDC£Ïcorporate€representative€Reginald€Burner,€that€a€daily€reportÏof€the€mining€activities€at€Hyde€Field€was€normally€prepared.€ÏA€daily€report€contained€figures€specifying€the€types€andÏamounts€of€materials€mined€that€day.€€¢Asterbadi£€testified,Ïhowever,€that€he€asked€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€several€times€for€theÏrecords€of€the€mining€activity€for€the€five€month€period€inÏquestion€but€was€told€there€were€no€records.€€The€juryÏapparently€accepted€¢Asterbadi£ððs€testimony.€€In€denying€theÏpost€trial€motions€of€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€as€to€the€compensatoryÏdamages€for€conversion,€the€trial€court€commented:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à..€.€I€am€very€much€aware€that€theÏdifficulty€that€Plaintiff€experienced€inÏobtaining€and€producing€evidence€to€showÏthese€quantities€of€mining€materials€andÏrevenue€was€in€large€part€caused€by€theÐ Þ+.', Ðabsence€of€records€available€fromÏDefendants,€and€Plaintiffððs€lack€of€accessÏto€the€property.€€Neither€of€these€sourcesÏof€plaintiffððs€difficulty€in€producingÏproof€were€not€[sic]€caused€by€¢Zachair£,ÏLtd.,€and€in€fact,€form€part€of€PlaintiffððsÏComplaint€in€this€case.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€posited€that,€during€the€five€month€periodÏin€question,€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€mined€at€least€300,000€tons€ofÏmaterials€from€Hyde€Field.¢ñM#ñ׃×ñM#ññM#ñ׃×ñM#ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€In€order€to€establish€thatÐ <Œ  Ðamount,€¢Zachair£€offered€into€evidence€a€document€entitledÏð ðBusiness€Plan€or€Airport€Sand€and€Gravel,€Inc.ñL#ñ,ñL#ñðð€which€wasÏprovided€to€¢Asterbadi£€by€¢TDC£€attorney€James€¢Berard£€whenÏ¢Asterbadi£€first€inquired€about€purchasing€Hyde€Field.€€TheÏdocument€stated:€ð ðIt€is€projected€that€annual€sales€ofÐ V Ðmaterial€from€the€property€will€be€between€600,000€and€720,000Ïtons.ðð€€As€¢Zachair£€calculates€in€its€brief,€these€figuresÏbreak€down€to€ð ð250,000€to€300,00€tons€over€a€five„monthÏperiod.ðð€€We€recognize€that,€when€he€supplied€the€document,Ï¢Berard£€told€¢Asterbadi£€that€he€ð ðneeded€to€run€this€past€a€guyÏwho€knows€a€little€bit€about€the€businessðð€and€cautioned€himÏnot€to€ð ðplace€too€much€reliance€on€this€draft.ðð€€In€depositionÏtestimony€read€into€evidence€at€trial,€however,€¢Berard£Ïconfirmed€that€prior€to€the€events€at€issue€about€50,000€tonsÏof€materials€per€month€were€mined€from€Hyde€Field.€€Similarly,Ï¢TDC£€corporate€representative€Burner€testified€during€hisÏdeposition€that€the€ð ðhistorical€averageðð€of€the€miningÏoperation€was€45,000€to€50,000€tons€of€materials€per€month.Ìà  àà ` à¢Asterbadi£€testified€that,€during€the€five€monthÏperiod€in€question,€he€visited€Hyde€Field€three€to€four€timesÏper€week€and€stayed€for€two€to€three€hours€at€a€time.€Ï¢Asterbadi£€ð ðcould€see€the€trucks€going€in€and€out€like€crazy,ððÏand€estimated€that€during€each€two€to€three€hour€period€he€wasÏthere€he€saw€200€to€300€trucks€leave.€€¢Asterbadi£€could€notÏtell€what€the€trucks€were€carrying,€but€he€observed€that€atÏleast€half€of€them€bypassed€the€weight€scale€on€their€way€out.€Ïâ âIt€appeared€to€¢Asterbadi£€that€mining€operations€ð ðwere€goingÐ š)ê$* Ðfull€blast.ðð€€The€operations€did€not€abate€during€the€entireÏfive€month€period.Ìâ âà  àà ` àIn€March€of€1995,€¢Asterbadi£€hired€Michael€¢Levein£,€aÏprivate€investigator,€to€watch€the€property.€€¢Levein£€testifiedÏthat€he€watched€the€property€for€two€full€work€days€and€eachÏday€saw€50€to€60€trucks€per€hour€leave.€€Many€of€the€trucksÏavoided€the€weight€scale.€€¢Levein£€followed€several€trucks€toÏthe€Prince€Georgeððs€County€Landfill€and€followed€severalÏothers€to€a€construction€site.€€He€could€not€tell€preciselyÏwhat€materials€the€trucks€contained.Ìà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€also€called€Peter€Woo,€a€civilian€technicianÏwith€the€Washington€D.C.€Metropolitan€Police€DepartmentððsÏpolice€helicopter€unit.€€Woo€testified€that€he€worked€at€HydeÏField€for€eight€hours€a€day,€five€days€a€week,€during€theÏperiod€in€question,€and€that€he€saw€continuous€mining€activityÏthere.€€Woo€added€that,€on€February€27,€1995,€the€airportÏmanager€asked€him€to€make€a€videotape€of€the€mining€activity.€ÏWoo€believed€the€mining€activity€that€day€was€ð ð[¢n]ormal£ðð€forÏthe€period€in€question,€and€that€about€40€trucks€per€hour€leftÏthe€facility.€€Like€the€other€witnesses,€Woo€could€not€tellÏâ âexactly€what€was€in€the€trucks.Ð Ø'(#( Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€¢Zachair£€relied€on€the€deposition€testimonyÏof€James€¢Berard£,€that€each€truckload€consisted€of€19€to€20Ïtons€of€materials.Ìâ âà  àà ` àIn€light€of€this€testimony,€¢Zachair£ððs€contentionÏthat€300,000€tons€of€materials€were€taken€during€the€fiveÏmonth€period€was€more€than€reasonable.€€Using€Peter€WooððsÏtestimony,€which€contained€the€lowest€estimate€of€trucks€perÏhour€leaving€Hyde€Field,€the€evidence€amply€established€thatÏwell€over€the€amount€claimed€by€¢Zachair£€was€taken.€€With€40Ïtrucks€leaving€the€facility€each€hour,€and€with€each€truckÏcontaining€at€least€19€tons€of€materials,€the€evidenceÏsuggested€that€760€tons€of€material€were€taken€each€hour.€ÏGiven€Wooððs€testimony€that€such€mining€activity€occurred€atÏleast€during€the€40€hours€per€week€that€he€spent€at€HydeÏField,€the€evidence€indicated€that€30,400€tons€of€materialsÏwere€removed€per€week,€and€at€least€121,600€per€month.€€TheÏtotal€for€the€five€month€period€would€be€608,000€tons€ofÏmaterials€ð"ð€far€more€than€the€300,000€claimed€by€¢Zachair£.Ìà  àà ` à¢Zachair£€further€urged€the€jury€to€award€compensatoryÏdamages€of€$6.25€for€each€of€the€300,000€tons€of€convertedÏmaterials.€€To€establish€the€reasonableness€of€that€figure,Ï¢Zachair£€relied€on€testimony€as€to€the€market€rates€for€theÏvarious€types€of€materials€mined€from€Hyde€Field:€sand€andÐ \+¬&, Ðgravel,€which€is€produced€from€bank€run€gravel;€bank€runÏgravel;€top€soil;€and€overburden,€or€clay.€€¢Zachair£€presentedÏthe€deposition€testimony€of€James€¢Berard£,€by€which€¢Berard£Ïtestified€that€the€market€price€for€sand€and€gravel€was€$6.25Ïper€ton€undelivered,€although€the€price€might€be€lower€for€aÏhigh„volume€customer.€€¢Berard£€further€testified€that€theÏmarket€price€for€top€soil€was€between€$8.00€and€$10.00€per€tonÏundelivered.€€John€¢Driggs£,€who€testified€for€the€defense,Ïstated€that€¢TDC£€had€a€contract€with€the€Prince€Georgeððs€CountyÏlandfill,€by€which€it€delivered€to€the€landfill€the€variousÏtypes€of€mining€products.€€The€prices€paid€by€the€landfillÏranged€from€$4.80€per€ton,€for€overburden,€to€$12.80€per€tonÏfor€ð ðsubbase€material.ððÌà  àà ` àKeeping€in€mind€that€¢Zachair£€presented€evidenceÏthat,€despite€repeated€requests€to€do€so,€neither€¢Driggs£€norÏ¢TDC£€ever€turned€over€any€mining€records€that€would€haveÏspecified€the€types€of€materials€that€were€taken,€and€thatÏð ðwhere€a€defendantððs€wrong€has€caused€the€difficulty€ofÏproving€damage,€he€cannot€complain€of€the€resultingÏuncertainty,ðð€òòM€&€R€Contractors€&€Builders,€Inc.óó,€215€Md.€atÐ &f!& Ð349,€¢Zachair£€would€have€been€well€within€its€rights€to€haveÏasked€that€the€jury€conclude€that€all€of€the€materials€takenÏwere€of€the€most€expensive€type.€€Instead,€it€asked€that€theÐ v+Æ&, Ð300,000€tons€of€materials€taken€be€valued€at€the€lower€end€ofÏthe€price€scale,€at€$6.25€per€ton,€for€total€damages€ofÏ$1,875,000.00.€€Again,€under€the€circumstances€¢Zachair£ððsÏrequest€and€the€juryððs€award€were€more€than€reasonable.ÌÐ  ¸  Ðà@ööìàòò€„€¢TDC£ððs€Role€in€Conversion€of€Airpark€Revenues€„óóˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` à¢TDC£€points€out€that€it€was€the€mining€vendor€at€HydeÏField€during€the€relevant€period.€€It€argues€that€the€evidenceÏfailed€to€connect€it€to€the€conversion€of€the€airparkÏrevenues.€€¢TDC£€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏð ðeliminate€$100,000€from€any€damages€assessed€against€¢TDC£ððÏpursuant€to€the€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€theÏverdict,€or€to€grant€¢TDC£€a€new€trial.Ìà  àà ` à¢TDC£ððs€argument€ignores€that€ð ðMaryland€has€expresslyÏrecognized€aider€and€abettor€tort€liability.ðð€€òò¢Alleco£,€Inc.€v.Ð œì ÐHarry€&€Jeannette€Weinberg€Found.,€Inc.,óó€340€Md.€176,€199Ð xÈ Ð(1995)€(involving€allegations€of€aiding€and€abetting€inÏcommission€of€fraud).€€ð ðððA€person€may€be€held€liable€as€aÐ f Ðprincipal€...€if€he,€by€any€means€(words,€signs,€or€motions)Ïencouraged,€incited,€aided€or€abetted€the€act€of€the€directÏperpetrator€of€the€tort.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€(citation€omitted).€€ProvidedÐ \¬ Ðthere€is€a€ð ðððdirect€perpetrator€of€the€tort,ðððð€an€aider€andÐ 8!ˆ  Ðabettor€may€be€held€liable€for€commission€of€the€tort.€€òòIdóó.Ð ú"J" Ð(citation€omitted).Ìà  àà ` àWhile€¢TDC£€was€indeed€unconnected€with€the€operationsÏof€the€airpark,€¢Zachair£€presented€evidence€that€Jeffrey€FrostÏwas€counsel€for€¢Driggs£,€counsel€for€¢TDC£,€a€member€of€the€BoardÏof€Directors€of€¢TDC£,€and€a€member€of€the€Board€of€Directors€ofÐ Þ+.', ТWEA£,€which€was€hired€by€the€LP€to€operate€the€airpark€andÏwhich€subcontracted€the€job€to€Freedom€Air,€Inc.€€¢Zachair£Ïpresented€evidence€that,€after€it€purchased€Hyde€Field€atÏauction,€the€owner€of€Freedom€Air,€Michael€¢Gartland£,€madeÏinquiries€as€to€whether€Freedom€Air€should€begin€payingÏrevenues€to€¢Zachair£€rather€than€¢WEA£.€€Frost€wrote€a€letter€toÏ¢Gartland£€on€¢TDC£€stationary.€€In€the€letter,€Frost€warnedÏ¢Gartland£€to€ð ðabide€by€your€contractual€obligations€[with€¢WEA£]Ïand€ððbutt„outðð€of€affairs€that€do€not€concern€you.ðð€€InÐ À Ðaddition,€Frost€testified€at€trial€that€¢TDC£€ð ðwas€paying€forÏservices€of€outside€counsel€to€fight€in€adversary€proceedingsÏagainst€¢Zachair£,ðð€including€the€exceptions€to€the€sale€whichÏdelayed€the€eviction€of€¢WEA£€and€Freedom€Air€from€the€airpark.€ÏClearly,€¢Zachair£€presented€ample€evidence€that€¢TDC£€aided€andÏabetted€the€conversion€of€the€airpark€revenues.ÌÌà@11)ìàò òIIIó óˆÐ Ð   Ðà@ÀÀ$ìàò òAttorney€Feesó óˆÐ ”"ä" Ðà  àà ` àUpon€finding€that€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€had€abused€processÏand€maliciously€used€process,€the€jury€awarded€¢Zachair£Ï$2,596,00.00€in€compensatory€damages€as€to€each€of€thoseÏcounts,€specifying€on€the€verdict€sheet€that€$346,000€of€eachÏaward€was€to€compensate€¢Zachair£€for€its€attorney€fees.€€As€weÐ `+°&, Ðhave€explained,€the€court€later€merged€the€two€awards€andÏreduced€the€total€amount€to€$346,000.00,€the€amount€ofÏattorney€fees.ÌÐ  ö F Ðà  àà ` à¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏsubmitting€the€issue€of€attorney€fees€to€the€jury€with€theÏabuse€of€process€and€malicious€use€of€process€counts,€andÏlater€by€failing€to€grant€their€motion€for€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€the€verdict€as€to€that€portion€of€the€awardÏrepresenting€attorney€fees.€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€do€not€contendÏthat€¢Zachair£€was€not€entitled€to€some€amount€of€attorney€feesÏin€light€of€the€abuse€of€process€and€malicious€use€of€process.€ÏòòSee€generally€Watson€v.€Watsonóó,€73€Md.€App.€483,€497€(1988)Ð À Ð(holding€that,€under€Md.€Rule€1„341,€ð ða€Maryland€judge€hasÏ...€authority€to€impose€litigation€expenses,€including€thoseÏof€attorney€fees,€against€counsel€who€willfully€abuse€judicialÏprocessðð);€W.€Page€¢Keeton£,€òòProsser€and€¢Keeton£€on€the€Law€ofÐ â2 ÐTortsóó€ðð120€at€895€(5th€ed.€1984)€(explaining€that,€where€aÐ ¾ Ðcivil€suit€has€been€brought€through€misuse€of€legal€procedure,Ïð ð[¢c]ounsel£€fees€incurred€in€defending€against€the€wrongfulÏcivil€suit€are€prominent€among€items€of€recovery€...ðð).€€òòCf.Ð !n  ТBresnahan£€v.€¢Bresnahan£óó,€115€Md.€App.€226,€244€(commenting€thatÐ ú"J" Ðð ða€plaintiff€in€a€malicious€prosecution€action,€who€hasÏincurred€counsel€fees€in€the€defense€of€the€criminal€charge,Ïmay€be€awarded€those€fees€as€damages€in€the€civil€actionðð),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€346€Md.€629€(1997).€€Nor€do€they€contend€that€itÐ *l%* Ðwas€for€the€court€rather€than€the€jury€to€determine€the€properÐ ø+H', Ðamount€of€attorney€fees.€€òòSee€generally€Admiral€Mortgage,€Inc.Ð ° Ðv.€Cooperóó,€357€Md.€533,€545„553€(2000)€(discussing€whetherÐ ŒÜ Ðattorney€fees€are€to€be€determined€and€awarded€by€the€judge€orÏthe€jury).€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€argue,€instead,€that€¢Zachair£€failedÏto€present€sufficient€evidence€that€the€attorney€fees€it€paidÏwere€reasonable.Ìà  àà ` àAs€in€the€case€of€any€award€of€compensatory€damages,Ïattorney€fees€must€be€proven€with€reasonable€certainty.€€As€aÏgeneral€rule:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àð ð(a)€the€party€seeking€the€fees,Ïwhether€for€him/herself€or€on€behalf€of€aÏclient,€always€bears€the€burden€ofÏpresenting€evidence€sufficient€for€a€trialÏcourt€to€render€a€judgment€as€to€theirÏreasonableness;€(b)€an€appropriate€fee€isÏalways€reasonable€charges€for€the€servicesÏrendered;€(c)€a€fee€is€not€justified€by€aÏmere€compilation€of€hours€multiplied€byÏfixed€hourly€rates€or€bills€issued€to€theÏclient;€(d)€a€request€for€fees€must€specifyÏthe€services€performed,€by€whom€they€wereÏperformed,€and€the€hourly€rates€charged;Ï(e)€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€party€seekingÏrecovery€to€present€detailed€records€thatÏcontain€the€relevant€facts€and€computationsÏundergirding€the€computation€of€charges;Ï(f)€without€such€records,€theÏreasonableness,€vel€non,€of€the€fees€can€beÏdetermined€only€by€conjecture€or€opinion€ofÏthe€attorney€seeking€the€fees€and€wouldÏtherefore€not€be€supported€by€competentÏevidence.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓ¢Rauch£€v.€McCallóó,€___€Md.€App.€___,€No.€1904,€September€Term,Ð Î)%* Ð2000,€Slip€op.€at€17€(filed€September€6,€2000)€(discussingÐ ª+ú&, Ðproof€necessary€for€award€of€attorney€fees€where€award€isÏauthorized€by€contract)€(citation€omitted).€€òòSee€also€MaximaÐ r ÐCorp.€v.€6933€Arlington€Dev.€Ltd.€Partnershipóó,€100€Md.€App.Ð Nž Ð441,€453€(same).Ìà  àà ` àThe€general€rule€is€not€inflexible,€however.€€InÏòòMilton€Co.€v.€Council€of€Unit€Owner€of€Bentley€PlaceÐ ® þ  ÐCondominiumóó,€121€Md.€App.€100,€121€(1998),€òòaffððd,óó€354€Md.€264Ð ŠÚ  Ð(1999),€the€appellant€challenged€an€award€of€attorney€fees,Ïmade€by€the€judge,€on€the€ground€that€the€appellee€ð ðneverÏpresented€any€contemporaneous€time€records€to€establish€howÏmuch€time€its€attorneys€spent€working€on€the€case.ðð€€ThisÏCourt€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€suchÏrecords€were€unnecessary€ð ðbecause€the€¢unrebutted£€testimony€ofÏappelleeððs€expert€witness€provided€a€sufficient€basis€for€theÏaward€of€fees.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€We€explained:Ð ´ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àð ð[A]€trial€court€enjoys€a€largeÏmeasure€of€discretion€in€fixing€theÏreasonable€value€of€legal€services.€€ThatÏamount€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€it€isÏclearly€an€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€...Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àð ðWhile€time€is€one€of€the€applicableÏfactors,€the€record€need€not€containÏevidence€specifically€delineating€theÏnumber€of€hours€spent€by€counsel.€€BecauseÏthe€record€itself€discloses€the€nature€ofÏthe€proceedings,€it€is€some€evidence€of€theÏœextenñO#ñtñO#ññP#ñdñP#ñ›€of€the€attorneyððs€efforts.€...ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòÓÓIdóó.€(citations€omitted).Ð Þ+.', Ðà  àà ` àThe€award€of€attorneys€fees€was€based€on€theÏservices€of€two€attorneys,€Nelson€¢Deckelbaum£€and€Richard€Reed,Ïand€other€members€of€their€law€firms.€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€pointÏout€that€¢Zachair£€did€not€offer€into€evidence€bills€of€eitherÏattorney€and€thus€offered€no€documentary€evidence€as€to€theÏhours€each€attorney€worked,€precisely€what€they€did€duringÏthose€hours,€and€precisely€what€they€charged€for€each€taskÏperformed.€€Although€¢Deckelbaum£€had€before€him€as€he€testifiedÏa€summary€of€his€bills,€the€summary€was€not€offered€intoÏevidence.€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€argue€that€the€course€followed€byÏ¢Zachair£€in€offering€the€testimony€of€the€two€attorneysÏviolated€Md.€Rules€5-703,€5-704,€5-705,€and,€as€toÏ¢Deckelbaum£ððs€summary,€5-1006.Ìà  àà ` àUpon€reviewing€the€evidence,€we€are€satisfied€thatÏthe€trial€court€properly€exercised€its€discretion€inÏpermitting€the€issue€of€attorney€fees€to€go€to€the€jury.€€Dr.Ï¢Asterbadi£€testified€at€length€regarding€the€variousÏlitigations€initiated€by€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£,€and€about€the€variousÏother€legal€obstacles€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€erected€in€his€path.€Ï¢Asterbadi£€described:€the€efforts€to€invalidate€the€notes€fromÏthe€LP€to€Nationsbank€and€the€original€owner€of€Hyde€Field;Ïthe€difficulties€presented€at€the€foreclosure€auction;€theÏexceptions€filed€from€the€sale€at€the€foreclosure€auction;€theÐ \+¬&, Ðfirst€and€second€scheduled€evictions;€the€efforts€to€block€theÏtransfer€of€the€mining€permit;€and€the€efforts€to€have€theÏspecial€exception€revoked.€€¢Asterbadi£€explained€that,€at€eachÏjuncture,€his€attorneys€had€to€respond€to€the€actions€ofÏ¢Driggs£,€¢TDC£,€and€others,€all€at€a€substantial€cost€to€him.Ìà  àà ` à¢Deckelbaum£,€too,€testified€regarding€many€of€theÏactions€he€and€other€members€of€his€firm€took€on€¢Asterbadi£ððsÏbehalf€in€response€to€the€actions€of€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£.€Ï¢Deckelbaum£€described€defending€¢Zachair£€in€connection€with€theÏlitigation€over€the€notes.€€He€explained€that€action€regardingÏthe€notes€was€filed€in€August€of€1994€and€was€resolved€inÏ¢Zachair£ððs€favor€on€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€April€ofÏ1995.€€¢Deckelbaum£€described€in€detail€his€work€in€connectionÏwith€the€foreclosure€auction,€his€efforts€to€have€the€airparkÏrevenues€turned€over€to€¢Zachair£€instead€of€the€LP,€and€hisÏefforts€to€obtain€an€injunction€to€prevent€¢TDC£€from€continuingÏto€mine€Hyde€Field.€€He€further€described€the€first€scheduledÏeviction,€the€successful€eviction,€and€his€attempts€to€obtainÏthe€costs€of€the€eviction€from€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£.Ìà  àà ` à¢Deckelbaum£€was€permitted€to€testify€as€an€expertÏâ âwitness€ð ðas€to€what€attorneyððs€fees€ought€to€be€for€theseÐ Ø'(#( Ðtypes€of€cases.ðð¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€He€explained€that€he€was€a€member€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âAmerican€College€of€Bankruptcy€Attorneys,€which€ð ðis€a€societyÏof€professionals€who€practice€bankruptcy€law€for€fifteen€yearsÏor€more,€who€are€elected€by€their€colleagues€throughout€theÏcountry€to€better€advance€bankruptcy€law€....ðð€€¢Deckelbaum£Ïtestified€that€his€firm€billed€¢Zachair£€by€the€hour,€and€thatÏthe€hourly€rates€were€ð ðbased€upon€[the]€experience€of€theÏlawyer€involved€in€a€particular€case.ðð€€He€added€that€theÏrates€charged€by€lawyers€at€his€firm€ð ðare€equivalent€to€whatÏother€lawyers€with€similar€experience€and€background€charge.ðð€ÏFinally,€¢Deckelbaum£€testified€that€his€firm€billed€¢Zachair£€aÏtotal€of€$131,036.40.€€He€explained€that,€of€that€amount,Ï$12,701.75€was€for€the€litigation€over€the€notes,€$106,524.85Ïwas€for€defending€against€the€exceptions€to€the€foreclosureÏsale,€$8,240.35€was€for€defending€against€the€attempt€toÏwithdraw€the€special€exception,€and€$3,569.35€was€for€theÏâ âtransfer€of€the€mining€permit.Ð Ð   Ðà  àà ` àAttorney€Richard€Reed€testified€that€he€specializedÏâ âin€land€use.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€was€hired€by€¢Zachair£€to€do€further€work€inÐ r Ðconnection€with€the€special€exception€and€mining€permit.€€ReedÏtestified€extensively€regarding€the€work€he€and€other€membersÏof€his€firm€did€to€effectuate€the€transfer€of€the€miningÏpermit€and€to€prevent€the€revocation€of€the€special€exception.€ÏLike€¢Deckelbaum£,€Reed€testified€that€his€firm€billed€¢Zachair£Ïby€the€hour€and€that€the€rates€charged€were€ð ð[¢i]n£€accordanceÏwith€the€market€rate€at€the€time.ðð€€He€stated€that€the€totalÏbill€was€approximately€$215,000.00,€with€approximatelyÏ$89,000.00€billed€for€the€mining€work€and€$115,000.00€billedÏfor€the€special€exception€work.׃2R×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð V Ðà  àà ` àIt€is€thus€apparent€that,€although€¢Zachair£€did€notÏprovide€the€court€with€an€hourly€breakdown€of€the€work€doneÏand€the€rates€charged,€it€provided€ample€evidence€as€to€theÏcomplex€and€lengthy€nature€of€the€services€performed.€€On€thisÏevidence,€the€jury€could€„„€and€did€„„€properly€infer,€withÏreasonable€certainty,€that€the€fees€charged€were€appropriate.Ìà  àà ` àWe€are€unpersuaded€by€the€contention€of€¢Driggs£€andÏ¢TDC£€that,€under€Md.€Rules€5-703,€5„704,€and€5-705,€¢Deckelbaum£Ð &f!& Ðand€Reed€could€not€testify€regarding€their€fees€unlessÏdocumentation€was€offered€as€well.€€Each€of€these€rules€leavesÏto€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€any€decision€as€toÏwhether€to€permit€testimony€or€to€admit€documentary€evidence,Ïand€we€perceive€no€abuse€of€discretion.€€Similarly€withoutÏmerit€is€the€contention€of€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€that,€under€Md.€RuleÏ5-1006,€¢Deckelbaum£€should€not€have€been€permitted€to€use€hisÏprepared€summary€while€testifying€regarding€his€bill€sinceÏ¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€were€not€afforded€an€opportunity€to€inspect€andÏcopy€the€summary€prior€to€trial.€€As€the€trial€courtÏdetermined,€Rule€5-1006€applies€to€summaries€that€are€preparedÏfor€admission€into€evidence€at€trial.€€¢Deckelbaum£€used€hisÏsummary€merely€to€refresh€his€own€memory€while€testifying.Ìà  àà ` à¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€vaguely€suggest€that€¢Deckelbaum£€andÏReed€should€not€have€been€permitted€to€express€opinions€as€toÏthe€reasonableness€of€their€fees.€€Again,€we€are€unpersuaded.€Ï¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€offer€no€argument€in€support€of€their€argument,Ïand€the€legal€basis€is€therefore€unclear.Ìà  àà ` àAs€indicated€òòsupraóó,€n.13,€¢Zachair£€apparently€failedÐ T$¤$ Ðto€reveal€prior€to€trial€that€it€intended€to€call€¢Deckelbaum£Ïas€an€expert€witness,€and€the€court€thus€refused€to€allowÏ¢Deckelbaum£€to€testify€as€an€expert€regarding€anything€otherÏthan€his€fees.€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€do€not€inform€us,€and€theÐ v+Æ&, Ðrecord€extract€does€not€reveal,€whether€this€same€rulingÏapplied€to€Reed.€€¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€do€not€allege€on€appeal€thatÏthe€ruling€as€to€the€scope€of€¢Deckelbaum£ððs€testimony€wasÏerroneous,€and€any€such€contention€would€be€unavailing.€Ïð ð[¢T]he£€appropriate€sanction€for€a€discovery€...€violation€isÏlargely€discretionary€with€the€trial€court,€and€the€moreÏdraconian€sanctions,€of€dismissing€a€claim€or€precluding€theÏevidence€necessary€to€support€the€claim,€are€normally€reservedÏfor€persistent€and€deliberate€violations€that€actually€causeÏsome€prejudice,€either€to€a€party€or€to€the€court.ðð€€òòAdmiralÐ ‚Ò ÐMortgage,€Inc.óó,€357€Md.€at€545.€€There€is€no€suggestion€thatÐ ^® ТDriggs£€and€¢TDC£€were€prejudiced€by€the€discovery€violation.€ÏThe€record€extract€makes€clear€that€they€were€aware€from€theÏstart€of€¢Zachair£ððs€suit€that€¢Zachair£€was€seeking€to€recoverÏits€attorney€fees,€and€there€is€no€reason€to€believe€that€theyÏdid€not€have€sufficient€opportunity€to€prepare€a€defense.Ìà  àà ` à¢Driggs£€and€¢TDC£€direct€us€to€no€authority€that€wouldÏsuggest€that€expert€testimony€is€necessary€to€establish€thatÏattorney€fees€are€reasonable,€and€we€are€aware€of€no€suchÏauthority.€€Nor€are€we€aware€of€any€authority€that€wouldÏsuggest€that€an€attorney€may€not€be€certified€as€an€expert,€asÏwas€¢Deckelbaum£€and€possibly€Reed,€in€a€case€involving€theÏreasonableness€of€the€attorneyððs€own€fees.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Md.Ð +à&, ÐRule€5-702.€€Even€a€lay€witness€may€offer€an€opinion€on€anÏultimate€issue€of€fact,€such€as€the€reasonableness€of€fees,€ifÏthe€opinion€is€rationally€based€on€the€perception€of€theÏwitness€and€helpful€to€the€determination€of€the€trier€of€fact.€ÏòòSee€generallyóó€Md.€Rule€5-701,€5-704(a).€€The€record€makesÐ ¸  Ðclear€that€the€opinions€of€¢Deckelbaum£€and€Reed€were€indeedÏrationally€based€and€helpful€to€the€jury.Ìà@oo)ìàò òIVó óˆÐ h  Ðà@ÌÌ ìàò òTortious€Interferenceó óˆÐ Ü, Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€¢TDC£€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€grant€the€motion€for€judgment€notwithstanding€theÏverdict€as€to€the€count€against€it€for€tortious€interferenceÏwith€contractual€or€economic€relations,€in€that€the€evidenceÏestablished€that€ð ð¢TDC£€was€out€of€the€property€on€March€29,Ï1995,€before€the€date€the€tortious€interference€allegedlyÏbegan,€and€TDC€did€not€initiate€any€of€the€acts€allegedlyÏconstituting€¢tortious£€interference.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TDC€further€arguesÐ î >  Ðthat,€even€if€tortious€interference€on€its€part€wasÏâ âestablished,€the€award€of€$275,000.00€was€œexcessive.›Ð r$Â$ Ðà  àà ` àZachair€alleged€in€its€complaint€that€the€variousÏâ âdefendants,€including€Driggs€and€TDC,òò€óóð ðinterfer[ed]€with€theÐ r Ðrenewal€of€the€Special€Exception€permitðð€and€ð ðrefus[ed]€toÏtransfer€the€Mining€Permit€to€Zachair€[or€its€mining€vendor].ðð€Ï¢Zachair£€posited€that€these€acts,€as€well€as€others,€tortiouslyÏinterfered€with€its€contractual€or€business€relations€with€itsÏmining€vendor€by€preventing€the€mining€vendor€from€mining€HydeÏField€for€an€eight€month€period,€from€June€of€1995€untilÏFebruary€of€1996.€€A€review€of€the€testimony€presented€atÏtrial€reflects€that€Zachair€supported€its€claim.Ìà  àà ` àWhile€the€evidence€is€somewhat€unclear,€it€doesÏindeed€appear€that€the€efforts€to€block€the€transfer€of€theÏmining€permit€were€done€in€Southernððs€name€and€the€efforts€toÏrevoke€the€special€exception€were€done€in€the€name€of€the€LP.€ÏAs€the€mining€vendor€for€the€LP,€TDC€was€an€entity€that€stoodÏto€gain,€however,€if€the€efforts€were€successful€and€¢Zachair£Ïwas€blocked€from€taking€over€Hyde€Field.€€Southern,€which€wasÏthe€mining€vendor€prior€to€¢TDC£€and€which€allowed€¢TDC£€to€useÏits€mining€permit,€refused€to€permit€¢Zachair£€to€use€the€permitÏand€attempted€to€block€any€transfer€to€¢Zachair£.€€There€is€noÏdispute€that€Southern€had€nothing€to€gain€from€its€actions,€asÏâ âit€had€ceased€operations€before€¢Zachair£€purchased€Hyde€Field.Ð ´)%* Ðà  àà ` àOn€this€evidence€alone,€the€jury€could€infer€thatÏâ â¢TDC£€orchestrated€the€efforts.¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£ò ò€€ó óMore€evidence€was€offeredÐ r Ðthrough€attorney€Jeffrey€Frost,€however.€€Frost€testified€thatÏð ðthe€¢Driggs£€Corporation€was€paying€for€services€of€outsideÏcounsel€to€fight€in€adversary€proceedings€against€¢Zachair£€bothÏin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Prince€Georgeððs€County€as€well€asÏbefore€some€administrative€bodies€and€also€the€Circuit€CourtÏof€[sic]€Baltimore€City.ðð€€While€Frost€stated€that€he€had€ð ðnoÏfirsthand€knowledgeðð€of€who€paid€for€the€litigation€over€theÏmining€permit,€that€litigation€was€the€only€litigationÏdiscussed€at€trial€which€began€before€an€administrative€body€ð"ðÏthe€Bureau€of€Mines€of€the€Maryland€Department€of€theÏEnvironment€„„€and€was€appealed€to€the€Circuit€Court€forÏBaltimore€City.€€The€litigation€concerning€the€specialÏexception€also€began€before€an€administrative€body€ð"ð€a€zoningÏhearing€examiner€for€the€Prince€Georgeððs€County€CouncilÏsitting€as€the€District€Council.Ìà  àà ` à¢TDC£ððs€contention€that€¢Zachair£€failed€to€prove€thatÏthe€tortious€interference€caused€$275,000.00€in€damages€isÏwithout€merit€as€well.€€¢Zachair£€presented€evidence€thatÏestablished€that€its€contract€with€its€mining€vendor€requiredÏthe€mining€vendor,€under€ordinary€circumstances,€to€mine€atÏleast€500,000€tons€of€material€per€year.€€For€the€year€duringÏwhich€the€tortious€interference€occurred,€the€vendor€was€toÐ š)ê$* Ðpay€¢Zachair£€$0.55€per€ton.€€As€¢TDC£€argues,€the€vendor€wouldÏhave€been€required€to€pay€€¢Zachair£€$275,000.00€had€it€minedÏthe€minimum€500,000€tons€over€the€full€year.€€From€this,€¢TDC£Ïconcludes€that,€because€the€tortious€interference€occurred€forÏonly€eight€months,€the€$275,000.00€award€was€excessive.€€UsingÏ¢TDC£ððs€reasoning,€¢Zachair£€would€have€been€entitled€to€onlyÏ$183,333.32.€Ìà  àà ` àTo€the€contrary,€the€500,000€figure€was€only€aÏminimum.€€As€explained€òòsupraóó,€at€28€„€31,€there€was€evidenceÐ À Ðthat€more€than€€twice€that€amount€could€be€„„€and€at€times€wasÏ„„€mined€from€Hyde€Field.€€Given€that€evidence,€the€award€ofÏ$275,000.00€was€reasonable.€€òòSee€generally€M€&€R€Contractors€&Ð  p ÐBuilders,€Incóó,€215€Md.€at€348„49€(regarding€certainty€withÐ üL Ðwhich€damages€must€be€proven).ÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àJUDGMENT€AFFIRMED;€COSTS€TOÏBE€PAID€1/4€BYÏAPPELLANT/CROSS„APPELLEE€ANDÏ3/4€BY€APPELLEE/CROSS„¼APPELLANT.