Extensive Legal Experience
In addition to the drafting of wills and trusts, Ring represents parties in estate litigation.
Case 1. Mother’s assets re-titled; was it fraud?
- Ailing mother’s house was re-titled to add Son as joint owner.
- Mother’s bank accounts were re-titled, making Son sole beneficiary, displacing others.
- Mother’s will was changed, making Son the main beneficiary.
Then what? Mom passed away. Ring represented the estate in a suit against Son. A bench trial resulted in reversal of all the changes made by Son, restoring the assets to the estate, which was then distributed to the several heirs. Case No. 398672-V, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
Case 2. Senior’s generosity to Friend; fraud?
- Senior named Friend as attorney-in-fact, trustee and executor.
- 20 years passed and Senior became more dependent on Friend, and more generous.
- Senior’s trust was amended, increasing Friend’s bequest 10-fold.
Then what? Senior passed away. Residuary beneficiaries sued to void the increase to Friend. Ring defended Friend as trustee. The case settled. Case No. 20-1858, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.
Case 3. Nephew inherits Aunt’s house; fraud?
- Ailing aunt, having no spouse or children, agreed to have Nephew’s young family move into her house at no charge, and in return, care for her. Months later Aunt changed her will, leaving her house to Nephew.
Then what? Aunt passed away. Other beneficiaries under the will sued to return the house to the estate. Ring represented nephew. Details showed the bequest was valid. The case settled, Nephew keeping the house.
Case 4. Wife dies without a will, Husband battles to keep house.
- In a second marriage for both, Wife was the breadwinner and Husband stayed home with child.
- Wife died without a will, leaving residence and 2 properties overseas in her name alone.
- Husband filed probate and asserted inheritance rights for himself and minor child.
- Other heirs challenged Husband’s rights.
Then what? Ring represented Husband in complex suits ending in a settlement. Husband kept the residence. The foreign properties were sold and the proceeds divided among the heirs. Case no. 82692, Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
Case 5. Friend added to joint accounts of ailing Owner; fraud?
- Owner had several bank accounts and certificates of deposit in her name alone.
- Friend caused the accounts to be re-titled, adding Friend as joint owner or beneficiary.
Then what? Owner passed away. For the estate, Ring sued to reverse the changes. A jury agreed and rendered a verdict for the estate on all claims. An appeal followed, then a second trial, resulting in a second verdict in favor of the estate on all claims. The accounts were restored to the estate. Hawkins v. Wilson, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 1222, September Term, 1998 (unreported).
Case 6. Business Owner signed a “transfer on death;” but his will left all to Friend.
- Owner had a successful business.
- Ailing but alert, Owner signed estate planning documents that included a “Transfer On Death” of the business to trusted employees and a will leaving the residue of his estate to Friend.
- If the TOD was valid, the business would pass outside the probate estate, thus not under the will and the residue for Friend would be greatly reduced.
Then what? The executor engaged Ring to defend the estate against certain claims and provide administration services. The TOD became a major issue under new Maryland law. The Register of Wills, in consultation with the Attorney General, regarded the Transfer On Death as valid. The business went to two beneficiaries named in that document, not under the will, and the remaining residue went to the beneficiary named in the will. Maryland’s collateral inheritance tax was applied to both distributions. Case No. 24445, Orphans’ Court for Charles County.
- Online Car Sales – Ring represented consumer who bought car online. Title and permanent tags were delayed, leaving buyer unable to drive vehicle for 100 days. Ring pursued Customer’s claim against dealer for loss of use, rental value of similar exotic sports car. Award: $93,639.36 recovered including attorney’s fees.
- Construction Dispute – Ring represents homeowner over defects in major home renovation project. Pending, October 2023.
- Online Consumer Fraud – Ring represents consumers in claims against vendors who offer goods or services online via deceptive advertising, or fail to perform. Cases confidential.
- Defense of Online Conduct – Ring represents individuals accused of infringement on copyrighted material and other transgressions via online behavior. Cases confidential.
- Robo Calls. Ring represents recipients of unsolicited robocalls to cell phones in suits under the TCPA. Numerous cases. Co-counsel in several class actions. Most have settled. List available.
- Unsolicited Ads via Facsimile – Ring represents recipients of unsolicited ads via facsimile in suits under the TCPA. Numerous cases. Co-counsel in several class actions. Most have settled. List available.
- Utility Over-Billing – Consumers sued reseller of natural gas for overcharges in billing. Class certified; settled. Case No.168971-V, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
- Product Liability – Ring represented vehicle owners in suits against auto makers for defectively designed seats. 397 Md. 108, 916 A.2d 257; Case No. BEL-07-2487.
- Oil Spill – Class action arising from pipeline leaking thousands of gallons of oil into a popular river. As co-counsel for the class, Ring deposed defense witnesses on the details of pipeline design and operations. Class certified; settled. Case No. PJM-00-1429. United States District Court for Maryland, Southern Division.
- Deceptive Email Ads – Ring has represented plaintiffs in numerous suits against spammers under Maryland’s anti-spam statute. Numerous depositions and motions. Most of these cases settle. Several appeals; samples at 422 F. Supp. 2d 523; 168 Md. App. 186; 382 Md. 689.
- Bank Litigation – Ring represented bank customer in claim arising from credit life insurance. Favorable ruling on appeal for client on statute of limitations, discovery rule. 145 Md. App. 670
- Bank Litigation – Ring represented purchasers of custom home from fraudulent builder who went bankrupt; claim against bank for fraudulent inducement, concealment of negative information about builder, and other breaches. Settled. 91 Md. App. 346
- Guardianship Proceedings – Ring has represented various parties in guardianship proceedings, contested and uncontested.
Construction Disputes – Ring defended contractor in lengthy arbitration proceedings arising from alleged defects in a large home addition. Settled. Thibodeau v. Edward J. Koppel and Grace Anne Koppel, Case No. 16 100 0242 83G, American Arbitration Association.
Roof Failure – Ring defended manufacturer of roofing membrane in complex litigation arising from leaks in a large flat roof on a public school. Adverse facts, two lengthy trials and one appeal resulted in a final judgment against client for a figure lower than expected. This was considered a favorable outcome. 82 Md. App. 9, 569 A.2d 1288.
Derivative Suit – Ring represented member of LLC in dispute over ownership. Settled.
Case No. 24-C-22-000959 OG, Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
MCEMA – Ring represented plaintiffs in litigation against spammers under the private enforcement provisions of the Maryland anti-spam statute, resulting in recoveries in excess of one million dollars.
Williams v. PEPCO, U.S. District Court for Maryland, oil spill, class certified, settled.
Fromer v Inovalon, U.S. District Court for Maryland, TCPA unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, pending.
Boger v. Citrix, U.S. District Court for Maryland, TCPA robo-call case, class certified, settled.
KPT v Jackson Therapy, TCPA unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, class certified, settled.
Clogg v Burger King, TCPA unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, class certified, settled.
Brey Corp. v. Life Time Pavers, TCPA unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, class certified, settled.
Mathewson, et al. v. Utilicorp, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland Case No.168971-V. Co-counsel for plaintiff class in suit by consumers against reseller of natural gas for failure to provide promised discounts and consolidated billing. Class was certified. Settled.
Lloyd, et al. v. General Motors, et al., Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 200484; removed to U.S. District Court as Case No. 1:07- cv-02487 BEL. Class action by vehicle owners over defectively designed seat backrests. Co-counsel for Plaintiffs. Ten years of litigation involving extensive discovery and motions practice. Dismissed.
In re Swanson Creek Oil Spill Litigation, United States District Court for Maryland, Southern Division, PJM-00-1429. Class action by property owners and others arising from oil pipeline leak. Co-counsel for plaintiffs. Deposed defense witnesses on class issues and merits. Class was certified. Settled.
R.A. Ponte Architects, Ltd. v. Investors’ Alert, Inc., et al., Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 215514; 382 Md. 689, 857 A.2d 1 (2004); 2004 Md. LEXIS 503; 2004 TCPA Rep. 1303 (Md. App. Aug. 26, 2004). Class action for violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dismissal by trial court was reversed on appeal. Established private cause of action under TCPA in Maryland state courts. Class certified. Settled.
Levitt v. Fax.com, Inc. et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-01-2218. Class action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Co-lead counsel. Class was certified, then decertified after removal to federal court.
Marine Technologies v. DirecTV, et al., Case No. 01-635, Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, Maryland, Case No. 225273. Class action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Extensive discovery, depositions. Co-lead counsel. Class was certified. Settled.
Nixon v. Loyd, et al., Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 216130. Class action for violations of TCPA. Settled.
RSCM, Inc. t/a Parco v. International FiberCom, Inc., et al., Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, CAL 00-26927. Class action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Class certified.
Gold v. Perry Johnson, Inc., Case No. 255190, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Class action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
PALCUS v. Investors’ Alert et al., Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 01-3479. Class action under TCPA.
Kerala Samajam of South Florida, Inc. et al. v. Federation of Kerala Associations in North America, Inc. et al., Case No. 304157-V, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Suit for election fraud within fraternal organization. Class certified. Appointed class counsel.
Hypertouch, Inc. v. Perry Johnson, Inc. Kogok Corporation (Objector), Case no. A118908, Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two. Class action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented objector in opposition to class action coupon settlement. Settlement affirmed, February, 2009.
Brey Corp. T/A Hobby Works v. Life Time Improvements, Inc. d/b/a Life Time Pavers, Civil No. No. 349410-V, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, MD; co-counsel with Broderick, McCue. Class certified. Settled.
Jay Clogg Realty v. Matrix LS, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 379229-V; opt-outs from class action pursued individual claims. Settled.
Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. v. Burger King Corporation, USDC-MD Case No. 8-13-cv-00662 PWG; class certified. Settled.
- Morgan v. Morgan, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, successful reversal on appeal.
- Sharma v. Lockheed, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- Hawkins v. Wilson, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
- Felland Limited Partnership v. Digi-tel Communications, Inc., Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- Lloyd v. General Motors, Court of Appeals of Maryland
- Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2006)
- Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Secure Medical, Inc., 168 Md. App. 186, 895 A.2d 1098 (2006)
- Ponte v. Investors’ Alert, Inc., 382 Md. 689, 857 A .2d 1 (2004)
- Levitt v. Fax.com, Inc., 2004 Md. LEXIS 593, 857 A.2d 1089, 2004 TCPA Rep. 1328 (2004)
- Pappano v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- Compton v. Hawkins, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- Parker v. The Columbia Bank, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- BSI v. Aesop Marketing, LLC , Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- Kogok Corporation v. Perry Johnson, Inc., Court of Appeals, California
- BSI v. Real Time Gaming and KDMS
- Lloyd v. General Motors
- Ponte v. Investors’ Alert, Inc.
- Levitt v. Fax.com, Inc.
- Felland Limited Partnership v. Digi-Tel Communications, LLC.
- Pappano v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB
- Compton v. Hawkins
- Parker v. The Columbia Bank
- BSI v. Aesop Marketing, LLC
- Morgan v. Morgan
- Sharma v. Lockheed
- BSI v. Secure Medical, Inc.
- Katz v. W.S.S.C.
Contact Us For A Consultation
The advice of an experienced attorney can save you considerable aggravation and expense. At the Law Office of Stephen H. Ring, we will answer your questions and explain your options. We have the necessary knowledge and skill to advise clients in the areas of wills, estates and trusts, consumer law, contract disputes, construction disputes, product liability cases, and class actions. Contact our Rockville office today to schedule a consultation with experienced attorney Stephen H. Ring. If you do not reside in Maryland, we can nevertheless assist by collaborating with attorneys in your state.