-21-
As we understand the foregoing testimony of petitioner, he
claims that he became aware of the invoices detailing the price
that Mona Builders had paid for the bricks used in the custom
house as a result of the discovery that he conducted in connec-
tion with the custom house litigation counterclaim.7 Although
the record does not disclose when discovery in the custom house
litigation counterclaim began, such discovery could not have
begun before petitioner filed that counterclaim in December
2001.8 Since petitioner claims that it was only as a result of
discovery by him in connection with the custom house litigation
counterclaim that he was able to obtain the information which led
him to conclude that Mona Builders had overcharged him for
7Our understanding is consistent with the November 8, 2002
letter that petitioner and Ms. Davis sent to the Maryland Attor-
ney General. That letter stated in pertinent part:
We are currently in the midst of a civil suit
against Mona [custom house litigation counterclaim].
However, in spite of the disclosure requirements of the
Custom Home Protection Act (CHPA), and tens of thou-
sands of dollars expended in formal discovery efforts,
Mona has yet to disclose the names and addresses of
many of the suppliers and subcontractors who worked on
our home. * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * Information obtained through our discovery
efforts suggest [sic] that Mona may have fraudulently
altered a subcontractor’s invoice, and may have fraudu-
lently overcharged us for materials and supplies. * * *
8In October 2001, Mona Builders commenced the custom house
litigation in which petitioner filed the custom house litigation
counterclaim.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011