” Sage Title Grp., LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 213, 166 A.3d 1026, 1040 (2017) (quoting Sawyer, 322 Md. at 256, 587 A.2d at 470), reconsideration denied (Sept. 21, 2017). In Sage Title, the Maryland Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to conclude that an employee's illegal acts were committed within the scope of his employment.

"Another factor is whether the 'employee's conduct was 'expectable' or 'foreseeable'.'" Sage Title Grp., LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 213, 166 A.3d 1026, 1040 (2017) (quoting Sawyer, 322 Md. at 256, 587 A.2d at 470), reconsideration denied (Sept. 21, 2017). In Sage Title, the Maryland Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to conclude that an employee's illegal acts were committed within the scope of his employment. Id. at 213-15, 166 A.3d at 1040-41. The court based its conclusion on three findings: (1) the employee was authorized to perform activities very similar to the tortious ones in question (id. at 213-14, 166 A.3d at 1040-41); (2) there was "no question that [the employee] was acting 'in furtherance of the employer's business and authorized by the employer'" (id. at 214, 166 A.3d at 1041); and (3) the tortious acts were foreseeable to his employer because the employer had knowledge that the employee had previously violated a related company policy.

Sage Title Grp., LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 213, 166 A.3d 1026, 1040 (2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted), reconsideration denied (Sept. 21, 2017).

"Another factor is whether the 'employee's conduct was 'expectable' or 'foreseeable'.'" Sage Title Grp., LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 213, 166 A.3d 1026, 1040 (2017) (quoting Sawyer, 322 Md. at 256, 587 A.2d at 470), reconsideration denied (Sept. 21, 2017).

STANDARD OF REVIEWThe Court of Appeals described the standard of review of the grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as follows in Sage Title Group, LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 201 (2017): Upon review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for JNOV, made pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-532, we review whether the trial court's decision was legally correct.

The concept of "commingling" assets customarily arises in the context of conversion, or the exertion of ownership by one person over the property of another. Sage Title Group, LLC, v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 203 (2017) (quoting Allied Inv. Corp. v. Jasen, 354 Md. 547, 560 (1999)) (internal quotes omitted). According to Sage Title, the traditional view of conversion did not apply to intangible property such as funds in a bank account which had been commingled, thus rendering the converted funds no longer identifiable.

[T]he sufficiency of the particularity of the reasons for a Rule 2-519(a) motion is determined in light of legal arguments that have been made in the court of the action, with particular emphasis on whether the trial judge could identify, through a process analogous to incorporation by reference, the argument that was being made in support of the motion. 455 Md, 188, 210, 166 A.3d 1026 (2017) (quoting Nelson v. Carroll, 350 Md. 247, 250, 711 A.2d 228 (1998)). At the close of Merriman’s case-in-chief, AXE moved for judgment under Maryland Rule 2-519 and argued, among other things, that:

Sage Title Grp., LLC v. Roman , 455 Md. 188, 216, 166 A.3d 1026, 1042 (2017). The argument was also waived by the Town when it did not object to the instructions provided to the jury before deliberations.

455 Md. 188, 210 (2017) (quoting Nelson v. Carroll, 350 Md. 247, 250 (1998)).

"Conversion, historically known as trover, is defined under modern law as 'any distinct act of ownership or dominion exerted by one person over the personal property of another in denial of his right or inconsistent with it.'" Sage Title Grp., LLC v. Roman, 455 Md. 188, 203 (2017) (quoting Allied Inv. Corp. v. Jasen, 354 Md. 547, 560 (1999)).