Rule 14-302(b) provides that “[w]hen the court orders a sale it may appoint a trustee to make the sale. The trustee shall be a natural person.” Thus, the Rule contemplates the appointment of a natural person by the court for a particular purpose, ie., to make a sale of property. In addition, just as we recognized with regard to the position of a guardian ad litem in Fox, the legislature has not granted statutory immunity to court-appointed trustees. We have defined the position of a receiver as a “disinterested person appointed by a court, or by a corporation or other person, for the protection or collection of property that is the subject of diverse claims[.]” Univ. Sys. of Md. v. Mooney, 407 Md. 390, 411, 966 A.2d 418, 430 (2009) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1296 (8t 6, 841 (1929) (<HOLDING>). Thus, just as a receiver can be held liable
holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding that although authorization was initially given for property exercise of that control continued to be authorized only because the defendant deceived the rightful owner of the property into believing that a legitimate use was being made of the property holding that trustees have a duty to exercise the same judgment and prudence that a careful owner would exercise in the sale of his own property