ed. 2004)). In a similar vein, the trustees in this case were appointed by the court by decree to make a sale of property that was subject to a lien based upon a debt from unpaid condominium assessment fees. Just as receivers are representatives without authority to enter into binding contracts absent the consent of the court, see Semmes, 169 Md. at 513, 182 A. at 278, so too are trustees agents of the court who must seek ratification of their actions in connection with the judicial sale of property. See Talbert, 210 Md. at 43, 122 A.2d at 473. Additionally, trustees and receivers are both charged with exercising the same degree of care and diligence over the subject property as would be expected of an ordinarily prudent owner of that property. See Semmes, 169 Md. at 517, 182 A. at 280 (<HOLDING>); Gittings v. Morris, 156 Md. 565, 577, 144 A.
holding that the fourth amendment was not violated when police officers with probable cause to believe that a man had hidden marijuana in his home prevented that man from entering the home for about two hours while they obtained a search warrant holding that a receiver is not liable when he acts as would an ordinarily prudent man in the management of his own affairs holding corporate officers and board members liable where they were actively engaged in the management supervision and oversight of the corporations affairs holding that under section 1962c distinctiveness is satisfied and rico applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner  whether he conducts those affairs within the scope or beyond the scope of corporate authority holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes