—Unreported Opinion—
38
“The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the real
and actual intent of the legislature.” State v. Bey, 452 Md. 255, 265 (2017) (quoting State
v. Johnson, 415 Md. 413, 421 (2010)). We begin “with the plain language of the statute,
and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its
terminology.” Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 113 (2018). “The statutory language
should be read so that no word or phrase renders any part of it ‘meaningless, surplusage,
superfluous, or nugatory.’” Bd. of Educ. of Howard Cnty. v. Howard Cnty. Educ. Ass’n-
ESP, Inc., 445 Md. 515, 533 (2015) (quoting Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel
Congregation, 352 Md. 31, 40 (1998)). “We, however, do not read statutory language in
a vacuum, nor do we confine strictly our interpretation of a statute’s plain language to the
isolated section alone.” Johnson v. State, 467 Md. 362, 372 (2020) (quoting Wash. Gas
Light Co. v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 460 Md. 667, 685 (2018)). Instead, “‘[w]e presume
that the Legislature intends its enactments to operate together as a consistent and
harmonious body of law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a
statute, to the extent possible consistent with the statute’s object and scope.’” Gerety v.
State, 249 Md. App. 484, 498 (2021) (quoting Bey, 452 Md. at 266). We will also
“consider the consequences resulting from one meaning rather than another and adopt
that construction which avoids an illogical or unreasonable result, or one which is
inconsistent with common sense.” Bolling v. Bay Country Consumer Fin., Inc., 251 Md.
App. 575, 589 (2021), reargument denied (Sept. 2, 2021) “In addition to these well-