Julian v. Buonassissi, 414 Md. 641, 666, 997 A.2d 104 (2010) did not involve an allegation of forgery. Instead, Julian asserted that the deed in question was void because she had signed it without having been given a notice of a right of rescission that was required by the Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act ("PHIFA"), Real Property 7-301-7-321. 414 Md. at 666. The Court noted that various provisions of PHIFA explicitly provided that certain activities undertaken in violation of the statute were void. Id. at 675. However, the Court found no indication in the language of the statute that the legislature intended that a failure to provide the right of rescission notice rendered a subsequent deed void. Id. at 674. The Court concluded: In the present situation, the Legislature has spoken clearly when a provision was to be voided for violation of PHIFA. With respect to the notice of rescission language, the Legislature failed to include a reference to "void." . . . To declare a deed void because of lack of notice could and would radically alter the protection of all bona fide purchasers in a subsequent chain of title. Id. at 677.