Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent lived in his home for nearly ten years before razing the existing house in order to build a new house on the lot. Respondent benefitted from the application of the homestead tax credit with respect to increases in the value of the prior structure while he lived in it. The new construction increased the value of the property by approximately $500,000. The tax assessor, while retaining Respondent’s existing credit, included the full value of the renovation in the value to be taxed. The Maryland Tax Court affirmed the assessor’s interpretation. The circuit court reversed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the “taxable assessment” used to compute the homestead tax credit under Md. Code Tax-Property (TP) 9-105 should include the value of renovations when a homeowner razes and rebuilds a home. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgments of the Court of Special Appeals and circuit court affirmed the decision of the tax court, holding that, when a homeowner razes and rebuilds a home, the homeowner may retain existing homestead tax credit if the homeowner satisfies certain criteria and the tax credit computation for the property with the rebuilt house is to be done in accordance with TP 9-105(c)(5) and TP 9-105(e)(1). View "Dep’t of Assessments & Taxation v. Andrecs" on Justia Law

These proceedings involved a development project spearheaded by K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC (Appellee). Appellee obtained all of the necessary permits and approvals from state and local agencies, except one. At issue in these proceedings was Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license. Appellee filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and for a writ of mandamus against the Board of Public Works seeking an order compelling the Board to vote promptly on Appellee’s long-outstanding application for the wetlands permit following delays resulting from a perceived appearance of impropriety. The circuit court granted the requested relief and ordered the Board to vote promptly on the application. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, holding that the circuit court’s order was improper for want of a prior final administrative decision and because mandamus was unavailable under the circumstances. View "Bd. of Pub. Works v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioners purchased real property comprised of two lots in a community of single family homes in Hampton. Petitioners later purported to subdivide their property to create an additional undeveloped parcel, which Petitioners offered for sale as separate and buildable. The Hampton Improvement Association (HIA) responded that the restrictive covenants prohibited property owners from erecting more than one house per deeded lot. Petitioners filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that their property consisted of two separate buildable lots and that the restrictive covenants did not prohibit the building of a home on the second lot. The circuit court denied relief. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, concluding that the circuit court (1) correctly denied the Shaders’s attempted use of offensive non-collateral estoppel, and (2) properly found that the restriction prohibiting the construction of more than one dwelling on a single lot was not abandoned by the HIA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that (1) the HIA was barred from relitigating the enforcement of the restrictive covenants due to a prior judgment entered against the HIA, and (2) the HIA did waive by abandonment the restrictions allowing the construction of numerous buildings. View "Shader v. Hampton Improvement Ass'n" on Justia Law

Respondent filed in the circuit court a “complaint for title by adverse possession and bill to quiet title” against Petitioners concerning the ownership of a piece of land known as the Landing on Watts Creek (the Landing). Respondents answered and filed a countercomplaint alleging that they held title to the Landing and that Respondent’s use of the Landing constituted trespass. The circuit court ruled that Respondent had established a claim to the Landing by adverse possession. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the “woodlands exception,” previously applied only to prescriptive easements, also applies to adverse possession where the land at issue is unimproved or otherwise in a general state of nature; (2) the “woodlands exception” does not apply under the circumstances of this case, and therefore, no presumption of permissive use arose; and (3) because Petitioners failed to meet the burden of demonstrating permissive use, both the Court of Special Appeals and the circuit court were correct in holding that Respondent obtained title to the Landing by adverse possession. View "Breeding v. Koste" on Justia Law

Petitioners owned properties located along Farm Road and a ten-foot right-of-way (collectively, the Farm Road), which provided the only means of access to Petitioners’ properties. Petitioners filed suit in the circuit court against the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the Commission) and several other defendants, alleging several claims based on the Commission’s refusal to recognize Farm Road and to issue addresses to Petitioners. The circuit court dismissed the action. The Court of Special Appeals upheld the dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the Court of Special Appeals (1) properly upheld the circuit court’s dismissal of Petitioners’ state constitutional claims for Petitioners’ failure to comply with the notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act; (2) properly upheld the trial court’s dismissal of Petitioners’ easement claims for failure to join necessary parties, i.e., adjacent property owners; but (3) erred in determining that Petitioners failed to file their slander of title claim within the statute of limitations. View "Rounds v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a dispute over ownership of parking spaces situated between The Falls Homeowners Association (“The Falls”) and Falls Garden Condominium Association (“Falls Garden”). The Falls and Falls Garden executed a letter of intent in settlement of litigation. After problems arose between the parties, The Falls filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement to implement the letter of intent. The circuit court judge granted The Falls’s motion. The court ordered The Falls to prepare a settlement agreement and a release of all claims and ordered Falls Garden to execute the settlement agreement. On appeal, Falls Garden argued that the Letter of Intent was not binding because the parties did not intend to be bound and because the letter did not contain all material terms. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded, holding (1) the letter of intent was an enforceable contract to which the parties intended to be bound; and (2) because the letter of intent was unambiguous and constituted an enforceable contract, the trial judge did not err in failing to hold a plenary hearing on the merits of the motion to enforce settlement agreement. View "Falls Garden Condo. Ass’n v. Falls Homeowners Ass’n" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a borrower may rescind a loan that has not been consummated pursuant to the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Prior to closing on a home refinancing loan, Respondent submitted to the lender a notice of rescission of the loan. Thereafter, Respondent signed a note and deed of trust consistent with the negotiated terms of the loan. The loan proceeds were distributed as previously agreed to by the parties, and Respondent made payments on the note for approximately two years. Respondent subsequently defaulted on the loan, and the home was sold at a foreclosure public auction. Respondent filed exceptions to the foreclosure sale, arguing that he had rescinded the loan. The circuit court overruled the exceptions and ratified the sale. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the rescission notice was timely because there was no language in 15 U.S.C. 1635 or TILA’s implementing regulation prohibiting a borrower from rescinding a loan prior to consummation of the transaction, and therefore, such an action was supported by statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under TILA, a loan may not be rescinded before it is consummated. View "Burson v. Capps" on Justia Law

In 2000, DCW Dutchship Island, LLC (DCW), a corporation wholly owned by Daryl Wagner, purchased the Little Island in the Magothy River. At that time, the Island measured approximately 1.92 acres in area and was improved by a single-family house and related structures built in the 1920s. Wagner demolished the house and built a new one. In November 2004, the County authorities discovered the construction activities on the Island and notified DCW of numerous violations. In December, DCW sought variances from the unobserved requirements of the Critical Area Law for each of the structures and improvements on the Island. DCW sought also an amendment to the critical area buffer map, which prohibited most development activity within 100 feet of the shoreline. A County Administrative Hearing Officer heard the evidence for and against the requests for variances. The Magothy River Association (MRA) appeared at the variance hearings to oppose DCW’s requests. The Hearing Officer granted some of the variances. Wagner administratively appealed the denials, and the MRA, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), and the Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays appealed the decision to grant the variances, all to the County Board of Appeals. At the Anne Arundel County Board of Appeals (the “Board”) hearing, Wagner moved to dismiss MRA and CBF as parties to the administrative proceedings. The Board ultimately concluded that CBF did not have standing to appeal the granted variances because it did not participate in the hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer (“AHO”). After 24 evenings of hearings on the subject, the Board revised the decision of the AHO to include certain conditions on the variances.The Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (the Commission), MRA, CBF, and Wagner all sought judicial review of the Board’s decision at the Circuit Court. In addition, CBF filed a Motion for Summary Judgment limited to the issue of whether the Board improperly excluded CBF from the variance portion of the proceedings. The court denied all motions relevant to the variance matter. The Circuit Court then affirmed the decision of the Board. The Commission and CBF appealed the Circuit Court’s decision to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the Critical Area Act applied to the variance proceedings, that the Board erred in refusing to allow CBF to participate as a party in the administrative process, and that the Board did not base its decision on substantial evidence in the record. In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the Circuit Court. MRA and CBF then petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari. The issues this case presented for the Court's review were: (1) whether CBF had standing to participate in the variance proceedings before the Board of Appeals on the grounds that MRA, which advocated the same position, had standing; (2) whether AACC 3-1-104(a) violated the Express Powers Act, thus making the Board’s denial of standing to CBF on the basis of it erroneous; (3) whether the Board of Appeals violated its own rules when it held that CBF could not cross-examine witnesses, resulting in CBF being denied due process; and (4) whether the Board of Appeals erred in granting Wagner after-the-fact variances. The Court answered the first three questions in the negative and the fourth in the affirmative, but only in part. View "Chesapeake Bay Found. v. DCW Dutchship" on Justia Law

Appellant used NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. to apply for a mortgage and paid NVR Mortgage a broker fee. More than three but fewer than twelve years later, Appelalnt sued NVR Mortgage and NVR, Inc. (collectively, NVR) for allegedly violating Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-805(d) by failing to make certain disclosures to Appellant and similarly situated homebuyers before collecting finder’s fees for brokering mortgages. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether an alleged violation of CL 12-805(d) is an “other specialty” under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-102(a)(6), which is subject to a twelve-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court answered the certified question of law in the negative, holding that an alleged violation of CL 12-805(d) is not an “other specialty” under CJP 5-102(a)(6), and thus is subject to the default three-year statute of limitations. View "NVR Mortgage Fin., Inc. v. Carlsen" on Justia Law

Appellant owned property located within the heart of a planned development. The City of Baltimore sought to condemn the property. When the City and Appellant were unable to agree upon a price to be paid for the property, the City filed a petition for condemnation. Prior to trial, the City filed a petition for immediate possession and title, alleging that immediate possession of the property was necessary. Ultimately, the circuit court concluded that Appellant was a “hold-out,” which justified a “quick-take” condemnation of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the facts of this case justified a “quick-take” condemnation action. View "Makowski v. Mayor & City of Baltimore" on Justia Law