eNotes: Liability – February 2025 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summaries

In the Matter of Winifred Carpenter
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 2002, Sept. Term, 2023

Decided: December 27, 2024

A party seeking judicial review of an administrative agency decision must show that it was a party to the administrative proceedings and that it was “aggrieved” by the decision.

Background

Wilkins Rogers Maryland Inc., and Terra Nova Ventures, LLC (“Developers”) submitted a development proposal to the Baltimore County to convert the Ellicott Mill to a mixed used building that included apartment units, restaurants, and parking. A hearing on the proposal was held in August 2022, before an administrative law judge. Winifred Carpenter testified against the proposed development due to concerns of heightened flood risk and parking congestion. The administrative law judge approved the development proposal in October 2022. Winifred Carpenter, Jim Lobell, Gayle Killen, Amanda Reardon, Victoria Richards and Mary Jo Wagandt appealed the decision and the Baltimore County Board of Appeals heard the appeal in March 2023. The Baltimore County Board of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

Those opposing the development filed a Petition for judicial review of the Baltimore County Board of Appeals’ July 12, 2023 decision. Developers moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing that those opposing the developed lacked standing as none, including Carpenter, lived close enough to the development site to show either prima facie aggrievement or special aggrievement. Those opposing the development filed Affidavits in response, disputing the distance of their properties from the proposed development and reiterating their concerns about potential flooding and parking congestion. The Baltimore County Circuit Court granted the Developers’ Motion to dismiss, holding that those opposing the development were not adequately aggrieved as the location of their properties lacked sufficient proximity to the development site and could not prove special aggrievement.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. Maryland case law establishes that property owners within a 200-foot radius of a development site generally qualify as “adjoining, confronting, or nearby property owners,” and that this proximity, by itself, establishes their prima facie aggrievement. For property owners outside that 200-foot radius, they must prove special aggrievement by demonstrating that: (1) their personal or property rights would be adversely affected by a land use or zoning decision, and (2) the decision personally and specially would affect them in a way different from that suffered by the public generally. The claims of potential flooding and parking congestion was insufficient to show special aggrievement and as such, they lacked standing for judicial review.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.

Peacock v Debley
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 410, Sept. Term, 2023

Decided: April 22, 2024

The Appellate Court of Maryland holds that the three-year deadline to file suit against the State of Maryland set forth in the Maryland Tort Claims Act was not extended by the State’s COVID-19 Tolling Orders.

Background

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident involving Montgomery County Sheriff Department Deputy Sheriff William Debley and Plaintiff David Peacock. On October 29, 2018, Debley rear-ended Peacock on his way to work at the Sheriff’s Office, while operating his assigned Sheriff’s Office vehicle. He had not yet begun his shift. On January 23, 2019, Peacock filed notices with Montgomery County pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act (“LGTCA”) and the State Treasurer pursuant to the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”). He was advised that he had sent the notices to representatives of the County and State who were not authorized to accept them. In September 2021, Peacock filed suit against the County and Debley and on January 28, 2022, he filed an Amended Complaint adding the State.

Summary judgment was granted for each Defendant. Debley argued that he was entitled to immunity under the MTCA. The County argued that it was not Debley’s employer. The State argued that Peacock had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity by failing to timely file suit within three years. The Appellate Court of Maryland recounted that the COVID-19 Tolling Orders extended the statute of limitations in Maryland by 141 days. The accident took place on October 29, 2018, and the extended deadline for filing suit expired on March 22, 2022. As Peacock’s Amended Complaint against the State was filed on January 18, 2022, it timely met the extended statute of limitations. On appeal, the Appellate Court addressed, inter alia, the effect of the Covid-19 Tolling Orders on the State.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the three-year deadline for filing suit against the State was not extended pursuant to the COVID-19 Tolling Orders. The State of Maryland is immune from suit, absent the State’s consent, which was given by the General Assembly pursuant to the MTCA. The MTCA contains two timing requirements. After a cause of action arises a claimant has (1) one year to file written notice with the State and (2) three years to initiate suit. The three-year deadline to file suit is both a statute of limitations and a condition precedent to the waiver of sovereign immunity. If the condition is not met, then the State’s sovereign immunity is not waived. The COVID-19 Tolling Orders entered by the Maryland Judiciary could not waive the State’s sovereign immunity, a power held exclusively by the legislature. Accordingly, summary judgment for the State was affirmed.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicholas Daetwyler at (443) 641-0567 or ndaetwyler@tthlaw.com.