120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore
426 Md. 14
| Md. | 2012Background
- MOA (January 2001) between the City of Baltimore and the Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) governs review of redevelopment plans for the Market Center Urban Renewal/“Superblock.”
- The MOA requires the City to submit plans to the Trust for review; the Trust’s Director (SHPO) and Board must assess potential adverse effects on historic properties and approve with conditions.
- Lexington Square’s Superblock redevelopment plan encountered substantial adverse effects on historic resources; the Trust’s Director issued a December 22, 2010 conditional approval.
- 120 West Fayette, LLLP filed suit April 19, 2011 seeking a declaratory judgment interpreting the MOA and arguing the 12/22/10 approval was ultra vires and violative of state historic-preservation law.
- Circuit Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, holding 120 West Fayette was not a party or intended beneficiary to the MOA.
- This Court held the MOA is not a land-use decision and that 120 West Fayette, as an incidental beneficiary to a private contract, lacks standing to seek interpretation/enforcement of the MOA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incidental beneficiaries have standing to interpret MOA terms. | 120 West Fayette relies on Superblock I/II to show taxpayer/adjoining-owner standing. | MOA is private contract between City and Trust; 120 West Fayette is neither party nor intended beneficiary. | No standing; MOA not a land-use decision; incidental beneficiary cannot sue. |
| Is the MOA a land-use decision essential to standing extensions? | MOA affects land use and thus creates standing similar to land-use cases. | MOA is not an ordinance/permit and does not bind the public. | Not a land-use decision; standing based on contract, not land-use framework. |
| Did the Court misapply Superblock I/II standing theories to this contract case? | Superblock I-II confer standing for challenge to urban renewal actions. | Those precedents do not apply because the MOA is a private contract, not a formal land-use action. | Correct; standing derives from contract, not land-use doctrine. |
| Can a nonparty sue under state historic-preservation provisions for ultra vires approvals? | State law creates rights for taxpayers to challenge ultra vires approvals. | Barred by lack of privity/intended beneficiary. | No private right of action against MOA terms; no standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- 120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 407 Md. 253 (2009) (land-use standing in urban renewal context (Superblock I))
- 120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 413 Md. 309 (2010) (Superblock II; standing/ripe controversy analysis; not directly controlling here)
- Boitnott v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 356 Md. 226 (1999) (taxpayer standing in urban renewal challenge to zoning/ordinance)
- Sugarloaf Citizens' Assoc. v. Dep't of Env't, 344 Md. 271 (1996) (standing of adjoining landowners in land-use challenges)
- Gudis v. Montgomery County Council, 319 Md. 558 (1990) (taxpayer standing in public land-use-related actions)
- Master Royalties Corp. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 235 Md. 74 (1964) (standing in urban renewal land-use context)
- RRC Northeast, LLC v. BAA Md., Inc., 413 Md. 638 (2010) (standards for reviewing dismissal motions; declaratory relief context)
- Dickerson v. Longoria, 414 Md. 419 (2010) (definition of third-party beneficiary in contract standing)
- Marlboro Shirt Co. v. Am. Dist. Tel. Co., 196 Md. 565 (1951) (common-law standing to enforce contracts)