A & E North, LLC v. Mayor of Baltimore, 64 A.3d 903

Baltimore filed a condemnation action against the Parkway Theater (owned by A&E North, LLC) in 2008 for urban renewal purposes.
The building had long been used to store used auto parts and rummage, not as a theater.
A&E sought a jury trial and challenged the City’s right to condemn the property.
Six weeks before trial, A&E moved for an emergency advance relocation payment and a continuance, arguing hardship and that relocation would improve the jury’s view of the property.
The circuit court denied the advance payment and postponement; trial proceeded with the property in its cluttered condition, and A&E did not present its own evidence or arguments.
The jury awarded $340,000, after which A&E appealed alleging prejudicial view and denial of relocation payment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a condemnee receive relocation payments before trial when challenging condemnation?	A&E argued entitlement under Relocation Expenses Act for hardship and pretrial payment.	City contends advance payment before trial is not authorized when condemnee challenges authority to condemn.	No; advance payment before trial is not permitted when condemnee challenges condemnation.
Is A&E a 'displaced person' eligible for advance relocation payment at the relevant time?	A&E asserted hardship and indigence justified pretrial advance.	A&E was not a displaced person while contesting the City's right to condemn.	A&E was not a displaced person at the time of the request; eligibility did not exist.
Did denial of pretrial relocation payment create prejudice requiring a new trial?	Advocates that prejudice occurred due to obstructed interior views from clutter and lack of relocation.	Pretrial relief was unwarranted; no prejudice established beyond self-created conditions.	The denial did not prejudice A&E; no new trial required.

Mayor of Balt. City v. Valsamaki, 397 Md. 222 (2007) (establishes condemnation power and public use/necessity framework)
J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Md. Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 368 Md. 71 (2002) (defines 'just compensation' and factors for fair market value)
Prince George’s Cnty. v. Beard, 266 Md. 88 (1972) (public use/necessity; caution against improper condemnation)
Bern-Shaw Ltd. Partnership v. Mayor of Baltimore, 377 Md. 277 (2003) (condemnation and property deterioration considerations)
Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency, 178 Cal.App.3d 435 (1986) (relocation eligibility depends on displacement connection)
Utilities, Inc. v. Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 362 Md. 37 (2000) (role of jury in determining just compensation)