254 A.3d 446
Md.2021Background
- In 2006 Angel Enterprises (owner) and Morton Bender (general partner) cleared trees and constructed a driveway without required approvals; Talbot County issued abatement orders in Jan–Feb 2009 directing remediation.
- On December 2, 2009 the Talbot County Chief Code Compliance Officer (CCCO) issued six "assessment of civil penalty" notices imposing daily fines (totaling $1,500/day across violations) beginning December 8, 2009.
- Petitioners filed administrative appeals to the Talbot County Board of Appeals on December 29, 2009; the appeals were stayed for years while parallel MDE enforcement and remediation proceeded; Petitioners ultimately completed restoration and County approved in 2013–2015.
- The Board of Appeals (hearings in 2017) upheld the CCCO’s authority to assess fines but ruled the accrual of fines was stayed by the December 29, 2009 appeal; the circuit court reversed and authorized enforcement of $713,400; the Court of Special Appeals vacated entry of the $713,400 judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court of Appeals held that the Talbot County Board of Appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the CCCO’s civil-penalty assessments, that Chapter 58’s administrative adjudication scheme is inconsistent with State law, and ordered the Board to vacate its decision and dismiss the assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Talbot County Board of Appeals had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate CCCO civil-penalty assessments | Petitioners: Board lacked jurisdiction; adjudication of civil fines is within courts' original jurisdiction | Talbot County: Board may adjudicate because assessments are "adjudicatory orders" or otherwise within board’s grant under Express Powers Act | Held: Board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; adjudication of these civil penalties lies in Maryland courts, not a charter-county board of appeals |
| Whether Talbot County could create an administrative scheme (Chapter 58) that permits administrative imposition and Board review of daily continuing fines | Petitioners: Chapter 58 is ultra vires where State law vests adjudication of such penalties in courts | County: Express Powers Act authorizes counties to provide civil fines and to establish enforcement/adjudication procedures | Held: Chapter 58’s administrative adjudication of civil penalties is inconsistent with State law and therefore ultra vires and void |
| Whether filing the administrative appeal (Dec. 29, 2009) stayed daily accrual of penalties | Petitioners: filing the appeal stayed enforcement/accrual under TCC provisions | County: Penalties began Dec. 8, 2009 and continued to accrue; appeal did not stay accrual | Held: Court did not reach merits after ruling lack of jurisdiction; lower courts disagreed (Board found stay; circuit court reversed; Court of Special Appeals held appeal did not stay accrual) |
| Procedural/due-process claim: burden of proof and adequacy of hearing before assessments | Petitioners: Board improperly placed burden on them and procedure violated due process | County: Applicants bear burden in county proceedings; process afforded meaningful opportunity to be heard | Held: Court did not address merits due to jurisdictional ruling; lower courts rejected Petitioners’ due-process challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- K. Hovnanian Homes of Maryland, LLC v. Mayor of Havre de Grace, 472 Md. 267 (Md. 2021) (framework for identifying nature of local governmental action and authority)
- Talbot County v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372 (Md. 2010) (statutory/Express Powers Act interpretation and de novo review principles)
- County Council of Prince George’s County v. Dutcher, 365 Md. 399 (Md. 2001) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- Duffy v. Conaway, 295 Md. 242 (Md. 1983) (subject-matter jurisdiction review is not waived by parties and may be considered sua sponte)
- Ritchmount Partnership v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections for Anne Arundel County, 283 Md. 48 (Md. 1978) (background on Home Rule Amendment and General Assembly’s delegation via Express Powers Act)
- Immanuel v. Comptroller of Maryland, 449 Md. 76 (Md. 2016) (statutory construction principle favoring harmonious interpretation of statutes)
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, 336 Md. 569 (Md. 1994) (scope of judicial review of administrative decisions is narrow)