Bd. of Liquor Commissioners for Balt. City v. Austin, 158 A.3d 1025

Background

Turner’s (Federal Hill) ceased operations in July 2009. The Board approved transfer of its Baltimore City liquor license to contract purchasers on July 23, 2009.
Under the applicable statute (Art. 2B § 10-504(d) / § 10-503(d)), a license expires 180 days after cessation of business unless (i) a transfer/assignment application is approved or pending, (ii) a §10-506 application is pending/approved, or (iii) a written hardship extension is filed within 180 days; hardship extensions may extend life to up to 360 days.
The purchasers did not complete the transfer within 180 days and instead renewed the license annually; they filed a hardship extension many years later (2013/2014).
The Board initially treated the license as viable (citing estoppel from renewals and prior Board action), but on remand reversed and concluded the license had expired as a matter of law because the approved transfer was not completed within 180 days and no timely hardship extension tolled the statutory period.
The circuit court reversed the Board, holding that the statute’s exceptions for approved or pending transfers and the renewals meant the license did not expire; the Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Board’s determination that the license had expired.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Baltimore City liquor license expires as a matter of law if an approved transfer is not completed within 180 days after cessation of business	Association: Statute unambiguously mandates expiration 180 days after cessation unless a pending/approved transfer or a timely hardship request tolled the period; extensions/renewals outside statutory authority are invalid	Board/Association: Approved transfer did not yield completion within 180 days and no timely hardship extension was filed; renewals do not reset the 180-day clock	Held: License expired; approved-but-uncompleted transfer and later renewals do not revive license absent timely statutory tolling or hardship extension
Whether annual renewals or the passage of time with an intended transfer pending toll or preserve the 180-day expiration period	Purchasers: Successive renewals and Board’s prior acceptance of fees tolled the 180 days and preserved the license (relying in part on dictum in Yim)	Association/Board: Renewals do not operate as statutory tolling of the 180-day completion requirement; statute’s tolling is limited to filing/approval of transfer/assignment or timely hardship request	Held: Renewals do not toll or reset the 180-day requirement; tolling occurs only as provided by statute (pending/approved transfer awaiting Board action or a timely hardship request)
Whether equitable estoppel prevents the government (Board) from enforcing the statutory expiration where its agents accepted renewals	Purchasers: Board’s conduct (accepting renewals, prior statements) estops enforcement now	Association/Board: Governmental estoppel does not apply to bind the Board against clear statutory commands; agency cannot be estopped by agent acts contradicting statute	Held: Government estoppel inapplicable; Board cannot be estopped to ignore clear statutory expiration based on unauthorized acts of agents
Whether the Board could revisit its prior decision after judicial review/remand	Purchasers: Board was barred from reconsidering the issue because substantial record already existed and prior decision had been made	Board/Association: Remand and changed legal interpretation justified reconsideration; agency may correct legal error	Held: Board was permitted/dutied to reconsider its prior legal interpretation on remand and reverse its earlier conclusion where it concluded the prior interpretation was legally erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Yim, LLC v. Tuzeer, 211 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (discussed tolling and hardship-extension interplay; does not support renewals-as-tolling beyond statutory text)
Marzullo v. Kahl, 366 Md. 158 (Md. 2001) (governmental estoppel limited; agency not estopped from enforcing statutory mandate)
ARA Health Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 344 Md. 85 (Md. 1997) (agency may seek recoupment despite earlier acceptance of payments; limited estoppel against government)
Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs. of Crawford Cty., Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1984) (federal precedent limiting estoppel against government agencies)
Board of County Comm’rs of Cecil Cty. v. Racine, 24 Md. App. 435 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (agency may correct prior erroneous legal determinations; res judicata inapplicable to perpetuate illegality)
Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486 (Md. 1975) (misinterpretations of law by an agency are arbitrary and may be corrected)