Falls Road Community Ass'n v. Baltimore County
437 Md. 115
| Md. | 2014Background
- Oregon Grille operates on park land leased from Baltimore County under a 1985 lease; the lease reserves the County’s regulatory authority over land-use matters.
- Board of Appeals orders (1995 and 2004) incorporated restrictions from a Covenant with Valleys Planning Council, including prohibiting outdoor events, limiting outdoor dining, and mandating a permeable parking surface.
- A 2006 paving of the parking lot (138 spaces) violated the 1995/2004 orders; there was dispute over who directed the work and whether paving was “otherwise required by law” or ADA-mandated.
- Community Association and neighbors sued in 2008 seeking mandamus and declaratory relief to enforce restrictions and address ADA and parking issues; Circuit Court granted some relief and denied others; Court of Special Appeals affirmed on exhaustion grounds, but remanded for merits.
- This Court holds that (a) the Administrative remedies were not a prerequisite to seeking enforcement in court under these circumstances; (b) mandamus cannot compel discretionary enforcement actions by county officials; and (c) the Circuit Court has authority to issue a declaratory judgment and to determine ancillary relief to implement it.
- Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals is affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies required? | Falls Road contends exhaustion was unnecessary given discretionary enforcement. | County argues exhaustion was required for enforcement of Board of Appeals orders. | No; exhaustion not required under the circumstances. |
| Whether mandamus was available to compel enforcement? | Community Association seeks to compel enforcement actions by County as regulator and landlord. | Mandamus lies only for ministerial, non-discretionary duties; enforcement is discretionary. | Mandamus not available to compel enforcement actions. |
| Whether declaratory relief could be granted and ancillary relief issued? | Declaratory relief should clarify violations and mandate enforcement; ancillary relief possible. | Declaratory relief alone cannot resolve the ongoing dispute or mandate specific actions. | Circuit Court has authority to issue declaratory judgment and to determine appropriate ancillary relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forster v. Office of the Public Defender, 426 Md. 565 (Md. 2012) (exhaustion of administrative remedies; no deference to trial court on legal issues)
- Renaissance Centro Columbia, LLC v. Broida, 421 Md. 474 (Md. 2011) (primary or exclusive admin remedies must be exhausted)
- Arroyo v. Board of Education of Howard County, 381 Md. 646 (Md. 2004) (permissible grounds for mandamus and administrative remedies)
- Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86 (Md. 1944) (mandamus scope; discretion vs. ministerial duty)
- Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243 (Md. 2005) (factors in discretionary enforcement decisions)
- Nova Research, Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 405 Md. 435 (Md. 2008) (ancillary relief following declaratory judgment; implementation)
- Bankers and Shippers Ins. Co. v. Electro Enterprises, Inc., 287 Md. 641 (Md. 1980) (practice on declaratory judgments; ancillary relief potential)
- Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, 382 Md. 348 (Md. 2004) (administrative review pathways; Board of Appeals as primary remedy)