Gertz v. Maryland Department of the Environment
199 Md. App. 413
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Gertz owned a site in Anne Arundel County where he accepted debris for disposal/landfilling without a permit.
- MDOE obtained a 2002 injunction requiring permit acquisition or closure with penalties for noncompliance.
- The 2004 Contempt Order imposed closure deadlines and a stipulated penalty for violations.
- Gertz did not close as required; in 2009 the court entered a further contempt order and imposed a $72,000 penalty ($50,000 non-suspended, $22,000 suspended).
- The 2009 order required post-closure inspections for five years and methane monitoring; the suspended portion could be purged by compliance.
- Gertz appeals on whether the contempt was proper, purge was specified, and the size of the fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether past noncompliance supports civil contempt | Gertz claims contempt based on past delays; remedial intent violated | MDOE argues past conduct was proper basis to enforce 2004 order | No error; past conduct valid to enforce 2004 order and purge provisions apply |
| Whether purge provisions were properly specified | Gertz says no purge mechanism for $50k; $22k may be purged | Penalty is purgeable via compliance with 2009 order | Both penalties subject to purge; compliance options exist |
| Whether the $72,000 fine was willful and excessive | Gertz argues delay was negligence, not willful; fine excessive | Court properly found willfulness and set deterrent amount | Willfulness supported; $72,000 within court’s discretion; purgeable portion exists |
| Whether inspection/monitoring requirements exceed contempt powers | Inspections/monitoring not in prior orders | Consent Order and ancillary powers support them | Permissible ancillary relief; not an excess of power |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodson v. Dodson, 380 Md. 438 (Md. 2004) (civil contempt requires purging provisions; may enforce future compliance)
- Royal Inv. Group, LLC v. Wang, 183 Md.App. 406 (Md. 2008) (civil contempt proven by preponderance; purpose to coerce future compliance)
- Bryant v. Howard County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 387 Md. 30 (Md. 2005) (contempt penalties may be purged by specific conduct within ability to perform)
- Fisher v. McCrary Crescent City, LLC, 186 Md.App. 86 (Md. 2009) (writing and purge provision required; distinguishes from earlier civil contempt rulings)
- From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. v. Philadelphia-Baltimore Annual Conference, 184 Md.App. 11 (Md. 2009) (waiver/equitable estoppel may bar previously relinquished rights in contempt context)