Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment
131 A.3d 923
Md.2016Background
- Gail B. Litz owned a campground centered on Lake Bonnie in Goldsboro, MD; sewage from failing septic systems in town allegedly contaminated two feeder streams and the lake, destroying the campground’s use and leading to foreclosure.
- Studies and agency warnings from the 1980s through 2004 documented sewage contamination; MDE and Goldsboro entered a 1996 Consent Order obligating remediation, which plaintiffs allege was not effectively enforced.
- Litz sued state entities (State of Maryland, MDE, DHMH/Caroline County Health Dept.), Caroline County, and the Town of Goldsboro asserting negligence, trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation; the case has traveled through the Circuit Court, Court of Special Appeals, and this Court.
- This Court in Litz I reversed dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds for many claims and remanded for further review; on remand the Court of Special Appeals dismissed inverse condemnation claims against the State but preserved claims against the Town.
- On this second certiorari, the Court addressed whether Litz’s Third Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded inverse condemnation against the State and whether inverse condemnation or trespass claims fall within the MTCA/LGTCA notice and immunity provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint adequately pleads inverse condemnation against State and Town | Litz: government inaction (failure to abate known public-health sewage hazard and failure to enforce the 1996 Consent Order) caused a taking (loss of use, devaluation, foreclosure) | State/Town: Allegations show only inaction or regulation failures; any harm caused by private third parties (failing septic systems), not government action | Court: Reversed — at pleading stage, inverse condemnation can be alleged based on governmental inaction where the government had an affirmative duty to act (or assumed one via Consent Order); complaint sufficient to survive dismissal |
| Whether inverse condemnation claims are subject to MTCA/LGTCA notice/damages limits | Litz: takings are constitutional claims, not torts; tort-claims acts should not apply | State: MTCA/LGTCA govern claims against government and require notice; immunity defenses apply | Court: Held inverse condemnation is not a tort covered by MTCA or LGTCA; notice and caps do not apply to takings claims |
| Whether trespass claim against Town is subject to LGTCA notice requirement | Litz: trespass under common law should not be barred by LGTCA notice | Town: Claim amounts to failure to stop third-party trespass; may be moot if no Town affirmative trespass | Court: Held trespass is a tort covered by LGTCA; plaintiff must satisfy LGTCA notice requirement but claim survives dismissal for now |
| Whether courts exceeded remand scope by addressing MTCA/LGTCA applicability | Litz: remand permitted consideration of remaining arguments | State: argued issue was not properly before Court of Special Appeals | Court: Exercised discretion to resolve MTCA/LGTCA applicability; decided inverse condemnation is not within tort-claims acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Litz v. Maryland Dep’t of Env’t, 76 A.3d 1076 (Md. 2013) (earlier opinion reversing some dismissals and remanding for further review)
- Coll. Bowl, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 907 A.2d 153 (Md. 2006) (describes various forms constituting inverse condemnation)
- Reichs Ford Rd. Joint Venture v. State Roads Comm’n, 880 A.2d 307 (Md. 2005) (inverse condemnation claim allowed to proceed despite dismissal of tort claims under MTCA)
- Lee v. Cline, 863 A.2d 297 (Md. 2004) (interpretation of MTCA scope and treatment of constitutional torts)
- State Dep’t of Env’t v. Showell, 558 A.2d 391 (Md. 1989) (agency authority to issue consent orders to protect public health)
- Casey v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, 929 A.2d 74 (Md. 2007) (final administrative determination requirement in zoning/regulatory takings context)
- Espina v. Jackson, 112 A.3d 442 (Md. 2015) (discusses conflicts between tort-claims caps and constitutional takings remedies)
- Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1998) (plaintiff’s burden in regulatory-takings analysis)
- PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1980) (governmental burdens on property rights and just compensation principles)
- MacLeod v. City of Takoma Park, 263 A.2d 581 (Md. 1970) (example of inverse condemnation arising from affirmative government action)