Madison Park North Apartments, L.P. v. Commissioner of Housing & Community Development
211 Md. App. 676
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Madison Park owns MPNA, a large multi-building complex in Baltimore City, with over 200 units, facing high crime and drug activity.
- Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development revoked MPNA’s license after a hearing under Baltimore City Code Art. 13, § 5-15.
- Notice of Hearing cited § 5-15 and § 5-16 and alleged the owner failed to prevent or curb drug trafficking and other nuisances.
- An August 2010 hearing was held; substantial police and management testimony, plus numerous exhibits, were admitted.
- On October 15, 2010, the Commissioner revoked the license; Madison Park petitioned for mandamus/judicial review filed February 28, 2012; circuit court denied.
- The circuit court concluded the regulation was not void for vagueness, due process was not violated, and substantial evidence supported revocation; Madison Park appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to appeal path | Madison Park argued statutory review not provided; mandamus available per law. | Department asserted no statutory or APA-based review; limited mandamus route available. | Court affirmed circuit court; mandamus available, statutory avenues lacking under BCC; jurisdiction to review via mandamus exists. |
| Vagueness of § 5-15 | Regulation is vague and fails to guide what must be done to prevent crime. | Likely not vague; regulation enumerates prohibited conduct and grants discretion within bounds. | Not void for vagueness; regulation clearly defines prohibitions and the meaning of 'prevent' within context. |
| Due process - prejudgment | Notice stated there was sufficient evidence and the hearing officer was biased by agency staff. | Prejudgment concerns are permissive when hearing allows full adjudication by agency staff. | No due process violation; notice language and full merits hearing conducted by an examiner satisfy process. |
| Substantial evidence | No proof Madison Park knew of specific identifiable criminal activity on MPNA; evidence focused on neighborhood crime. | Record shows ongoing drug activity and risk on MPNA; security failures and plans insufficient. | Substantial evidence supported revocation; agency properly credited police testimony and documentary exhibits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murrell v. Mayor & City Council, 376 Md. 170 (2003) (jurisdictional limits of review; where no statutory appeal exists, mandamus may apply)
- Hecht v. Crook, 184 Md. 271 (1945) (inherent mandamus authority to correct abuses while respecting agency discretion)
- Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. 372 (1945) (administrative decisions require substantial evidence and cannot be arbitrary)
- Am. Recovery Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 306 Md. 12 (1986) (charging documents and prejudgment concerns do not necessarily prove prejudice at hearing)
- Gisriel v. Ocean City Bd. of Elections, 345 Md. 477 (1997) (statutory rights to judicial review and limits of mandamus review)
- McFarlin v. State, 409 Md. 391 (2009) (vagueness requires explicit notice and enforceable standards)
- Galloway v. State, 365 Md. 599 (2001) (discretion in enforcement does not render statute unconstitutional)
- Rogers v. Eastport Yachting Ctr., LLC, 408 Md. 722 (2009) (statutory appellate rights and limits under Maryland law)