Makowski v. Mayor and City of Baltimore
439 Md. 169
Md.2014Background
- The City (Baltimore) sought to acquire 900-902 N. Chester St. as part of an 88-acre East Baltimore redevelopment (EBDI) and filed a quick-take petition under Baltimore City Code §21-16 after unsuccessful negotiations.
- The City deposited an estimated fair value ($92,000) and filed for immediate possession and title, alleging the property was the lone “hold-out” on Block 1587 and demolition had to occur before a nearby school opened.
- The City’s sole trial witness, William Burgee (Office of Property Acquisition), testified the remaining properties were under contract or otherwise committed and that immediate possession was necessary.
- Makowski contested necessity, contested that he was the sole hold-out (pointing to a church parcel), challenged valuation and asserted procedural/evidentiary errors (including exclusion of a purported historic-district map), and raised discovery complaints.
- The circuit court granted the City possession and title; Makowski appealed directly to the Court of Appeals (quick-take appeals go to this Court). The Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Makowski) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quick-take was justified by a “hold-out” necessity | Makowski: City had not truly acquired all other properties; church parcel remained unvested, so no sole hold-out and no immediate necessity | City: Remaining owners were under contract / effectively acquired; Makowski was sole unwilling owner impeding demolition and project timing | Court: Affirmed — factual finding that Makowski was a hold-out supported; quick-take permitted |
| Burden/quantum of proof for immediacy in §21-16 quick-take | Makowski: Quick-take should require a higher standard (e.g., clear and convincing or irrefutable evidence) | City: Traditional civil preponderance standard applies to showing immediacy under §21-16 | Court: Preponderance of the evidence suffices; no heightened standard required |
| Admissibility/authentication of purported historic-district map | Makowski: Map (from City materials) showed historic-district constraints relevant to ordinance compliance | City: Map not authenticated; witness Burgee disclaimed knowledge of the document | Court: Exclusion affirmed — proponent failed to authenticate the map under Md. Rule 5-901 |
| Discovery and post-appeal orders (motions to compel, subpoenas, perpetuation) | Makowski: City’s discovery responses were evasive and subpoenas were mishandled; trial court erred in denying motions | City: Discovery disputes were not compelled below; some orders were entered after appeal | Court: Issues not reviewable — Makowski failed to move to compel under Rule 2-432 and court orders issued after notice of appeal are ordinarily not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Segall v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 273 Md. 647 (per curiam) (hold-out situation justified quick-take)
- Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Valsamaki, 397 Md. 222 (2007) (quick-take requires proof of immediate necessity; court clarified burden)
- Sapero v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 398 Md. 317 (2007) (city must provide specific evidence of immediacy; caution against bald assertions)
- King v. State Roads Comm’n, 298 Md. 80 (1983) (definition/explanation of quick-take procedure)
- Free State Realty Co., Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 279 Md. 550 (1977) (public-health risks recognized as a circumstance supporting immediacy)