Modell v. Waterman Family Ltd. Partnership
155 A.3d 909
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Waterman owned ~140-acre Wheatlands Farm in Queen Anne’s County; Town of Queenstown annexed and rezoned it from Countryside to Planned Regional Commercial.
- Under LG §4-416, county approval was required to waive a 5-year restriction on permitting substantially different/higher-density uses after annexation.
- On November 25, 2014, County Commissioners passed Resolution 14-31 granting the required express approval; 14 days later a newly constituted Board adopted Resolution 14-33 rescinding 14-31.
- Waterman sued in circuit court seeking to void Resolution 14-33; the circuit court held 14-33 invalid and declared it null, void, and of no legal effect (July 2015). That judgment was upheld as to the specific parties in related appeals.
- On October 9, 2015, QACA appellants filed a petition for judicial review challenging Resolution 14-31 (the original approval); the circuit court dismissed it as untimely and barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel; QACA and Modell appealed.
- This Court held the petition for judicial review was timely (time restarted when 14-31 was revived), but the appeal was rendered moot by Boomer, in which this Court concluded the County had authority to rescind 14-31 via 14-33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition for judicial review of Resolution 14-31 | QACA: filing was timely because the 30-day clock was tolled while 14-31 was rescinded and restarted when court revived 14-31 (post-judgment) | Waterman/Town: the 30-day period ran from adoption of 14-31; petition filed October 9, 2015 was late | Court: petition was timely — the 30-day period restarted when 14-31 was revived by the judgment (Hercules analogy) |
| Res judicata bar to petition challenging 14-31 | QACA/Modell: res judicata shouldn’t bar claims that were moot or not ripe; they were not required to raise invalidity of 14-31 previously | Waterman/Town: prior litigation resolved related issues and barred relitigation | Court: did not decide on merits — held the issue moot in light of Boomer (County’s rescission upheld) |
| Collateral estoppel against Modell | Modell: court erred applying collateral estoppel to preclude his participation | Waterman/Town: prior proceedings precluded Modell by collateral estoppel | Court: did not reach the issue; moot in light of Boomer |
| Whether County could rescind its prior resolution (related controlling question) | QACA: implied argument that County lacked authority to rescind approval once granted | County/QACA appellees: County could rescind by adopting new resolution | Court: Boomer held County had authority to adopt 14-33 and rescind 14-31; matters here therefore moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Hercules, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 351 Md. 101 (Court of Appeals 1998) (administrative order withdrawal can make a subsequent order the final order restarting appeal period)
- Colao v. County Council of Prince George’s County, 346 Md. 342 (Court of Appeals 1997) (circuit courts lack discretion to consider late-filed petitions for judicial review)
- Cochran v. Griffith Energy Services, Inc., 426 Md. 134 (Court of Appeals 2012) (standard of review for motion to dismiss: accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences for nonmoving party)
- Rowland v. Harrison, 320 Md. 223 (Court of Appeals 1990) (res judicata/counterclaim doctrine when issues could be asserted as defenses or counterclaims)
- Hess v. Chalmers, 27 Md. App. 284 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) (timeliness principles for administrative appeal periods)