Muskin v. State Department of Assessments & Taxation
30 A.3d 962
| Md. | 2011Background
- Muskin is trustee of two trusts owning 300 Baltimore City ground rent leases.
- Chapter 290 (Ground Rent Registry Statute) enacted in 2007 required SDAT to create an online registry.
- Non-registration by the deadline extinguishes the ground rent holder's reversionary interest and transfers ownership to the leaseholder.
- Muskin did not register by the deadline and sought to invalidate Chapter 290 as unconstitutional.
- Circuit Court granted SDAT summary judgment and upheld Chapter 290; Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, striking the extinguishment/transfer provisions but upholding the registration requirements.
- The case is remanded for declaratory judgment and injunction consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of extinguishment and transfer provisions | Muskin contends these provisions retroactively abrogate vested rights and take property. | SDAT argues provisions are constitutional as retrospective consequences of non-registration. | Extinguishment and transfer provisions unconstitutional under Maryland rights and constitution. |
| Constitutionality of registration provisions | Registration requirements burden vested rights; may be unconstitutional if retroactive. | Registration provisions constitutional under federal and Maryland law. | Registration provisions remain constitutional. |
| Retrospective application analysis | statute applied retroactively in a way that burdens vested rights; struck down to the extent of extinguishment/transfer. | ||
| Regulatory taking/due process considerations | Non-registration process may be an unconstitutional taking or due process violation. | Registration is a permissible police-power regulation not a taking. | Extinguishment not a taking; registration not unconstitutionally burdensome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dua v. Comcast Cable of Md., Inc., 370 Md. 604 (2002) (prohibits retroactive abrogation of vested rights under Maryland Constitution)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (Landgraf factors for retroactivity: fair notice, reliance, settled expectations)
- John Deere Const. & Forestry Co. v. Reliable Tractor, Inc., 406 Md. 139 (2008) (adopts Landgraf framework for retrospectivity in Maryland)
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Marburg, 110 Md. 410 (1909) (upholds corrective retroactive statutes where reasonable time to act is provided)
- Allen v. Dovell, 193 Md. 359 (1949) (recognizes legislature may alter remedies with reasonable time to act)
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982) (retrospective regulation may be permissible if reasonable and not a taking)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (upholds reasonable regulatory duties on retention of vested rights)
- Garrison v. Hill, 81 Md. 551 (1895) (early case on vested rights and retroactive impact)