Precision Small Engines, Inc. v. City of Coll. Park, 179 A.3d 1019

Background

Precision Small Engines (tenant) and property owners challenged City of College Park citations for failing to obtain City permits while having County permits; disputes proceeded in District Court and then Circuit Court seeking declaratory relief about a 2002 MOU between Prince George’s County and the City.
The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Petitioners, holding the MOU barred the City from requiring City non-residential building and use/occupancy permits when County permits already existed.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the MOU’s plain language did not require the City to surrender its independent authority to adopt and enforce its own building code and permit requirements.
The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari, considered the interplay of (1) County zoning authority under Land Use § 22-104 and § 22-119 (concurrent enforcement via agreement), and (2) the City’s independent statutory authority under the Local Government Article (e.g., §§ 5-202, 5-209, 5-211).
The MOU: delegated County enforcement powers to the City, limited the City from issuing permits “now issued by” the County (paragraph 2(c)), prohibited imposing stricter standards than County (paragraph 3(b)), but expressly preserved City powers under other laws (paragraphs 1(a)–1(b)).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals: the MOU did not strip the City of its independent authority to require City permits under municipal enabling statutes; the MOU controls only County-delegated powers.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MOU prohibits the City from requiring City non-residential building/use permits when County permits exist	MOU ¶¶2(c) and 3(b) mean City may not issue additional or different permits from the County	MOU preserves City power; it only governs County-delegated enforcement and does not strip municipal statutory authority	Held: MOU does not restrict City from requiring City permits; City retains independent authority
How to interpret the MOU (ambiguous or plain)	MOU language limits City; Circuit Court applied that interpretation	Agreement should be read as a whole and under objective contract rules; paragraphs reserving City power control	Held: MOU is unambiguous when read as whole; apply plain meaning — City’s retained powers honored
Effect of Local Government statutes on MOU scope	Petitioners: §22-119’s delegation prevents City from imposing its own permit scheme within municipality	Respondents: Local Gov’t §§ 5-202/5-209/5-211 independently authorize City building, occupancy regulation	Held: Statutory municipal powers are separate; MOU does not abrogate those powers
Standing/beneficiaries to enforce MOU limits	Petitioners claim MOU rights protect property owners against City permits	Respondents: Paragraph 10 limits beneficiaries to County and City; third parties lack contract rights	Held: MOU intended only for County and City; third-party contract enforcement is constrained

Key Cases Cited

Myers v. Kayhoe, 391 Md. 188 (objective contract interpretation governs, give effect to clear terms)
Walker v. Dep’t of Human Resources, 379 Md. 407 (plain contractual language controls; no need for further construction)
Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees’ Ret. Sys., 390 Md. 639 (reasonable person objective test for contract meaning)
Clancy v. King, 405 Md. 541 (give effect to each contractual clause; avoid reading away meaningful language)
Sagner v. Glenangus Farms, 234 Md. 156 (same principle on giving effect to contract provisions)
Tomran, Inc. v. Passano, 391 Md. 1 (cardinal rule: give effect to parties’ intentions as expressed)
Precision Small Engines, Inc. v. City of College Park, 233 Md. App. 74 (intermediate appellate decision reversed by circuit court; held MOU did not require municipal surrender of building-code powers)
120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 426 Md. 14 (only parties or intended third-party beneficiaries may enforce contractual rights)