Spaw, LLC v. City of Annapolis
156 A.3d 906
| Md. | 2017Background
- Spaw, LLC owns a four-story historic Colonial Revival apartment building (2 Maryland Ave.) within Annapolis’s locally designated historic district; the building has ~186 windows.
- Annapolis Historic Preservation Commission issued two municipal infraction citations (Dec. 13, 2012) alleging Spaw replaced historic wood windows with vinyl without a required Certificate of Approval.
- District Court found for the City; Spaw appealed de novo to Anne Arundel Circuit Court, where Spaw admitted replacing 9–10 windows in or about 2010 during discovery; Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the City and ordered Spaw to submit an after‑the‑fact Certificate of Approval for all replaced windows.
- Spaw argued the proceedings were criminal, the citations were insufficiently specific, the action was time‑barred (statutes of limitations / laches), the relief was overbroad, and the mid‑trial summary‑judgment was improper under amended Rule 2‑501.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed: municipal infraction proceedings for historic preservation are civil; the citations were sufficiently specific; statutes of limitations and laches did not bar the action; abatement (after‑the‑fact application) is appropriate relief; denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Spaw's Argument | City of Annapolis' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Character of proceeding (civil v. criminal) | Municipal infraction is criminal in nature; criminal rules should govern | Statute and ordinance show municipal infractions are civil; civil burden (clear & convincing) applies | Civil; historic preservation infractions are civil and subject to civil discovery and Title 2 rules |
| Sufficiency of citations (specificity) | Citations were too general—must identify each window and date to satisfy due process | LU §11‑203 / ACC require location and time/date observed; property address suffices; discovery can fill details | Sufficient: property address and issuance date gave adequate notice; listing each window not required |
| Statute of limitations / laches | One‑year (CJP §5‑107) or three‑year (CJP §5‑101) bar prosecution; laches because City delayed enforcement | Abatement is equitable/remedial (not a “penalty”); enforcement is a governmental function (statute of limitations inapplicable); discovery date governs timeliness | CJP §5‑107 inapplicable because abatement is not a penalty; CJP §5‑101 does not bar municipal governmental enforcement; laches not shown |
| Relief and mid‑trial SJ / new trial | Relief overbroad (should be limited to admitted 9–10 windows); mid‑trial SJ improper under amended Rule 2‑501, warranting new trial | Court ordered administrative abatement (after‑the‑fact Certificate), not forced removal; mid‑trial SJ based on Spaw’s late admission and was practical given discovery history | Relief proper: ordering submission of after‑the‑fact Certificate of Approval is appropriate abatement; denial of new trial not an abuse of discretion given procedural history and admission |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (upholding validity of historic preservation/landmark regulations but recognizing takings limits)
- Mayor & Alderman of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 271 Md. 265 (Md. 1974) (upholding state enabling Historic Area Zoning Act and Commission authority)
- Faulkner v. Town of Chestertown, 290 Md. 214 (Md. 1981) (property within historic district is subject to commission jurisdiction even if not individually significant)
- Casey v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, 400 Md. 259 (Md. 2007) (economic feasibility not required in historic designation analysis)
- Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 369 Md. 335 (Md. 2002) (permitting oral mid‑trial summary judgment before later rule changes)
- Woznicki v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 443 Md. 93 (Md. 2015) (summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Goldberg v. Howard County Welfare Bd., 260 Md. 351 (Md. 1971) (statute of limitations does not bar governmental actions exercising sovereign functions)