214 A.3d 1152
Md.2019Background
- Wireless One leased a stall at Baltimore’s Cross Street Market (City-owned since 1847) from 2004 until it vacated in February 2017; lease was month-to-month by 2016.
- In late 2016 the Market’s management for redevelopment (CSM/Caves) informed Wireless One it would not "fit in" the redevelopment plans and suggested it pursue other options.
- Wireless One requested termination of its month-to-month lease (Jan. 24, 2017) and vacated in February 2017, removing inventory but leaving built-in fixtures.
- Wireless One sued in June 2017 claiming status as a “displaced person” under Md. Code, Real Prop. § 12-201(e) and entitlement to moving/relocation expenses under § 12-205(a), and alleged an unconstitutional taking.
- The circuit court dismissed, holding Wireless One was excluded by § 12-201(e)(2)(iii) (leased from the displacing agency after the agency took title) and, alternatively, had voluntarily vacated; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: Wireless One was not a “displaced person” because it voluntarily left before any agency action and because it leased after the City (the displacing agency) took title; no taking occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wireless One is a “displaced person” under RP §12-201(e)(1)(i) (entitling it to §12-205(a) relocation payments) | Wireless One: it was displaced by redevelopment plans and fits §12-201(e)(1)(i)(2) (displacement from rehabilitation/demolition), so it should get relocation benefits | City/Markets Corp.: Wireless One voluntarily terminated its lease and left before any written notice, eviction, or rehabilitation activity; thus not a displaced person | Held: No — Wireless One voluntarily vacated before any displacing activity or written notice; does not meet §12-201(e)(1)(i) |
| Whether the exclusion in RP §12-201(e)(2)(iii) (persons who lease from a displacing agency after the agency takes title are not displaced persons) bars recovery | Wireless One/AG: The exclusion should be read consistent with the federal counterpart (42 U.S.C. §4601(6)(B)(ii)) to apply only when the agency acquired the property for a program/project and the lease began after that acquisition; otherwise it would nullify relocation relief | City: §12-201(e)(2)(iii) is plain — anyone who leases from the displacing agency after the agency takes title is excluded; Wireless One leased long after City took title (1847), so excluded | Held: No ambiguity — applied §12-201(e)(2)(iii) literally; Wireless One leased after City took title and is excluded; exclusion consistent with legislative history |
| Whether the statutory definition of “displacing agency” (RP §12-201(f)) is time‑limited to when the agency is actively carrying out a project | Wireless One/AG: "Carrying out" implies a present project; the City was not a displacing agency in 1847 and thus exclusion should not apply to leases executed long after acquisition but before redevelopment plans | City: Definition has no temporal limitation; an agency that later undertakes a program/project can be a displacing agency regardless of when it took title | Held: Definition not ambiguous; no temporal element required; City qualifies and exclusion applies |
| Whether Wireless One stated a claim for a taking | Wireless One: loss of built-in fixtures and being forced out by redevelopment plans amounts to a taking absent compensation | City: No compensable taking because Wireless One was not within class entitled to relocation payments and it voluntarily abandoned fixtures; no government physical appropriation occurred | Held: No taking — disposition turns on Wireless One not qualifying as displaced person and having abandoned the property |
Key Cases Cited
- Coll. Bowl, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 394 Md. 482 (court held plaintiff must be a “displaced person” under statutory definition to recover relocation expenses)
- A & E N., LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 431 Md. 253 (discusses condemnation, just compensation, and that relocation assistance requires being a “displaced person”)
- Lillian C. Blentlinger, LLC v. Cleanwater Linganore, Inc., 456 Md. 272 (rules on statutory construction principles)
- Floyd v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 463 Md. 226 (standard of review for motions to dismiss/summary judgment)
- Wireless One, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 239 Md. App. 687 (Court of Special Appeals opinion affirming exclusion under §12-201(e)(2)(iii))