Wireless One, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.
No. 70
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
August 23, 2019
September Term, 2018
Moreover, tenant was not “displaced person” because it “lease[d] from [] displacing agency after [] displacing agency [took] title to [] real property[.]”
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-17-003125 Argued: May 2, 2019
Barbera, C.J. *Greene McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth, JJ.
Opinion by Watts, J. Barbera, C.J., and McDonald, J., dissent.
Filed: August 23, 2019
*Greene, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the
This case
- “Displaced person” means:
- Any person who moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property:
- As a direct result of a written notice of intent to acquire or the acquisition of such real property in whole or in part by a displacing agency; or
- On which that person is a residential tenant or conducts a small business, a farm operation, or a nonprofit organization, in any case in which the head of the displacing agency determines that displacement is permanent, as a direct result of rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity as the lead agency may prescribe, undertaken by a displacing agency;
- Any person who moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property:
and
* * *
- “Displaced person” does not include:
- Except to the extent that this exclusion conflicts with federal financial participation requirements, any person who, on the open market, without threat of condemnation, sells his [or her] real property to a displacing agency;
- Unlawful occupants, or anyone occupying such dwelling for the purpose of obtaining assistance under this subtitle; or
-
A person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property, or any person other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired who occupies the property on a rental basis for a short term or period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project.
In this case, Baltimore City has owned and operated the market since 1847. From 2004 to February 2017, the tenant leased space in the market; as of 2016, the tenant’s lease was on a month-to-month basis. In late 2016, a rental agent for the market advised the tenant that its business did not “fit in the [redevelopment] plans” for the market and that it “should pursue other options[.]” In February 2017, the tenant vacated the market. In June 2017, the tenant sued, seeking compensation for moving and relocation expenses as a displaced person and for an alleged unconstitutional taking. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted, concluding that the former tenant did not qualify as a “displaced person” because of the exemption in
this backdrop, we must decide whether the former tenant is a “displaced person,” as that term is defined in
We hold that the former tenant is not a “displaced person,” as that term is defined in
hold that the tenant was not wrongfully denied moving and relocation expenses, and there was no unconstitutional taking. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Special Appeals’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
In 1847, the Cross Street Market (“the Market”) was established in Baltimore City. At all times since 1847, the Mayor and Council of Baltimore City (“the City”), Respondent, has owned and operated the Market. In 1994, the City established the
On November 9, 2016, through the Markets Corporation, the City entered into a management agreement with CSM Ventures, LLC (“CSM”), a subsidiary of Caves Valley Partners (“Caves”), to operate and redevelop the Market. The management agreement authorized CSM to lease portions of the Market and terminate existing tenancies. Under the management agreement, the Markets Corporation was required to pay CSM $2 million to redevelop and operate the Market.
It is undisputed that, in late 2016, Wireless One was advised that it would not fit
into the plans for the redeveloped Market, and that it should pursue other options. On December 21, 2016, on behalf of CSM and Caves, a representative sent an e-mail message to Wireless One and other Market tenants concerning the redevelopment of the Market. In the e-mail, the representative stated, in pertinent part:
[O]n January 9th, most of you will receive a Letter of Intent, along with current draft space plans for the new [M]arket, for your review and consideration as prospective tenants. There are a very limited number of tenants who we know will not fit in the plans. Those tenants have been informed that they should pursue other options going forward. . . .
At the merchants[’] meeting last month, Arsh Mirmiran from CSM [] promised that the current [M]arket would continue to operate until at least April 1, 2017. I would like to reiterate that and let you know that it will likely continue for a bit longer than that. Once we know an official date, we will let you all know.
* * *
Regardless of whether or not we are able to reach agreement for you to be part of the redeveloped [M]arket, we will work with you and the [] Markets Corporation to provide options for temporary and/or permanent relocation spaces. These spaces would be in either Lexington Market or Hollins Market, both of which are going to be refreshed, as well. The Markets Corp[oration] has confirmed that there is adequate space to accommodate all current tenants of [the] Market, should you so choose. If neither of those options is of interest, I can work directly with you to find you space closer to Cross Street, either in currently vacant storefronts or in existing spaces that may become available.
* * *
As I mentioned, please let me know if you’d like any additional information. All of this is still a work in progress and we don’t have all the answers yet, but we are methodically getting there and we appreciate your continued interest and patience.
According to an affidavit from Arsh Mirmiran, a partner at Caves, on or around January 24, 2017, a Wireless One representative requested to terminate Wireless One’s
month-to-month lease and to vacate the stall at the Market by February 1, 2017, with the agreement that Wireless One would not be billed for February 2017
Circuit Court Proceedings
On June 2, 2017, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Wireless One filed a complaint against Respondents, alleging that it was a “displaced person,” as defined by
On July 11, 2017, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that Wireless One was not a “displaced person” because Wireless One terminated its lease voluntarily and because of the
exemption in
[] On or around January 24, 2017, a representative from Wireless One[] contacted representatives of management and requested to terminate the month-to-month lease and vacate the stall by February 1, 2017, with the agreement that they would not be billed for February rent.
[] Management agreed, and Wireless One[] voluntarily vacated the premises in February 2017.
[] CSM [] did not terminate Wireless One’s lease, nor did it notify Wireless One[] that it had to leave by a date certain.
[] While CSM [] eventually plans to renovate [the] Market, it has not yet begun to do so, nor has it terminated the leases of any tenants in pursuit of
this project; in fact, all remaining tenants were offered, and agreed to, lease renewals through September 5, 2017. Wireless One[] was not offered this
lease renewal because it had already vacated the [M]arket at that time. [] While the items left behind by Wireless One[] are fixtures, it is welcome to return and remove the items. CSM [] has no plans to utilize the fixtures for the public use.
On September 11, 2017, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion and heard argument from the parties. On the same day, the circuit court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. In the order, the circuit court explained that it agreed with Respondents’ argument that the exemption in
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Market was established by [the] City in 1847, and has been owned and operated by [the] City since its inception. [Wireless One] cannot overcome the plain language of [RP] § 12-201(e)(2)(iii), which specifically exempts “[a] person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property.” [Wireless One]’s lease was executed in 2004, many years after [the] City acquired title to the Market. Additionally, the Management Agreement between [the] City and Caves [] did not transfer title to the Market; rather, the Management Agreement merely gave Caves [] the ability to operate, manage, and redevelop the Market. Thus, [Wireless One] has failed to state a claim for relocation and moving expenses pursuant to [RP] § 12-20[5(a)].
(Emphasis and some alterations in original). The circuit court also ruled that “no taking ha[d] occurred” because Wireless One was “not within the class of persons entitled to relief under [RP] § 12-20[5(a)].” The circuit court rejected Wireless One’s argument that there was a taking because its fixtures became valueless, explaining that Mirmiran averred that Wireless One was “welcome to return and remove the items[,]” and that, “[i]t [was] quite
clear, then, that [Wireless One] abandoned its property affixed to the Market.”2
On September 20, 2017, Wireless One filed a motion to alter or amend, which the circuit court denied.
Appellate Proceedings
Wireless One appealed.3 On December 21, 2018, in a reported opinion, the Court
and City Council of Baltimore City, 239 Md. App. 687, 689, 198 A.3d 892, 893 (2018). The Court of Special Appeals quoted with approval the circuit court’s reasoning that the exemption in
On December 27, 2018, Wireless One petitioned for a writ of certiorari, raising the following two issues:
[1.] Under [RP §] 12-201[(e)](1)(i)(2), is a person who leaves a publicly funded facility as a result of demolition or rehabilitation excluded from relocation benefits if it leased after the unit of government acquired title to the real property?
[2.] Has Wireless [One] stated a claim for an unconstitutional taking?
On February 4, 2019, this Court granted the petition. See Wireless One v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 462 Md. 556, 201 A.3d 1228 (2019).
On May 2, 2019, this Court heard oral argument in the case. At oral argument, questions arose concerning the statutory construction and legislative history of RP §§ 12-201 and 12-205. On May 3, 2019, this Court issued an order authorizing the Attorney
General to file an amicus brief. In the order, we stated:
Whereas, this appeal involves construction of the relocation and assistance provisions of [RP] § 12-201 et seq.[,] an issue in which the State may have an interest, and pursuant to
Maryland Constitution, Art. V, § 6 , it is this 3rd day of May[,] 2019,ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-511(a)(3), that the Attorney General may file a brief in the above-captioned case as Amicus Curiae concerning the appropriate construction of [RP] § 12-201 et seq.
On June 12, 2019, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief. In the amicus brief, the Attorney General contended that
With respect to the appropriate construction of [RP] § 12-201(e)(2)(iii), which excludes from the definition of “displaced person” a “person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency take[s] title to the real property,” that provision should be construed consistently with its federal counterpart,
42 U.S.C. § 4601(6)(B)(ii) , such that this exclusion is only applicable in those cases in which the displacing agency has acquired property for a program or project (and any lease has taken effect after such acquisition).
DISCUSSION
The Parties’ Contentions
Wireless One contends that the circuit court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because, under
Respondents counter that the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Respondents contend that Wireless One is not entitled to relocation expenses because it is not a “displaced person” under
as it is undisputed that Wireless One leased the Market stall from the City more than 150 years after the City acquired title to the Market. Respondents assert that the applicability of
Respondents assert that interpreting
moving and relocation expenses under
Standard of Review
Recently, in Floyd v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 463 Md. 226, 241, 205 A.3d 928, 937 (2019), we stated that “we review without deference a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss,” explaining:
Considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a court must assume the truth of, and view in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, all well-pleaded facts and allegations contained in the complaint, as well as all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them, and order dismissal only if the allegations and permissible inferences, if true, would not afford relief to the plaintiff, i.e., the allegations do not state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Consideration of the universe of “facts” pertinent to the court’s analysis of the motion are limited generally to the four corners of the complaint and its incorporated supporting exhibits, if any. The well-pleaded facts setting forth the cause of action must be pleaded with sufficient specificity; bald assertions and conclusory statements by the pleader will not suffice. Upon appellate review, the trial court’s decision to grant such a motion is analyzed to determine whether the court was legally correct.
(Citation omitted). And,
[s]imilarly, where, in considering a motion to dismiss, a trial court considers materials, such as affidavits, outside of the complaint (i.e., the complaint and documents attached thereto), we treat the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss as a grant of summary judgment, and we review the matter without deference for legal correctness.
Id. at 241, 205 A.3d at 937 (citation omitted).
Statutory Construction
In Lillian C. Blentlinger, LLC v. Cleanwater Linganore, Inc., 456 Md. 272, 294-95, 173 A.3d 549, 561-62 (2017), “we set forth the relevant rules of statutory construction[,]” stating:
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly.
As this Court has explained, to determine that purpose or policy, we look first to the language of the statute, giving it its natural and ordinary meaning. We do so on the tacit theory that the General Assembly is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant. When the statutory language is clear, we need not look beyond the statutory language to determine the General Assembly’s intent. If the words of the statute, construed according to their common and everyday meaning, are clear and unambiguous and express a plain meaning, we will give effect to the statute as it is written. In addition, we neither add nor delete words to a clear and unambiguous statute to give it a meaning not reflected by the words that the General Assembly used or engage in forced or subtle interpretation in an attempt to extend or limit the statute’s meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends.
If the language of the statute is ambiguous, however, then courts consider not only the literal or usual meaning of the words, but their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives, and the purpose of the enactment under consideration. We have said that there is an ambiguity within a statute when there exist two or more reasonable alternative interpretations of the statute. When a statute can be interpreted in more than one way, the job of this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent, using all the resources and tools of statutory construction at our disposal. If the true legislative intent cannot be readily determined from the statutory language alone, however, we may, and often must, resort to other recognized indicia—among other things, the structure of the statute, including its title; how the statute relates to other laws; the legislative history, including the derivation of the statute, comments and explanations regarding it by authoritative sources during the legislative process, and amendments proposed or added to it; the general purpose behind the statute; and the relative rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions.
In construing a statute, we avoid a construction of the statute that is unreasonable, illogical, or inconsistent with common sense.
In addition, the meaning of the plainest language is controlled by the context in which it appears. As this Court has stated, because it is part of the context, related statutes or a statutory scheme that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal must also be considered. Thus, not only
are we required to interpret the statute as a whole, but, if appropriate, in the context of the entire statutory scheme of which it is a part.
(Citation omitted).
Relevant Law
Before discussing moving and relocation expenses pursuant to
Notably, “just compensation for the taking of property is not the only type of compensation to which a condemnee may be entitled. Both federal and Maryland statutes provide for relocation assistance to persons affected by condemnation.” Id. at 262, 64 A.3d at 908-09 (internal quotation marks omitted). Subtitle 2 of Title 12 of the Real Property Article sets forth the various types of relocation assistance available in Maryland.
Whenever a program or project undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person, the displacing agency shall make a payment to the displaced person, on proper application as approved by the displacing agency for:
(1) Actual reasonable expenses in moving him[- or her]self, his [or her] family, business, farm operation, or other personal property;
(2) Actual direct loss of tangible personal property as a result of moving or discontinuing a business or farm operation, but not exceeding an amount equal to the reasonable expenses that would have been required to relocate the personal property, as determined by the agency;
(3) Actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business or farm; and
(4) Actual reasonable expenses necessary to reestablish a displaced farm, nonprofit organization, or small business at its new site as determined by the displacing agency, but not to exceed $60,000.
This Court has recognized that “[t]he key issue with respect to [a plaintiff]’s entitlement to compensation under [
- “Displaced person” means:
- Any person who moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property:
1. As a direct result of a written notice of intent to acquire or the acquisition of such real property in whole or in part by a displacing agency; or
2. On which that person is a residential tenant or conducts a small business, a farm operation, or a nonprofit organization, in any case in which the head of the displacing agency determines that displacement is permanent, as a direct result of rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity as the lead agency may prescribe, undertaken by a displacing agency; and
- Solely for the purposes of [RP] §§ 12-205(a) and (b) [], any person who moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property:
- As a direct result of written notice of intent to acquire or the acquisition of other real property, in whole or in part, on which such person conducts a business or farm operation, by a displacing agency; or
- As a direct result of rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity as the lead agency may prescribe, of other real property on which such person conducts a business or a farm operation in any case in which the head of the displacing agency determines that displacement is permanent, by a displacing agency.
- “Displaced person” does not include:
- Except to the extent that this exclusion conflicts with federal financial participation requirements, any person
who, on the open market, without threat of condemnation, sells his [or her] real property to a displacing agency; - Unlawful occupants, or anyone occupying such dwelling for the purpose of obtaining assistance under this subtitle; or
- A person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property, or any person other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired who occupies the property on a rental basis for a short term
- Except to the extent that this exclusion conflicts with federal financial participation requirements, any person
or period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project.
“Displacing agency” means any public or private agency or person carrying out:
- A program or project with federal financial assistance;
- A public works program or project with State financial assistance; or
- Acquisition by eminent domain or by negotiation.
In Coll. Bowl, 394 Md. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154, this Court held that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the City and that “the City was not required to reimburse [the plaintiff] for relocation expenses[.]” The plaintiff, a sports apparel manufacturer, contended “that it lost its tenancy and was forced to relocate its business due to insistence by [the] City that [the plaintiff]’s landlord redevelop the building in which [the plaintiff]’s business was located and threats by the City to condemn the building if that was not done.” Id. at 483-84, 907 A.2d at 154. The plaintiff was a month-to-month commercial tenant in a building owned by the David and Annie E. Abrams Realty Corporation (“Abrams”). See id. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154. In 1997, Abrams entered into preliminary discussions with the City to explore development options; in 2000, Abrams obtained zoning approval to construct dwelling units in the building, including the space occupied by the plaintiff. See id. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154. In 2002, the City “began to press Abrams to commence acceptable redevelopment and, at various times thereafter, expressed the intent, in default thereof, to obtain authority to condemn the structure.” Id. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154. In June 2002, a City Council bill was introduced that would have allowed the City to acquire various properties through condemnation, including Abrams’s building. See id. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154.
In November 2002, while the bill was pending, Abrams notified the plaintiff of its intent to end the landlord-tenant relationship, and, in February 2003, Abrams gave written notice of termination of the plaintiff’s month-to-month lease, effective April 30, 2003. See id. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154. In March 2003, the plaintiff vacated the building and relocated its business. See id. at 484, 907 A.2d at 154. A year later, in March 2004, the bill was enacted, although the City did not exercise its authority to acquire the building. See id. at 484-85, 907 A.2d at 154.
In the meantime, in April 2003, after vacating the building, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking, among other things, compensation for relocation expenses. See id. at 485, 907 A.2d at 154. As to those claims, the trial court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, “holding that, because [the plaintiff]’s tenancy was terminated by the landlord and not in response to any governmental action by the City, [the plaintiff] was not a ‘displaced person’ entitled to relocation compensation and its property interest had not been taken by the City.” Id. at 485, 907 A.2d at 154-55.
the critical question [was] whether [the plaintiff]’s displacement was a “direct result” of either a written notice of intent by the City to acquire the property or a determination by the head of the “displacing agency” that [the plaintiff]’s displacement would be permanent as a direct result of rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity.
Id. at 486, 907 A.2d at 155 (footnote omitted). We noted that, had Abrams taken no action, the City likely would have condemned the building after the bill was enacted, but the plaintiff “was actually forced to relocate and move its personal property because of the termination of its tenancy by Abrams[.]” Id. at 487, 907 A.2d at 156.
As to whether Abrams was forced to terminate the plaintiff’s tenancy “because of conduct by the City that would suffice to make [the plaintiff] a ‘displaced person’ within the meaning of
It is undisputed, of course, that the City never [] acquire[d] the property, either by condemnation or through negotiations conducted under the threat of condemnation. [The plaintiff]’s complaint is that the City effectively forced Abrams to terminate [its] lease by threatening, both orally and in writing, to condemn the property unless Abrams proceeded with redevelopment activities that would necessitate termination of the tenancy, and that the City had no authority to make such threats. Its argument, in this regard, is that the City had no authority to inform the property owner that eminent domain authority would be obtained and exercised unless the building was renewed. Whether the City [] possessed authority to make that threat is not the issue. The issue, in terms of compensation for relocation expenses, is, and remains, whether [the plaintiff]’s relocation was the “direct result” of conduct specified in
[RP] § 12-201(e) , authorized or unauthorized. It clearly was not.As we have observed, Abrams made some efforts on its own to renovate the building, including a successful pursuit of zoning authority to convert five floors of the building to residential use, and, in February, 2003, presumably in furtherance of those efforts, it terminated the month-to-month tenancy. That termination, by the landlord, occurred more than a year before [the bill] was enacted and thus more than a year before the City had any legal authority to acquire the building through the exercise of eminent domain. There is simply no evidence that termination of the tenancy was the “direct result” of a written notice by the City of its intent to acquire the property or a determination by the head of a displacing agency that [the plaintiff]’s displacement was permanent as a direct result of rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity.
Id. at 487-88, 907 A.2d at 156 (cleaned up). We also concluded that there was no taking. See id. at 491, 907 A.2d at 158.
Analysis
Here, we hold that Wireless One is not a “displaced person,” as that term is defined in
As an initial matter, Wireless One does not qualify as a displaced person under
Nor does Wireless One qualify as a “displaced person” under
In short, Wireless One voluntarily left the Market. No action had been taken by Respondents or CSM to terminate
Here, it is undisputed that the Market was established by the City in 1847, and that it has been owned and operated by the City since its establishment. It was not until 2004, well after the City took title to the Market, that Wireless One entered into its lease. Put simply, it is undisputed that Wireless One acquired its lease after the City acquired title to the Market. Nothing in the management agreement between Respondents and CSM transferred title to the Market; rather, the management agreement simply authorized CSM to operate, manage, and redevelop the Market. As such, it is readily apparent that Wireless One leased its stall in the Market from the City after the City had taken title to the Market, and, therefore, the plain language of
We are unpersuaded by the Attorney General’s attempt to inject ambiguity into the plain language of
[The] statutory language [of
RP § 12-201(e)(2)(iii) ] is not as clear as the City suggests. First, as Wireless One has argued before this Court, the City’s reading of the statute renders the second half of that clause superfluous. As a matter of law, any lease with a displacing agency would, by its nature, take effect only after the displacing agency has acquired the property. In that context, and given the provision’s focus on the date that the displacing agency “takes title” to the property, it is unclear whether the statute encompasses all leases no matter when (or for what purpose) the displacing agency may have acquired the property, or whether it applies only in circumstances where the displacing agency acquires a property for a program or project. The latter interpretation not only removes the superfluity in the first clause of[RP] § 12-201(e)(2)(iii) , but it harmonizes and maintains consistency with the secondclause of [RP] § 12-201(e)(2)(iii) . Indeed, that second clause, which excludes from being a “displaced person” a person who occupies a property on a rental basis but who was not “an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired,” is expressly tied to both the operative act of the acquisition of the property and the program or project for which the property was acquired.
In a nutshell, the Attorney General seems to be saying that, if this Court adopts Respondents’ position, then no tenant could ever be a “displaced person” because the tenant would be leasing property after the displacing agency acquired title to the property, and the second clause of
We are wholly unpersuaded that
“Displaced person” does not include: [] A person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property, or any person other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired who occupies the property on a rental basis for a short term or period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project.
(Emphasis added) (paragraph break omitted). Under the first clause, a displaced person does not include a person who leases from a displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the property. As a completely separate example of a person who is not a displaced person, the second clause provides that a displaced person does not include any person other than someone who was an occupant of the property at the time it was acquired who occupies that property on a short-term rental basis or period subject to termination when the property is needed for a program or project. In other words,
Adhering to the plain meaning of
Nor does adhering to the plain meaning of the statute render the second clause superfluous. As we explained above, the second clause excludes from the definition of a displaced person those who occupy a property on a rental basis for either a short term or period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project. To be sure, as Respondents point out, “there may be overlap among tenants excluded by the first clause of
We are also unpersuaded that there is any ambiguity in the definition of “displacing agency” in
“Displacing agency” means any public or private agency or person carrying out:
- A program or project with federal financial assistance;
- A public works program or project with State financial assistance; or
- Acquisition by eminent domain or by negotiation.
Under the plain meaning of
Yet, both Wireless One and the Attorney General attempt to read into
[B]y using the present progressive tense in the phrase “carrying out,” the statutory
language appears to suggest that an entity may be considered a “displaying agency” only insofar as it is then-actively and currently engaged in “carrying out” a “program or project” or “[a]cquisition by eminent domain or by negotiation.” This definition of “displacing agency” would thus exclude any entity that acquires (or has acquired) a property while not at that time engaging in these enumerated activities. And, in turn, interpreting the definition of “displacing agency” in that manner would have a significant and perhaps dispositive effect on the way [RP] § 12-201(e)(2)(iii) should be interpreted.
(Second alteration in original). In other words, like Wireless One, the Attorney General posits that the definition of a “displacing agency” would exclude any entity that acquired a property while not engaging in the described activities of
We disagree with the manner in which Wireless One and the Attorney General interpret the plain language of
Because the plain language of
We begin by setting forth the party’s views of the relevant legislative history. Wireless One contends that the Relocation Expenses Act,
Respondents counter that the General Assembly enacted the definition of “displaced person” in
according to Respondents, the General Assembly “deliberately drafted alternative language” from the federal statute, such that, under Maryland law, a tenant who leases property after the displacing agency took title is not a displaced person, notwithstanding whether the displacing agency had plans for rehabilitation at the time of acquisition. In short, Respondents argue that the General Assembly chose to distinguish the Maryland statute from the federal statute.
Our review of the legislative history reveals the following. In 1970, Congress passed the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act “to standardize federal legislation regarding relocation assistance.” Alexander v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 441 U.S. 39, 49 (1979). The purpose of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act was “to establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of owners, tenants, and other persons displaced by the acquisition of real property in Federal and federally assisted programs” so “that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.” Id. at 51 (cleaned up). As originally enacted, the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act defined a “displaced person” as
any person who . . . moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property, as a result of the acquisition of such real property, in whole or in part, or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property, for a program or project undertaken by a Federal
agency, or with Federal financial assistance[.]
Id. at 42 n.1 (citation omitted). Thus, as originally enacted, the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act provided relocation benefits only to those persons who were displaced as a result of government acquisition of property. See id. at 59 (“[T]he legislative history of the written order clause reveals no congressional intent to extend relocation benefits beyond the acquisition context.”). The Uniform Relocation Assistance Act also contained a provision that conditioned ongoing federal financial assistance upon the receipt of a State’s “satisfactory assurances” that “fair and reasonable relocation” assistance would be provided to displaced persons to the same extent as required by federal law.
The following year, in 1971, the General Assembly enacted the Relocation Expenses Act by passing House Bill 972. See 1971 Md. Laws 1318 (Ch. 628, H.B. 972). As part of its purpose statement, House Bill 972 provided: “WHEREAS, [the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act] changes the relocation assistance legislation now in effect at the Federal level and requires that in order to obtain maximum Federal funds, for the Federally-aided public projects, the State relocation assistance legislation must conform to the requirements of” that Act. Id. House Bill 972 further provided that it was “the legislative intention that persons who are displaced as a result of land acquisition . . . shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designated for the benefit of the public as a whole.” Id. at 1319. At that time, the Relocation Expenses Act defined a “displaced person” as
any person who . . . moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property, as a result of the acquisition of such property in whole or in part, or as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property for a public works program or project undertaken by the Condemning Authority.
Id. The Relocation Expenses Act also provided:
Each Condemning Authority may prescribe such rules, regulations[,] and procedures, consistent with the provisions of this subtitle and [the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act] and amendments thereof and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, as it deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this subtitle and [the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act].
Id. at 1323. In 1974, the Relocation Expenses Act was recodified at
Years later, in 1987, Congress effectuated an expansion of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act by adopting the current definition of a “displaced person,” codified at
The term “displaced person” does not include[] in any case in which the displacing agency acquires property for a program or project, any person (other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired) who occupies such property on a rental basis for a short term or a period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project.
Additionally, the 1987 amendments added a certification provision,
the head of a Federal agency may discharge any of his [or her] responsibilities under this chapter by accepting a certification by a State agency that it will carry out such responsibility, if the head of the lead agency determines that such responsibility will be carried out in accordance with State laws which will accomplish the purpose and effect of this chapter.
After the 1987 federal amendments, at the Governor’s direction, the Secretary of Transportation established a task force consisting of agencies that would be affected by the federal amendments. In the meantime, in a letter to the Governor dated December 16, 1988, the Federal Highway Administrator sought to enlist the Governor’s “support for the passage in [Maryland] of a comprehensive statute to enable all State, local, and private entities receiving Federal funds to comply with the Uniform [Relocation Assistance] Act, as amended.” Letter from Robert E. Farris, Federal Highway Administrator, to William Donald Schaefer, Governor of Maryland (Dec. 16, 1988). In the letter, the Federal Highway Administrator advised that those statutory “assurances must be in place as of April 2, 1989[,]” and, if they were not,
the Federal agency providing the financial assistance for any ongoing project must withhold funding for any acquisitions or displacement occurring on or after April 2, 1989, and further, shall not approve any new activity, project, or program which will result in acquisition or displacement.
Id.
Ultimately, the interagency task force’s work culminated in House Bill 720, which was introduced during the 1989 legislative session. House Bill 720 was:
FOR the purpose of generally revising State laws on relocation assistance and adopting federal requirements relating to uniform policies and procedures for relocation assistance when permanent displacement occurs as the result of land acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, and other activities;
providing for the uniform treatment of displaced persons; defining certain terms; altering certain payment limits; making this Act an emergency measure; and generally relating to relocation assistance and land acquisition policies in the State.
1989 Md. Laws 1253 (Pt. 2, Ch. 10, H.B. 720). House Bill 720 amended the definition of a “displaced person” to “any person who moves from real property, or moves his [or her] personal property from real property” “as a direct result of a written notice of intent to acquire or the acquisition of such real property in whole or in part by a displacing agency[,]” or “as a direct result of rehabilitation, demolition, or other displacing activity as the lead agency may prescribe[.]” Id. at 1255.
House Bill 720 also added a provision excluding certain persons from the definition of “displaced person,” including “any person who, on the open market, without threat of condemnation, sells his [or her] real property to a displacing agency[,]” as well as “unlawful occupants or anyone occupying
A person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property, or any person other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired who occupies the property on a rental basis for a short term or period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project.
The bill file for House Bill 720 indicates that the General Assembly intended the Relocation Expenses Act to be similar to its federal counterpart. For example, a document entitled “Analysis of House Bill 720” notes that House Bill 720 “is proposed to bring the Maryland statute into compliance with [the 1987 federal amendments] regarding relocation assistance programs and to provide enabling legislation in order that [S]tate and local displacing authorities may continue to qualify for federal aid funding.” The analysis noted that “[l]anguage in the State bill mirrors the federal law in many instances to [e]nsure similar intent and uniformity of both statutes.” The analysis also discussed the amendments to the various statutes. As to the amendments to
The definition of “displaced person” is being expanded and modified to include permanent displacement resulting from rehabilitation and demolition and certain additional eligibilities for small businesses, farms[,] and residential tenants. Another notable change is [that] all public and private agencies and persons, (whether or not such entity has the power of eminent domain), using federal assistance in a project are required to comply with this act.
And, House Bill 720‘s Fiscal Note stated that the bill was introduced “in order to bring State law in compliance with federal regulations[.]”
House Bill 720‘s bill file also contains letters of support from various agencies and groups that noted that House Bill 720 was necessary to comply with federal regulations. For example, in a letter to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee dated March 29, 1989, the Maryland Association of Counties stated that it supported House Bill 720, and that it “underst[oo]d[] that this emergency piece of legislation [was] necessary to place the State in compliance with federal regulations pertaining to relocation assistance.” Letter from Raquel Sanudo, Md. Assoc. of Counties, Inc., to Sen. Jud. Proceedings Comm. (Mar. 29, 1989). Similarly, in a letter to the Chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee dated March 29, 1989, the Maryland Builders Association stated that it supported House Bill 720, and noted that the bill would “define the State laws and federal requirements allowing for uniform treatment of the displaced person. We believe that this improves the law.” Letter from Robert L. Mitchell, President, Md. Builders Ass‘n, to Sen. Walter M. Baker, Chair, Sen. Jud. Proceedings Comm. (Mar. 29, 1989). In a letter to the Chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee dated March 28, 1989, the Administrator of the Maryland State Highway Administration sought the Chair‘s support to expedite House Bill 720, which he characterized as bringing Maryland “into compliance with a federal mandate[.]” Letter from Hal Kassoff, Administrator, State Highway Admin., to Sen. Walter M. Baker, Chair, Sen. Jud. Proceedings Comm. (Mar. 28, 1989). And, in a memorandum dated March 28, 1989, the Secretary of Transportation advised that he supported House Bill 720,
Interestingly, House Bill 720‘s bill file also contains a document entitled “Title IV[,] Uniform Relocation Act Amendments of 1987[,]
Displaced person
- Expands the definition to include displacement as a result of rehabilitation, demolition[,] and other activities when such displacement is permanent.
- Includes any other person eligible under criteria established by head of lead agency.
- Precludes eligibility for persons on unlawful occupancy.
- Excludes any person who moves in after property is acquired.
(Some capitalization omitted).
House Bill 720 ultimately passed in the General Assembly, and went into effect on April 4, 1989, the date it was enacted. See 1989 Md. Laws 1268 (Pt. 2, Ch. 10, H.B. 720). The definition of a “displaced person” set forth in
What can be gleaned from this legislative history is that, in amending the Relocation Expenses Act through House Bill 720, the General Assembly sought to comply with the 1987 amendments to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act and related regulations and intended the Relocation Expenses Act to be similar to its federal counterpart. The legislative history reveals nothing more, and nothing less. With respect to the exemption in
In our view,
We disagree with Wireless One and the Attorney General that the language of
Ultimately, the Relocation Expenses Act means what it says, and the language of
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO PAY COSTS.
WIRELESS ONE, INC. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, ET AL.
No. 70, September Term, 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Filed: August 23, 2019
Dissenting Opinion by McDonald, J., which Barbera, C.J., joins.
“Plain meaning,” like beauty, may be in the eye of the beholder. This case provides an example where a focus on one possible “plain meaning” of a statute, together with a blind eye to the statute‘s history, leads to an interpretation that would undoubtedly astonish those who promoted and passed the statute.
Background
The facts are straightforward. Baltimore City has owned and operated Cross Street Market, in the heart of the Federal Hill neighborhood, since the 1840s. In 2004, Wireless One began renting a stall in the Market for its cellphone business. In 2016, the City entered into an agreement with a management company to operate and rehabilitate the Market. Wireless One apparently did not fit into the management company‘s new vision for the Market and was informed that its lease would not be renewed. Wireless One vacated the premises and filed suit for relocation and moving expenses.
The City filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. The Circuit Court granted judgment in favor of the City on the ground that Wireless One was not a “displaced person” entitled to relocation benefits under Maryland Code, Real Property Article (“RP“),
The Alternative Holdings of the Majority Opinion
The Majority Opinion holds that Wireless One is not a displaced person for two alternative reasons.1 It is possible that the
Holding Based on Definition in RP §12-201(e)(1)
First, the Majority Opinion holds that Wireless One voluntarily terminated its lease and abandoned its stall before any redevelopment occurred, and therefore did not fit the definition of a displaced person under
In its ruling in this case, the Circuit Court acknowledged the City‘s argument on this ground, but did not grant summary judgment for that reason. Instead, it dismissed the complaint on a different ground, to be discussed in greater detail below. Under the longstanding view of this Court, an appellate court ordinarily will not approve a grant of summary judgment on a ground different from that of the Circuit Court. See, e.g., Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Maryland, Inc., 435 Md. 584, 598-99 (2013); Henley v. Prince George‘s County, 305 Md. 320, 333 (1986). Here, the Circuit Court never addressed the merits of this argument, much less determined whether the relevant facts were undisputed such that summary judgment was even feasible. If we think there might be merit in granting judgment on this ground, we should remand for the Circuit Court to consider it in the first instance.
Holding Based on Exclusion in RP §12-201(e)(2)(iii)
Second, the Majority Opinion holds that, pursuant to
The State was invited by the Court to submit an amicus brief in light of the fact that
In my view, the Majority Opinion‘s analysis of
Origin of the Maryland Relocation Expenses Act
The City concedes that Wireless One would be entitled to relocation benefits under a federal statute known as the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970,
In 1971, in an effort to standardize federal law concerning relocation assistance, Congress enacted the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 91-646. See Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39, 49 (1979). Included in that statute was a provision that conditioned certain federal financial assistance on a state providing relocation assistance to persons displaced by government programs or projects to the same extent as federal law. Pub. L. No. 91-646, §210.
In response to the federal law, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Maryland Relocation Expenses Act. Chapter 628, Laws of Maryland 1971, now codified at
The legislative history of the 1987 amendments indicates that Congress intended “that state laws achieve the purpose and effect of the Act, particularly with respect to the definition of displaced person.” House Conf. Rep. No. 100-27, at 250 (reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N., v.2, at 234). The implementing regulations emphasized that the purpose of the new rules was “[t]o ensure that persons displaced as a direct result of Federal or federally-assisted projects are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such displaced persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.”
Maryland again responded to the incentive provided in the federal law. An inter-agency task force was established in 1987 at the direction of the Governor, which resulted in the introduction of House Bill 720 at the 1989 session of the General Assembly. The purpose paragraph of that bill recited that it was intended to revise State laws on relocation assistance and “adopt[] federal requirements relating to uniform policies and procedures for relocation assistance when permanent displacement occurs as a result of land acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, and other activities.”
It is clear throughout the bill file for House Bill 720 that compliance with the federal standards, including with respect to the definition of “displaced person,” was the catalyst for the legislation. An analysis of House Bill 720 in the bill file notes that “several definitions [in
The fiscal note for the bill stated that the legislation‘s purpose was to make Maryland law compliant with federal regulations. Representatives of State agencies and local governments affected by the bill expressed the same understanding of the legislation. See, e.g., Memorandum from the Maryland Association of Counties concerning House Bill 720 to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (March 29, 1989) (“this emergency piece of legislation is necessary to place the State in compliance with federal regulations pertaining to relocation assistance.“); Letter from the Administrator of the Maryland State Highway Administration to the Chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee concerning House Bill 720 (March 28, 1989) (asking for bill‘s passage to be expedited to bring Maryland “into compliance with a federal mandate[.]“). Nothing in the bill file suggests any intention to deviate from the federal standards in any respect.
Construing RP §12-201(e)(2)(iii) Consistently with the Federal Statute
In holding that the slightly different language of the Maryland statute signals a significant departure from the federal statute on which it was based, the Majority Opinion asserts that “the plain meaning of the language of the statute is obvious” and that it “could not be clearer.” Majority slip. op. at 26-27, 29, 34. However, the key provision of the statute pertinent to this case seems to contain at least some ambiguity. It states:
“Displaced person” does not include:
A person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property, or any person other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired who occupies the property on a rental basis for a short term or period subject to termination when the property is needed for the program or project.
The Majority Opinion argues that such an interpretation reads words into the statute that do not exist, claiming “nothing in the plain language of
There is a more significant issue with the Majority Opinion‘s reading of the first clause of the provision (“A person who leases from the displacing agency after the displacing agency takes title to the real property“). If it means that no person who leases property from the government (after the government takes title to the property) can be eligible for relocation expenses, then very few tenants will be eligible for relocation expenses under Maryland law. Moreover, such a reading of the first clause renders superfluous the second clause of the provision (“or any person other than a person who was an occupant of such property at the time it was acquired …“). This Court has long explained that “whenever possible, the statute should be read so that no word, sentence, clause or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.” See Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 366 Md. 295, 302 (2001).
There is a different reasonable reading of the first clause. Large public works
In my view, this narrower reading of the first clause makes more sense. Importantly, it addresses a real concern without being overbroad, in a way that is completely consistent with the federal statute and regulations. The standards included in the federal statute were intended to counteract the “‘violent unfairness’ of tenants’ forced displacement” by government projects and the “substantial financial hardship” suffered by individuals displaced from their residences. Garnett, supra, 105 Mich. L. Rev. at 107, 121-23. The standards of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act apply, with some exceptions, to public housing programs of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. See https://perma.cc/GK8C-EDD3. There is no blanket exclusion under that law simply because a housing agency had title to a property before a tenant moved in. Under the Majority Opinion‘s interpretation of the State statute, similar relocation assistance would not be available under the State statute on the happenstance that an agency owned a residential property before a tenancy began, even if the displacement occurred years or decades hence. As this Court has frequently said, “[o]ur interpretation should avoid illogical, absurd, or anomalous results.” Blackburn Ltd. Partnership v. Paul, 438 Md. 100, 122 (2014).
At the very least, the language of the exclusion from the definition of displaced person is ambiguous and that text should be considered in light of the legislative history of the statute and the parallel federal exclusion. As outlined above, the legislative history of the 1989 amendment that resulted in this language is quite clear on the Legislature‘s intent. Accordingly, I would not decide this case on an interpretation of a particular “plain meaning” of
Chief Judge Barbera has advised that she joins this opinion.
WIRELESS ONE, INC. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, ET AL.
No. 70, September Term, 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
September 30, 2019
ORDER
The Court having considered Wireless One, Inc.‘s Motion for Reconsideration filed in the above-captioned case, it is this 30th day of September, 2019,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the Motion for Reconsideration be, and is hereby, DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that footnote 7 on pages 30 and 31 is hereby deleted from the opinion as it was originally filed in the above-captioned case on August 23, 2019.
/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera
Chief Judge
Notes
Wireless One, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 239 Md. App. 687, 695 n.3, 198 A.3d 892, 897 n.3 (2018) (cleaned up). We agree with the Court of Special Appeals’s reasoning on this point. The Majority Opinion suggests that the affidavit submitted by the City was addressed to the issue of whether there was an unconstitutional taking. Majority slip op. at 25-26 & n.6. In fact, most of that affidavit, as well as the opposing affidavit of the owner of Wireless One, was directly addressed to whether the business had voluntarily departed from the Market – a key question for purposes of the City‘s argument underWe note that the format of the court’s judgment did not strictly comply with the requirement of Maryland Rule 2-601(a)(1), which mandates: “Each judgment shall be set forth on a separate document and include a statement of an allowance of costs as determined in conformance with Rule 2-603.” Here, the court’s judgment of dismissal appears on the sixth page of the written opinion explaining the court’s reasoning. . . . Nevertheless, the separate document requirement is not jurisdictional, and strict compliance may be waived where a technical application of the separate document requirement would only result in unnecessary delay. The Court of Appeals has held that strict compliance with the separate document rule can be waived, at least where the trial court intended the docket entries made by the court clerk to be a final judgment and where no party objected to the absence of a separate document after the appeal was noted. In this case, no party has objected to the form of the court’s order of dismissal, and the docket entry of 9/14/17 accurately sets forth the substance of the court’s judgment. Accordingly, we deem the lack of a separate document to be waived.
To the extent that the circuit court considered materials outside of complaint, i.e., Mirmiran’s affidavit, the circuit court’s order reflects that that consideration was as to the issue of the unconstitutional taking. After referencing Mirmiran’s affidavit, the circuit court concluded that Wireless One voluntarily abandoned its property affixed to the Market and had failed to state a claim for unconstitutional taking. Again, the circuit court did not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. However, as to a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we have stated that “[i]f we should reach a different conclusion than the circuit court on the basis on which it granted summary judgment, we ordinarily do not try to sustain the [trial] court’s decision on a different ground.” Young Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dustin Constr., Inc., 459 Md. 356, 383, 185 A.3d 170, 186 (2018) (citation omitted). Nonetheless, “[w]e may [] affirm summary judgment on a different ground if the trial court would have no discretion as to the particular issue.” Id. at 383, 185 A.3d at 186 (citation omitted). In this case, if the record could be interpreted to mean that the circuit court granted summary judgment at all, we affirm on the ground that it based its decision on—namely, that the exemption of