Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment

GREENE, J. In the present case, we are asked to determine whether the Court of Special Appeals erred when it affirmed the grant of multiple defendants’ motions to dismiss. Specifically, on appeal, we shall address whether the intermediate appellate court was correct that the motions to dismiss causes of action for trespass, negligence, nuisance, and inverse condemnation were properly granted because the causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. We shall hold that the Court of Special Appeals was correct in determining that the statute of limitations barred Petitioner’s nuisance counts because it is clear from the face of the Complaint that no reasonable trier of fact would infer that a temporary nuisance existed. We conclude, however, that it is unclear from the face of the Complaint (1) that Petitioner’s causes of action for negligence and trespass were not for continuing tortious actions, or “a series of acts or course of conduct ... that would delay the accrual of a cause of action to a later date[,]” MacBride v. Pishvaian, 402 Md. 572, 585 , 937 A.2d 233, 241 (2007) (citation omitted); and (2) whether Petitioner’s cause of ⁶³⁰ action for compensation for the denial of her reasonable and effective use of her property through inverse condemnation accrued more than three years before she filed a claim.

We shall therefore hold that the Court of Special Appeals erred in determining that the statute of limitations barred Petitioner’s causes of action for negligence, trespass, and inverse condemnation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In her Third Amended Complaint, Gail B. Litz (“Litz”), Petitioner, alleges the following: Litz formerly owned approximately 140 acres of land (“the Litz Property”) southeast of the town of Goldsboro, Maryland (the “Town” or “Goldsboro”) in Caroline County (the “County”). In approximately 1948, Litz’s parents purchased the Litz Property, which included a pond and a mill. Litz’s parents replaced the mill with a dam in the mid-1950s to form a lake (“Lake Bonnie”) for the irrigation of farm fields.

Lake Bonnie primarily receives its water from two local streams, the Oldtown Branch and the Broadway Branch, and discharges a constant overflow of water directly into the Choptank River. Lake Bonnie provided swimming, fishing, boating, and waterskiing opportunities, and in the 1960s, Litz’s parents opened a public campsite business known as the Lake Bonnie Campsites (the “Campground”), which turned a profit for Litz’s parents for many years. At some point, Litz became a partner with her father in the operation of the Campground, and in 2001, became the owner of the Litz Property. It was Litz’s “intention and expectation that she would continue to own and operate the Campground as her primary occupation and source of income.” The Broadway Branch and the Oldtown Branch, which continue to supply water to Lake Bonnie, “form the backbone of’ two public drainage associations (the “PDA systems”) which were built between the 1950s and the 1970s.

The PDA systems run directly up to, and in some cases into, the ⁶³¹ incorporated limits of Goldsboro and are intended to drain the local fields. The PDA systems have also, however, “been informally used as storm water drainage systems for the Town, and have been used to remove waste[-]water from the Town.” Water that enters the PDA systems eventually makes its way into the streams, and then into Lake Bonnie. Goldsboro does not have a public water or sewer system available, and instead relies on private wells and septic systems. “Over time, [the private] septic systems in the Town contaminated the ground and surface water, which, in turn, contaminated Oldtown Branch and Broadway Branch, which, in turn, contaminated Lake Bonnie.” Goldsboro has attempted to correct its “failing community sewage system” since at least 1973 when “the Town began a sewerage feasibility study.” In the 1980s, the Caroline County Health Department conducted studies, the results of which indicated the significant extent of the pollution and contamination problems caused by the sewage and waste-water. In both 1985 and 1988, residents of the Town rejected plans to address the problems, however, and “continued to oppose any action to improve the situation through 1996.” “The first documented contamination of Lake Bonnie” occurred in July 1991.

Later, in September 1995, the Caroline County Health Department wrote to the Commissioners of the Town and warned that “[t]he use of the storm[-]water management system in the Town as a sewage system has gotten to crisis proportions!,]” and “[t]he system and associated ditches are a health hazard to the residents, which the commissioners must address.” The letter further indicated that “[i]n particular, Lake Bonnie is not safe for swimmers as long as residents dump their waste[-]waters into the storm[-]water system.” Noting that the “residents rejected grants available [in the 1980s] to provide a resolution of this problem!,]” the County Department of Health advised Goldsboro to “investigate sources of funding for the planning stage through the construction for [remedying the problem].” Additionally, in a December 1, 1995 letter, the Maryland Department of the ⁶³² Environment, (“MDE”) reported that “[t]here are actual water quality impacts on Lake Bonnie due to failing septic systems in [the Town].” Additionally, the letter explained that the Town was “identified in the 1980’s as a potential candidate for federal grant funds to do sewer system improvements[,]” and stated that “[i]t now appears that the situation has deteriorated and created environmental concerns that will need to be addressed.” In a June 12, 1996 letter, the County Health Department notified Litz: The discharges of waste[-]waters to the Oldtown Branch and Broadway Branch (the headwaters[ 1 ] of Lake Bonnie) have not been eliminated. This continues to be a health threat for water contact recreation in the lake.... The [T]own was notified they had to eliminate all discharges. MDE was identifying all potential sources of money the [T]own could use to assist in the cost.

This information was confirmed by water samples taken from Lake Bonnie which showed that it was “severely polluted with high amounts of fecal coliform and nitrates.” Additionally, Litz’s residential well was impacted, containing “elevated nitrate levels.” On August 8, 1996, representatives from MDE and Goldsboro signed a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”). The Consent Order “explained] the problems, order[ed] Goldsboro to take certain actions, impose[d] mandatory reporting obligations and specifie[d] penalties for non-compliance.... ” Initially, the Town began to perform some of its obligations under the Consent Order. On January 21, 1997, Goldsboro sent MDE, among other things, “a Preliminary Engineering Report” and “the ‘Compliance Plan’ and projected schedule for construction of a public sewer system acceptable to MDE.” There was little activity regarding the Consent Order between 1998 and 2004, however. In 2004, the Caroline County Health ⁶³³ Department issued a warning to Goldsboro, along with other towns, that “they should not issue building permits without a Water and Sewer Allocation Request being approved by the Countyf.]” As of October 1, 2010, the date Litz filed her Third Amended Complaint, “the Town ha[d] failed to comply with any of the material terms of the Consent Order and MDE ha[d] [failed to] enforce[ ] [any] part of it.

As a result of the failure of the Town, the County[,] and MDE to address severe pollution problems, Lake Bonnie is now polluted, the [C]amp-ground has been destroyed, and Litz’s property has been substantially devalued.” Because the Campground was generating no income, Litz was unable to pay her mortgage on the Litz Property, and the bank foreclosed on the property and then purchased it at a foreclosure sale for $364,000. On March 8, 2010, Litz filed a “Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Permanent Injunction, and Declaratory Judgment, and Request for Jury Trial” (“Original Complaint”). In the Original Complaint, Litz sought a permanent injunction against the Town and County. The Original Complaint further advanced causes of action for: (1) negligence, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, and inverse condemnation against the Town; (2) negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, and inverse condemnation against the County; and (3) negligence and inverse condemnation against MDE.

Litz later filed an “Amended Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Permanent Injunction, and Declaratory Judgment, and Request for Jury Trial” (“Amended Complaint”), where she added one count against MDE “for mandamus or equitable relief in accordance with the Environmental Standing Act[,]” 2 and then, on July 27, 2010, filed a “Second Amended Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Permanent Injunction, and Declaratory Judgment, and Request for Jury Trial” (“Second Amended Complaint”), where she added the Department ⁶³⁴ of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DHMH”) and the State of Maryland (through the Treasurer of the State) as defendants in the case. In total, the Second Amended Complaint contained the following causes of action: Count I — Permanent injunction action against the Town, County, DHMH and State Count II — Environmental Standing Act action against MDE Count III — Negligence action against the Town, County, DHMH, and State Count IV — Negligence action against MDE Count V — Trespass action against the Town, County, DHMH and State Count VI — Private nuisance action against the Town, County, DHMH and State Count VII — Public nuisance action against the Town, County, DHMH and State Count VIII — Inverse condemnation action against the Town, County, MDE, DHMH and State On September 13, 2010, a hearing (“Hearing I”) was held in the Circuit Court for Caroline County to address motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, including MDE, DHMH, and the State (collectively the “State defendants”). At the end of the hearing, the trial judge, on the record, dismissed all counts against the State defendants on the ground that the State was protected by sovereign immunity and Litz failed to comply with the requirements of the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”). 3 He also granted the County’s Motion to Dismiss all counts on the grounds that any claim against the County would be against the County Health Department, which was for the purposes of the present case a State agency. Thereafter, the trial judge issued an Order, in accordance with his earlier pronouncements at Hearing I, granting the County and State defendants’ motions to dismiss. ⁶³⁵ With regard to the Town, however, the trial judge announced that he was unable, at that time, to rule on Goldsboro’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

He invited counsel for Litz to file a response to the Town’s Motion to Dismiss and Goldsboro to reply and indicated that “[o]nce we have those pleadings before the [cjourt, we will schedule another hearing so that we can address the only issues presented in the Motion to Dismiss, the opposition to that Motion to Dismiss and the reply.” On September 22, 2010, Litz moved for the trial court to reconsider dismissing the trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, and inverse condemnation counts against the State defendants. On October 1, 2010, Litz filed an opposition to the Town’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also on October 1, Litz filed a “Third Amended Complaint for Compensatory Damages, Permanent Injunction, and Declaratory Judgment, and Request for Jury Trial” (“Third Amended Complaint”). In the Third Amended Complaint, Litz asserted the same causes of action against the same defendants as in the Second Amended Complaint, adding only additional facts.

On October 19, 2010, the Town filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On November 5, 2010, Litz filed an opposition to the Town’s Motion to Dismiss, to which Goldsboro replied on November 24, 2010. On February 7, 2011, an Order was issued dismissing all of the counts against the County and the State. On April 7, 2011, the trial judge presided over a hearing (“Hearing II”) on the Town’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

During Hearing II, Litz also presented arguments in support of her motion for the trial judge to reconsider dismissing the counts against the State defendants. Four days later, on April 11, 2011, the trial judge issued an order denying Litz’s Motion for Reconsideration. Also on April 11, the trial judge issued a second Order dismissing the State and County defendants “as defendants in all counts in the Third Amended Complaint!,]” and granting Goldsboro’s ⁶³⁶ Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint without leave for Litz “to further amend.” Thereafter, the trial judge issued a Memorandum explaining his Orders. He stated that because the counts against the County and State defendants had been previously dismissed and Litz’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied, “the action against [the State defendants and County] is no longer viable.” He, therefore, dismissed all counts against those parties “with prejudice and without leave to amend.” The trial judge then addressed the Town’s Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

After dismissing the claim for an injunction on the grounds that Litz had lost the Litz Property through foreclosure and the Town “lacks the capacity to restore her to ownership of Lake Bonnie[,]” the trial judge dismissed all other causes of action against the Town as untimely. He expressed: (1) “[t]he remaining counts of the Third Amended Complaint sound in tort”; (2) “[e]ach remaining count alleging a tort by Goldsboro is subject to the same statute of limitations”; (3) pursuant to Section 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, 4 Litz was required to “bring her claim for damages occasioned by the tortious conduct of Goldsboro before a court within three years of the accrual of the action”; (4) the latest the actions could have accrued was when she took sole possession of the property in 2001; and (5) therefore, her causes of action, filed in 2010, are “time barred and cannot be maintained.” On May 5, 2011, Litz filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Litz challenged the dismissal of the inverse condemnation claim against the State defendants and the Town. 5 Additional ⁶³⁷ ly, Litz challenged the dismissal of the negligence, trespass and nuisance counts against the Town. Litz did not, however, challenge the dismissal of any other counts against the State defendants, Goldsboro, or the County.

The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting all motions to dismiss. Although the trial court dismissed the counts against the State defendants based on Litz’s “noncompliance” with the MTCA, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all counts based upon the “much narrower ground ... that all of Litz’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.” Because the intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s granting of the motions to dismiss on limitations grounds, the court did not address any other basis asserted by the Town or the State defendants that would have supported the dismissal of the negligence, nuisance, trespass, and inverse condemnation causes of action. 6 Thereafter, Litz filed a petition for certiorari, to this Court, which we granted. Litz v. Maryland Dept. of Environment, 429 Md. 81 , 54 A.3d 759 (2012). We have rephrased the ⁶³⁸ underlying questions posed by Litz for purposes of clarity and brevity: 7 1.

Whether it was in error for the Court of Special Appeals to conclude that Litz’s cause of action for nuisance was for a permanent nuisance that was barred by the statute of limitations. 2. Whether it was in error for the Court of Special Appeals to conclude that the negligence and trespass causes of action against the Town were not for ongoing tortious actions, and were barred by the statute of limitations. 3. Whether it was in error to conclude on the basis of a motion to dismiss that Litz’s inverse condemnation causes of action against both the Town and State defendants could be dismissed on the grounds of limitations. STANDARD OF REVIEW At issue in the present case is the Court of Special Appeals’s decision to affirm the trial judge’s grant of motions to dismiss pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322. 8 In Converge ⁶³⁹ Servs.

Chp., LLC v. Curran, 383 Md. 462 , 860 A.2d 871 (2004), we described the lens through which appellate courts should review motions to dismiss. In our review of the grant of a motion for dismissal ... we accept all well-pled facts in the complaint, and reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Typically, the object of the motion is to argue that as a matter of law relief cannot be granted on the facts alleged. Thus, 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. 383 Md. at 475 , 860 A.2d at 878-79 (citations omitted); see also D’Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549, 572 , 36 A.3d 941, 954 (2012).

We have also noted that “dismissal is proper only if the alleged facts and permissible inferences, so viewed, would, if proven, nonetheless fail to afford relief to the plaintiff.” Arfaa v. Martino, 404 Md. 364, 380-81 , 946 A.2d 995, 1005 (2008) (citations omitted). DISCUSSION As indicated above, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State defendants’ and the Town’s motions to dismiss based on the intermediate appellate court’s conclusion that all causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. This Court granted Litz’s petition for certiorari which presented questions pertaining to whether Litz’s causes of action for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and inverse condemnation against the Town and inverse condemnation against the State defendants were barred by limitations. There were no cross-petitions filed raising other issues.

Therefore, the focus of this opinion is on the narrow issue upon which we granted certiorari; namely, whether the Court of Special Appeals was correct in its conclusion that those causes of action were untimely. We also do not address whether there are other grounds upon which the Court of Special Appeals could have affirmed the trial judge’s grant of the motions to dismiss Litz’s causes of action. As we noted in ⁶⁴⁰ Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43 , 949 A.2d 639 (2008): Since the time when this Court’s jurisdiction became largely dependent upon the issuance of a writ of certiorari, we have consistently held that, in a case decided by an intermediate appellate court, we shall not consider an issue unless it was raised in a certiorari petition, a cross-petition, or the order by this Court granting certiorari. We again decline to address an issue not raised fairly in an otherwise successful Petition for Writ of Certiorari. 405 Md. at 60-61 , 949 A.2d at 649 (citations omitted).

See also Md. Rule 8 — 131(b) (“Unless otherwise provided by the order granting the writ of certiorari, in reviewing a decision rendered by the Court of Special Appeals ... the Court of Appeals ordinarily will consider only an issue that has been raised in the petition for certiorari or any cross-petition and that has been preserved for review by the Court of Appeals.”). Counts for negligence, trespass, and inverse condemnation are subject to the statute of limitations articulated in Section 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code which requires that a claim must be filed within three years from the date the action accrues. See Electro-Nucleonics v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 315 Md. 361, 372-73 , 554 A.2d 804, 809-10 (1989) (applying § 5-101 to an inverse condemnation claim); Booth Glass Co. v. Huntingfield Corp., 304 Md. 615 , 500 A.2d 641 (1985) (applying § 5-101 to a negligence action); Bacon v. Arey, 203 Md.App. 606 , 620 n. 12, 651-52, 40 A.3d 435 , 444 n. 12, 462-63 (2012) (applying § 5-101 to causes of action for, among other things, trespass). Similarly, counts for a permanent nuisance are also subject to Section 5-101’s three-year statute of limitations.

See Goldstein v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 285 Md. 673, 689 , 404 A.2d 1064, 1072 (1979). In determining when the actions accrue, Maryland courts apply the discovery rule, which tolls the accrual of an action until the plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury giving rise to his or her claim. See Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, ⁶⁴¹ 636 , 431 A.2d 677, 680 (1981); see also Hecht v. Resolution Trust Corp., 333 Md. 324, 334 , 635 A.2d 394, 399 (1994).

The question of when a cause of action accrues is ordinarily “left to judicial determination.” Frederick Road Ltd. P’ship v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 95 , 756 A.2d 963, 973 (2000). The determination of when an action accrued “may be based solely on law, solely on fact, or on a combination of law and fact.” Hecht, 333 Md. at 334 , 635 A.2d at 399 . When it is necessary to make a factual determination to identify the date of accrual, however, those factual determinations are generally made by the trier of fact, and not decided by the court as a matter of law. See O’Hara v. Kovens, 305 Md. 280, 301 , 503 A.2d 1313, 1323-24 (1986), and cases therein cited.

Motions to dismiss are generally granted in cases where “there [is] no justiciable controversy[.]” Broadwater v. State, 303 Md. 461, 467 , 494 A.2d 934, 937 (1985). Therefore, a motion to dismiss ordinarily should not be granted by a trial court based on the assertion that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations unless it is clear from the facts and allegations on the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run. See Desser v. Woods, 266 Md. 696, 703-04 , 296 A.2d 586, 591 (1972) (“It is well settled that the defense! ] of the bar of the statute of limitations ... may only be availed of by demurrer to a bill of complaint when [it] appear[s] on the face of the bill of complaint, itself, and other matters not so appearing cannot be considered in determining whether or not these defenses are a bar to the alleged cause of action.”); see also Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington, 114 Md.App. 169, 175 , 689 A.2d 634, 637 (1997) (“If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the statute of limitations can be the grounds for a motion to dismiss.”); Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir.2007) (stating that the “principle” that the affirmative defense that a claim is barred by the Maryland statute of limitations “may be reached by a motion to dismiss filed under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] ... only applies, however, if all facts necessary to ⁶⁴² the affirmative defense clearly appear on the face of the complaint” (emphasis in original) (quotation and citation omitted)). In the present case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that all of Litz’s causes of action against both the Town and State defendants were barred by the statute of limitations.

The intermediate appellate court held that when Litz received a notice from the County Health Department on June 26, 1996, “specifically inform[ing] her that ‘discharges of waste[-]waters’ into the headwater of Lake Bonnie continued [to] ‘be a health threat for water contact recreation’ in the Lake[,]” Litz became “fully aware of the nature and cause of her injury — namely, the contamination and potential devaluation of her property and its business.” The Court of Special Appeals, therefore, concluded that “June 26, 1996 was the accrual date of [Litz’s] causes of action and Litz had three years, or until June 26, 1999, to file a complaint against those parties she deemed liable, or potentially liable, for her damages.” The intermediate court, however, did not address any other basis for affirming the trial judge’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss, such as compliance with the MTCA. Limiting our review to the universe of the facts and allegations contained in Litz’s Third Amended Complaint, assuming the truth of those allegations, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Litz, we conclude that it was error to affirm the grant of the motions to dismiss Litz’s causes of action for negligence, trespass, and inverse condemnation on the grounds of limitations, but we affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court and the intermediate appellate court in dismissing Litz’s nuisance counts. The Court of Special Appeals, in reaching its conclusion that all of Litz’s causes of action were untimely, focused on the idea that the “nature and cause” of Litz’s injuries was “the contamination and potential devaluation” of Litz’s property and business and that she knew about that when she received the letter from MDE in 1996 informing her about pollution in Lake Bonnie. ⁶⁴³ When reviewing a motion to dismiss, however, reasonable inferences are drawn in a light favorable to the non-moving party. See RRC Ne., LLC.

V BAA Md, Inc., 413 Md. 638, 643 , 994 A.2d 430, 433 (2010) (“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. ...”). As discussed below, reasonable inferences viewed in a light favorable to Litz, indicate that her counts for negligence, trespass, and inverse condemnation are not barred by limitations, but her causes of action for nuisance are time-barred. I. Nuisance In Counts VI and VII of the Third Amended Complaint, Litz alleges causes of action against the Town for a private nuisance and a public nuisance. As noted above, both the trial court and the Court of Special Appeals concluded that these counts against the Town were barred by limitations.

We affirm the intermediate appellate court’s judgment dismissing these counts. A reasonable trier of fact could not reasonably infer that a temporary nuisance occurred based on the facts as alleged. The distinction between a temporary and a permanent nuisance is relevant to the application of the statute of limitations to a nuisance claim. A claim for a permanent nuisance must be brought within three years of the date when “the permanency of the conditions causing the reduction in the market value of the land bec[omes] manifest to a reasonably prudent person[.]” Goldstein v. Potomac Elec.

Power Co., 285 Md. 673, 689 , 404 A.2d 1064, 1072 (1979); see also Hoffman v. United Iron and Metal Co., 108 Md.App. 117, 144 , 671 A.2d 55, 68 (1996) (“[A] suit for damages as a result of a permanent nuisance must be brought within three years of the time that ⁶⁴⁴ the permanency of the condition becomes manifest to a reasonably prudent person.”). For a temporary nuisance, however, “successive actions may be brought for damages for each invasion of the plaintiffs land until the period of prescription has elapsed, but recovery may only be had for damages actually sustained, other than permanent reduction in the market value of the property, -within three years of the filing of the action.” Goldstein, 285 Md. at 690 n. 4, 404 A.2d at 1072 n. 4. This is because “[w]here a nuisance is temporary and abatable, every repetition of the wrong creates further liability and creates a new cause of action, and a new statute of limitations begins to run after each wrong perpetuated.” Jones v. Speed, 320 Md. 249 , 260 n. 4, 577 A.2d 64 , 69 n. 4 (1990). At issue in the present case is whether Litz’s allegation of nuisance was for a temporary nuisance giving rise to damages within the three years prior to her filing a claim.

Whether a nuisance is permanent or temporary is determined by whether it is abatable. A temporary nuisance is one that is abatable, Carroll Springs Distilling Co. v. Schnepfe, 111 Md. 420, 428 , 74 A. 828, 830 (1909), and a permanent nuisance “will be presumed by its character and circumstances to continue indefinitely.” Hoffman, 108 Md.App. at 143 , 671 A.2d at 68 . The pertinent question, however, “is not the possibility of abatement but rather it’s likelihood.” Hoffman, 108 Md.App. at 144 , 671 A.2d at 68 (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted). In the present case, the Court of Special Appeals concluded in a footnote at the end of its opinion that “[t]he facts make clear that the nuisance, if any, was permanent.” We agree with this conclusion.

Litz failed to show that the lower courts erred when they concluded that her nuisance causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. The pertinent facts supporting this conclusion are as follows: The Town entered into a Consent Order with MDE on August 8, 1996. Pursuant to that Order, the Town drafted and submitted a compliance plan to MDE on January 21, 1997. Over the next thirteen years, up until Litz’s first Complaint ⁶⁴⁵ was filed on March 8, 2010, the Town did not comply with any other material terms of the Consent Order and MDE did not enforce any material terms of the Consent Order.

Indeed, Litz’s Complaint even admits that during this time, “the Town has failed to comply with any material terms of the Consent Order and MDE has enforced no part of it.” The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from these facts is that the nuisance was likely to continue indefinitely. In other words, if Litz’s allegations are that her claim is for permanent nuisance, more than three years have passed since the accrual of this cause of action and a count for permanent nuisance is therefore time-barred. If Litz’s allegations are for temporary nuisance, the facts alleged and reasonable inference drawn from those facts do not support such a claim and the Circuit Court and intermediate appellate court were correct to dismiss them.

II

Negligence and Trespass As noted above, the Court of Special Appeals held that all of Litz’s causes of action against the Town, including the trespass and negligence actions, accrued in 1996 and are barred by the statute of limitations. The Town similarly argues in its brief to this Court that Litz’s causes of action arise from the “property damage that resulted from actions or inactions that occurred — at the latest — by 1996, when the County Health Department notified [Litz] that contamination of Lake Bonnie rendered it unsafe for water contact recreation.” Litz argued to both the intermediate appellate court and to