Lovell Land, Inc. v. SHA

969 A.2d 284 (2009) 408 Md. 231 LOVELL LAND, INC. v. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, et al. No. 92, September Term, 2008. Court of Appeals of Maryland. April 9, 2009. ²⁸⁶ Kurt J. Fischer (Marta D. Harting and Melissa L. Mackiewicz of DLA Piper US LLP of Baltimore), on brief for petitioner. Kevin Reynolds, Asst.

Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland of Baltimore), Melissa S. Whipkey, Asst.

County Solicitor (Margaret Ann Nolan, Howard County Solicitor and Richard E. Basehoar, Senior Asst. County Solicitor, Howard County Office of Law of Ellicott City), on brief, for respondents. Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, IRMA S. RAKER, (Retired, Specially Assigned) ALAN M. WILNER, (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ. WILNER, J. This case involves a parcel of unimproved land that was acquired by the State Highway Administration (SHA) from King's Meade Limited Partnership (King's Meade) in 1992 for use in constructing an extension of Md. Route 100 in Howard County.

When, because of a revision in the planned location of the road, it turned out that the parcel was not needed for that purpose, SHA, in 2000, deeded it to Howard County for public use. In April, 2006, convinced that the county had not put the land to public use, petitioner, Lovell Land, Inc. (Lovell), claiming to be the successor-in-interest to King's Meade, filed an action in the Circuit Court for Howard County seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that, by virtue of both Maryland Code, § 8-309 of the Transportation Article (TR) and a reverter provision in the deed from SHA to the county, the county's title to the land reverted to SHA and SHA is required to offer the property to petitioner, and (2) an injunction requiring the county and SHA to implement that judgment. In a Memorandum Opinion, the Circuit Court opined that petitioner had no right to the requested relief. Instead of entering a declaratory judgment to that effect, however, the court merely granted the motions for summary judgment filed by SHA and the county.

Overlooking the absence of a declaratory judgment but in the belief that the Circuit Court correctly granted the motions for summary judgment, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment. Lovell Land v. State Highway, 180 Md.App. 725 , 952 A.2d 414 (2008). We agree that petitioner has no right to the relief it requested, but we shall direct that the case be remanded to the Circuit Court for entry of a proper declaratory judgment in conformance with this Opinion. BACKGROUND In contemplation of a planned five-mile extension of Md. Route 100 from Interstate Route 95 to U.S. Route 29, SHA entered into two agreements in January 1988 — one with Howard County, where the extension would be located, and one with BritAm Development Group, a partnership in which King's Meade was a general partner.

Prompting those agreements was the fact that a number of developers were actively proceeding with subdivision plans with respect to property lying along the proposed Route 100 corridor, and SHA was not then in a position to acquire that property by purchase or condemnation. ²⁸⁷ Under the agreement with Howard County, denoted the Bi-Party Agreement, the county, which had acquisition funds more immediately available, agreed to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, the land that might be needed for certain parts of the project, and SHA agreed to acquire the land needed for other parts and to reimburse the county for its costs and expenses. The agreement with BritAm involved mostly a land swap. It called for SHA to deed two parcels that it owned to King's Meade, one of 8.5 acres that King's Meade wished to use for its planned Brightfield subdivision (Parcel A), and one of 3.5 acres on which King's Meade would construct certain improvements along Md. Route 103 and then reconvey to SHA (Parcel B). In return, BritAm or King's Meade was to convey two parcels that it owned to SHA, one of 22 acres for the planned roadway (Parcel D) and one of 0.3 acres, to be transferred in connection with the Route 103 improvements (Parcel C).

In March 1990, in a completely separate transaction, the State sold to the county, for approximately $800,000, a 28.5-acre parcel owned by the University of Maryland System, on which the county intended to build some government facilities. That land was immediately adjacent to a 69-acre parcel that included the land subject to the January 1988 agreement between SHA and BritAm — the 22.3 acres to be conveyed to SHA and the 12 acres to be transferred to King's Meade. Two years later, in April, 1992, the 1988 agreement between SHA and BritAm was implemented through an exchange of deeds, although the acreage exchanged was less than that provided for in the agreement. The State, through SHA and the Board of Public Works (BPW), conveyed approximately 8.2 acres and paid $139,600 to King's Meade, and King's Meade conveyed 19.982 acres to the State, for the use of SHA.

At some point after those various transfers took place, the planned alignment of Route 100 shifted to the south. As a result of that shift, SHA needed 12.4 acres of the University of Maryland property the State had sold to Howard County in 1990, but part of the 19.982-acre parcel that SHA had acquired from King's Meade in 1992, which we shall assume was 17.3 acres, was no longer needed for the project. [1] In November, 1996, in light of that new circumstance, SHA and the county entered into a Supplemental Agreement intended to supplement the 1988 Bi-Party Agreement. The Supplemental Agreement also involved a land swap. The county agreed to transfer to SHA nine parcels of land totaling 47 acres, and SHA agreed to transfer to the county three parcels totaling 52.5 acres and pay the county $1.6 million.

Included in the transfer to the county was the 17.3-acre portion of the 19.9 acre parcel that SHA had obtained in the swap with King's Meade, and included in the transfer to SHA was the 12.4-acre portion of the former University of Maryland land that the State had sold to the county in March 1990. ²⁸⁸ The Supplemental Agreement expressly limited the use that could be made of the parcels being transferred to the county to a transportation purpose. The county agreed that it would not use any of that property for any non-transportation related purpose, that the State could enter the property to assure compliance with that restriction, and that, if any portion of the property was used for a non-transportation purpose, the State had the right to re-enter, take possession of the property, and terminate all right, title, and interest of the county. The land would then revert to the State, for the use of SHA. Although the Supplemental Agreement was signed in November 1996, the transfers contemplated in it did not take place until the spring of 2000.

To understand the context of what occurred next, a brief detour to TR § 8-309 is necessary. As a prelude to that detour, it is to be noted that the Route 100 extension was constructed and is in operation. It is therefore a completed, rather than an abandoned, project. Title 8 of the Transportation Article deals with highways; Subtitle 3 of Title 8 deals with the acquisition and disposition of property; and § 8-309, which is part of Subtitle 3, deals with the sale of land not needed for public purposes.

The general purpose of the section, as set forth in TR § 8-309(a), is either to return to the tax rolls of the county land acquired by SHA but later found to be unneeded by it or to make it available for use by a county or municipality for a transportation-related purpose. TR § 8-309(b), which is the more particular mandate and is somewhat broader in scope, provides that if land acquired under the subtitle is not needed for any present or future State, county, or municipal transportation purpose "or other public purpose," SHA shall dispose of the land as soon as practicable after completion or abandonment of the project for which the land was acquired. The statute then sets out the various ways in which that disposition may be accomplished. For purposes of this case, which involves a completed project, subsections (c), (e), (f), and (g) are particularly applicable.

Subsection (c), upon which Lovell principally relies, requires SHA, within 30 days after determining that land from a completed project is not needed by SHA, to inform the person from whom the land was acquired, or that person's successor in interest, that the land is not needed and is available for reacquisition. That person then has eight months to reacquire the land at a price determined in accordance with the statute. If the right of reacquisition is not exercised within eight months, SHA is directed to sell the land at public auction. Subsection (e) permits SHA to exchange land from a completed project for privately or publicly owned land "of substantially equal value" when the land to be acquired is needed for a current State highway purpose that has been identified in the current consolidated transportation program approved by the General Assembly or that has otherwise received legislative approval for planning.

Although there is no requirement that the exchange be with a county or municipality or that the land traded by SHA be used for a public purpose, any exchange is subject to a right of first refusal by the person from whom the land was acquired to reacquire the property. That right must be exercised within 90 days after SHA gives notice of the proposed exchange. Subsection (f)(1)(i) permits SHA to convey any of its surplus land to an adjacent property owner "[a]s all or part of the consideration for right-of-way transaction" or under certain other circumstances. ²⁸⁹ There is no requirement that the land be used for a public purpose, and the transfer is not subject to a right of first refusal in the former owner. Finally, subsection (g) permits SHA, with the approval of BPW, to convey surplus land to any State or local agency that needs it for a public purpose and pays SHA the lesser of the appraised value of the land or the amount SHA paid for it, plus interest.

Although a transfer under subsection (g) is not subject to a right of first refusal in the former owner, the law does require that the grantee need the land for a public purpose. With that background, we return to the ensuing course of events, commencing with an exchange of letters between King's Meade or Lovell, on the one hand, and SHA or the Attorney General's Office, on the other. On August 3, 1999, Lovell, on behalf of King's Meade, wrote to SHA to "start the procedure for us to reacquire the surplus land" that was conveyed by King's Meade to SHA for the Route 100 Project, noting that the land was not used for the road due to a shift in alignment. In November, SHA responded that the land in question was to be conveyed to Howard County and sent Lovell a copy of the Supplemental Agreement.

In January 2000, counsel for King's Meade wrote to the Assistant Attorney General who represented SHA, noting the covenant in the Supplemental Agreement that the land could not be used for a non-transportation-related purpose and inquiring as to the use the county intended to make of the land. Citing TR § 8-309, the letter advised that, if the property was not to be used for a transportation-related purpose, it must be offered to King's Meade and may not be deeded to the county. The Attorney General then shifted course, twice. On March 30, 2000, the assistant attorney general responded that SHA and the county were in the process of amending the Supplemental Agreement to permit the county to use the property for a "public purpose," and that the conveyance would be made pursuant to TR § 8-309(g).

That produced a response on April 12, in which counsel for King's Meade argued that the land could not be deeded to the county under subsection (g) because Howard County was neither a State nor a local agency and because, in any event, the county had not yet determined how the land would be used. The attorney asserted that any conveyance to the county would be "illegal and invalid" and demanded that SHA offer the property to King's Meade pursuant to TR § 8-309(c). The assistant attorney general responded the next day, advising that she had "conducted additional research" and concluded that the transaction met the requirement of TR § 8-309(f)(1)(i), i.e., conveyance of surplus land to an adjacent property owner as all or part of the consideration for a right-of-way transaction. She noted that the county owned land adjacent to the unneeded parcel, that the land to be conveyed to the county was in exchange for land that SHA acquired from the county for the project, and that it therefore constituted "consideration for the right-of-way transactions" with the county.

She concluded that, because the conveyance was being made pursuant to TR § 8-309(f)(1)(i), King's Meade had no right of first refusal and "no rights which impact on SHA's ability to convey this property," and she therefore did not need to address the use the county intended to make of the property. She did note, however, that the county had advised SHA "that the property will be used for a public purpose." King's Meade was not persuaded. In a letter of April 18, 2000, it asserted that the land was never actually "taken" by SHA and therefore did not belong to SHA. That ²⁹⁰ peculiar conclusion was based on § 12-102 of the Real Property Article, which deals with "quick-take" condemnation and provides that property is deemed to be "taken" for that purpose if the plaintiff (1) is authorized to take property before trial, (2) has actually taken possession of it, and (3) has lawfully appropriated it to the public purposes of the plaintiff.

Although urging that, because the property did not properly belong to SHA, the agency had no authority to convey the land to the county, it insisted that SHA convey the land it allegedly did not own to King's Meade. Also on April 18, but in advance of its receipt of Lovell's letter, SHA and Howard County entered in an amendment to the 1996 Supplemental Agreement that struck the requirement that the county not use the property for a non-transportation-related purpose and substituted a requirement that the county use the property for "a public purpose." The amendment reflected a shift back to § 8-309(g). In the "Whereas" clauses, which the amendment incorporated into the agreement, SHA averred that restricting the county to a transportation related use was not required under TR § 8-309 and that, under § 8-309(g), SHA may convey the land to the county, with the approval of BPW, provided that the county's use was restricted to "a public purpose." In point of fact, the deed implementing the conveyance to the county had been signed by both SHA and the county before the amendment to the Supplemental Agreement was executed and before SHA had actually received the April 12 and 18 letters from King's Meade. The deed had been presented to and accepted by Howard County on April 7, 2000 and was signed and acknowledged by SHA on April 12.

It was presented to and approved by BPW on April 26, 2000 and was signed by the Board on May 3, 2000, which is when, subject to recording, it actually took effect. The deed contained a re-entry provision that we shall discuss further but which provided for a reversion of title to SHA in the event the SHA determined that the county was using the property for a non-public purpose and SHA chose to re-enter and retake the property. On May 1, 2000, the assistant attorney general responded to the April 18 letter, rejecting as "misguided" King's Meade's construction of Real Property Article § 12-102 and observing that SHA acquired the land pursuant to a land exchange agreement with King's Meade and not by condemnation. The letter noted, as a "bottom line," that the county had represented that it would use the property for a public purpose and that SHA had relied on that representation, "just as it would rely on such a representation from any public entity," that the deed to the county contained a provision allowing the property to revert to SHA if the land is not used for a public purpose, and, if that occurred, "SHA will deal with the reversion in an appropriate manner at that time." The reverter language, it said, "is the standard method by which SHA ensures that the land it sells will be used for a legitimate public purpose." King's Meade made no further protest until November 16, 2001, when it learned that the county was marketing the property for sale to a private party.

It threatened SHA with a $ 1 million lawsuit if the agency did not exercise its rights under the reverter provision and offer the property to King's Meade. When alerted to that demand, the county informed SHA that the property had been mistakenly forwarded to the county's marketing team after being rejected for use as part of a school site, that the county council had not considered disposition of the property, and ²⁹¹ that it would remain under the county's control and use. Based on that response, which was forwarded to King's Meade, the assistant attorney general, on December 7, 2001, informed King's Meade that SHA believed that the property was being used for a public purpose and that the reverter provision "has not been activated." King's Meade and Lovell acquiesced in that response for more than four years, until April 25, 2006, when it filed its complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. During that interim, the county proposed to use the property for two public projects — a central maintenance facility and a fire station.

Evidence was presented that the county included those projects in its 2007 capital budget and that, at least by September 2005, Lovell was aware of those proposed uses. In its complaint, Lovell claimed to be the successor to all of King's Meade's property, including its interest in the 17.3-acre parcel at issue here, and to be as well a third-party beneficiary of the reverter provision in the deed from SHA to the county. [2] It recited some of the facts noted above, averred that the county had not used the property for any public purpose, and asserted that, as a result, title to the property is required to revert to SHA and that, upon such a reversion, SHA is required to offer the property to Lovell. In Count I, it sought a declaratory judgment to that effect, and in Count II it sought an injunction requiring the county to convey the property to SHA and requiring SHA, within 30 days, to offer the property to Lovell at no more than its current market value. SHA and the county answered the complaint and filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Lovell was not a third-party beneficiary of any statutory or contractual provision concerning the property and therefore had no cognizable interest in the public use requirement or the reverter provision or any right to enforce them, (2) Lovell's claims were barred by limitations, and (3) the property had been designated for public use.

At the hearing on the motion, it was conceded that the third issue, of whether the property had been put to public use, would require some discovery and was not ripe for summary judgment. The defendants did press the first two grounds, however. The county insisted that the conveyance was pursuant to TR § 8-309(f)(1)(i), not § 8-309(g), as contended by Lovell, and that no right of first refusal exists under subsection (f)(1)(i). Lovell responded that the conveyance was pursuant to subsection (g) but that, in light of the reverter provision in the deed, it did not matter.

In August 2007, the court filed a memorandum opinion and order granting the motions for summary judgment. The court concluded that, even though BPW appeared to approve the transfer to Howard County pursuant to TR § 8-309(f), the Supplemental Agreement and the deed indicated that the transfer was actually made pursuant to § 8-309(g). Relying on Mackubin v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 190 Md. 52 , 57 A.2d 318 (1948), however, the court concluded that Lovell was not a third-party beneficiary of the reverter provision and had no standing to enforce it. In light of that conclusion, which was dispositive, the court did not address the limitations defense.

Cross appeals were noted, Lovell asserting that it was a third-party beneficiary of the reverter provision and was entitled to ²⁹² enforce it, and the defendants seeking to sustain the summary judgment on the ground that the transfer was pursuant to TR § 8-309(f)(1)(i), which did not require a public purpose, and that the action was barred by limitations. As noted, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the summary judgments, principally for the reasons stated by the Circuit Court. It agreed that the transfer was made pursuant to TR § 8-309(g) but agreed as well that Lovell was not a third-party beneficiary of the reverter provision. Like the Circuit Court, it found no need to address the limitations issue.

Lovell Land v. State Highway, supra, 180 Md.App. 725 , 952 A.2d 414 . We granted Lovell's petition for certiorari to consider whether the lower courts erred in declining to accord Lovell or King's Meade third-party beneficiary status. No cross-petitions were filed, so the limitations issue is not before us. DISCUSSION Before discussing the pivotal issue presented in the case — whether Lovell enjoys the status of third-party beneficiary with respect to the public use requirement and the applicable "reverter" clause — there are some preliminary issues that must be addressed.

First, we need to deal with the fact that, although this was predominantly a declaratory judgment action, the Circuit Court did not enter such a judgment but instead merely granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. As we pointed out in Megonnell v. United Services, 368 Md. 633, 642 , 796 A.2d 758, 764 (2002), "[w]hile it is permissible for trial courts to resolve matters of law by summary judgment in declaratory judgment actions, the trial court must still declare the rights of the parties." See also Beale v. Risk Retention Group, 379 Md. 643, 650, n. 4 , 843 A.2d 78, 83, n. 4 (2004). This proceeds from the more general rule that, when a declaratory judgment action is brought and the controversy is appropriate for resolution by declaratory judgment, "the court must enter a declaratory judgment, defining the rights and obligations of the parties or the status of the thing in controversy," and that judgment must be in writing and in a separate document. Allstate v. State Farm, 363 Md. 106, 117, n. 1 , 767 A.2d 831, 837, n. 1 (2001); Union United Methodist v. Burton, 404 Md. 542, 550 , 948 A.2d 1, 10 (2008).

That requirement is applicable even if the action is not decided in favor of the party seeking the declaratory judgment. Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 87 , 660 A.2d 447, 455 (1995). The failure to enter a proper declaratory judgment is not a jurisdictional defect, however. This Court, in its discretion, may "review the merits of the controversy and remand for entry of an appropriate declaratory judgment by the circuit court." Bushey v. Northern Assurance, 362 Md. 626, 651 , 766 A.2d 598, 611 (2001).

That is what we shall do. Second, there is the question of whether the transfer of the 17.3-acre parcel to the county was pursuant to TR § 8-309(f)(1)(i) or (g). As noted, if the conveyance was pursuant to subsection (f)(1)(i), as consideration for a right-of-way transaction, the former owner has no right of first refusal and there is no requirement that the grantee use the property for a public purpose. A conveyance under subsection (g) also is not subject to a right of first refusal, but the law does require that the property be used by the grantee for a public purpose.

Lovell's position seems to be that the conveyance was under subsection (g), and that, even though there is no direct right of first refusal under that subsection, Lovell has the right to enforce the public use condition and exercise a right of ²⁹³ refusal as a third-party beneficiary of the "reverter" clause in the deed and under TR § 8-309(c). [3] We see no reason why SHA could not have structured the conveyance of the 17.3-acre parcel under subsection (f)(1)(i). It was, as we have indicated, part of a swap, through which SHA acquired from the county, an adjacent land-owner, the 12.4-acre parcel that it needed for the Route 100 right-of-way and clearly constituted at least part of the consideration for that acquisition. Moreover, at least at one point, SHA, through its assistant attorney general, asserted that the conveyance was being made pursuant to subsection (f)(1)(i), and SHA claims that BPW approved it in that belief. [4] The relevant documents, however, indicate much more persuasively that the ultimate conveyance was pursuant to subsection (g). The Amendment to the Supplemental Agreement that deleted the transportation use requirement in favor of a general public use requirement expressly references TR § 8-309(g) as authority for that substitution.

Moreover, if a conveyance under § 8-309(f)(1)(i) was intended, there would have been no need for the public use requirement,