Myers v. Board of Commissioners for Carroll County, MD.

Panel: Wright, Kehoe, Irma S. Raker (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Wright, J. ^{70 331} This dispute arises out of a challenge to the location of the border between Baltimore County and Carroll County. On April 26, 2017, Douglas Myers, appellant, filed an action for declaratory relief in the Circuit Court for Carroll County ³³² against the appellees, Board of Commissioners for Carroll County, Maryland, and Baltimore County, Maryland. Myers specifically requested that the circuit court change the line between the counties from its current location to one that he alleged was consistent with the General Assembly's intent at the time Carroll County was created.

In response, appellees filed a motion to dismiss Myers's claim. Upon determining that it did not have jurisdiction over Myers's claim, the circuit court granted appellees' motion to dismiss. Myers now challenges the circuit court's order and presents the following question for our review, which we have reworded and consolidated for clarity: 1 1. Whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Myers's action for declaratory relief for lack of jurisdiction?

For the reasons provided below, we answer this question in the negative and affirm the circuit court's judgment. BACKGROUND Myers's challenge to the location of the border between Carroll County and Baltimore County arose from his ownership of land located at the border. 2 This case represents the third time that Myers has pursued litigation against appellees regarding the proper location of the border. ³³³ A. 2006 Lawsuit On December 16, 2002, Allender Property, LLC ("Allender"), 3 received a Concurrency Management Certificate ("CMC") from Carroll County. The CMC permitted Allender to build a residential community on the land at issue in the instant dispute. But on June 10, 2003, Carroll County adopted an ordinance suspending the approval of "all residential development plans which had not yet received formal approval from the Carroll County Planning Commission." Allender's development plan had not received approval from the County and was therefore suspended. ⁷¹ About three years later, Allender filed a lawsuit against Carroll County in the Circuit Court for Carroll County.

In its complaint, Allender alleged that it suffered financial injuries because of Carroll County's refusal to honor its CMC. On March 11, 2009, Allender and the Board of County Commissioners of Carroll County entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to resolve the lawsuit. Therein, Allender agreed to "dismiss with prejudice all claims and controversies at issue in the litigation in exchange for payment in the amount of [$ 1 million], less amounts that [Myers and Allender] owed to the County." 4 B. 2007 Lawsuit In 2007, Allender filed a lawsuit against appellees in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. In its "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Writ of Survey," Allender sought "a declaration from [the circuit court] regarding ³³⁴ the legal location of the political boundary ... between Baltimore County and Carroll County ...." Allender alleged that the original boundary was established by the General Assembly in 1835 and was intended to be a straight line.

See 1835 Md. Laws, Chapter 256; confirmed by 1836 Md. Laws, Chapter 19 (Jan. 19, 1937). Allender then pointed out that the General Assembly commissioned a survey to mark the boundary in 1840, see 1840 Md. Laws, Chapter 10 (Jan. 8, 1841), and that this survey was completed by Amon Richards in 1841. Allender argued that the results of Amon Richards's survey were "not accurate." 5 Though the land in dispute was being "regulated and taxed by Baltimore County," Allender asserted that the land should have been under the jurisdiction of Carroll County. Allender therefore requested that the circuit court "declare that ... the correct, legal [b]oundary between Baltimore County and Carroll County is the line [established in] 1835[.]" The 2007 lawsuit concluded on August 24, 2007, when the parties agreed to file a voluntary dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

In response to Allender's contentions regarding Amon Richards's survey, appellees jointly prepared a "Retracement of the Survey enacted by the Maryland General Assembly in Chapter 10 of the Acts of 1840," ("Retracement Survey") in 2008. To conduct the Retracement Survey, "surveyors interpreted the General Assembly's intent and provided a conclusion regarding the boundary line." Appellees state that they have relied on the survey since its completion. C. The Instant Lawsuit The instant action began on April 26, 2017, when Myers, in his personal capacity, 6 filed a Complaint for Declaratory ⁷² Judgment and Injunctive Relief against appellees in the Circuit ³³⁵ Court for Carroll County. Myers brought three counts against the appellees: Count I - Action for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief; Count II - Additional Action for Declaratory Relief; and Count III - Other Action Including Costs.

As to Count I, Myers asserted that "[a]ll parties [were] bound by administrative collateral estoppel" to follow a decision on the boundary made by a Zoning Commissioner in Baltimore County. As to Count II, Myers alleged that appellees illegally and erroneously changed the boundary line established by the General Assembly in 1835. Finally, as to Count III, Myers demanded the "full balance of compensatory damages due [to him] from the [2006] claim" in the amount of $ 700,000.00. Myers sought the following relief from the circuit court: Count I: "declare that Carroll County has, and must exercise, jurisdiction" over the property at issue.

Count II: (A) declare that the 1841 Amon Richards's survey was ineffective to change the location of the boundary line from that created by the General Assembly in 1835; (B) declare that the 2008 Retracement Survey was ineffective to change the location of the boundary line; (C) declare that the location of the boundary line was in the same position as established by the General Assembly in 1835; and (D) declare that appellees have, and must continue to exercise, jurisdiction over the property within their jurisdictions as established by the General Assembly in 1835. Count III: (A) award to [Myers] the unpaid balance of compensatory damages from the 2006 lawsuit, $ 700,000, as well as costs arising from the instant suit; (B) order a speedy hearing of the suit; and (C) award to [Myers] any other relief the court deemed appropriate. On June 16, 2017, appellees filed motions to dismiss Myers's complaint 7 and, in their supporting memorandum, provided ³³⁶ several arguments as to why the circuit court should grant their motions. 8 Myers responded to the motions to dismiss on June 30, 2017, 9 and appellees filed their reply on September 13, 2017. The circuit court held a motions hearing on September 26, 2017.

At the hearing, in addition to making the arguments set out in their supporting memorandum, counsel for Carroll County averred that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Myers's claims. On December 5, 2017, the circuit court granted appellees' motions and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In its opinion, the circuit court explained its ruling as follows: In the Plaintiff's prayers for relief, he seeks that the Court declare that Carroll County shall exercise jurisdiction over a ⁷³ portion of property located in Baltimore County. Because this relief, effectively, requires that the Court relocate, in some manner, the Carroll County and Baltimore County boundary line, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant this relief as such relief must be granted by the General Assembly .

As to Count Two of the Plaintiff's Complaint, all of his prayers seek that the Court declare that the Amon Richards's Survey, the Retracement Survey and the precise location of the boundary line ... between the Counties be at a location other than that which was recorded in the Amon Richards's Survey, authorized by the legislature. The Court ³³⁷ has no jurisdiction and, effectively, no power under the Maryland Constitution to move a county boundary . Therefore, the Court cannot grant the relief the Plaintiff seeks in this regard. The Court agrees that some legal action should occur to definitively resolve the precise location of the northeastern boundary.

This is especially true when considered with the fact that the original legislation creating Carroll County calls for a straight line and the surveyor who marked the line some few years later leaves posterity with monuments, and the benefit of modern technology are nine separate segments with slightly different bearings and calls. Therefore, the legislature may, on its own initiative, take some action, if to do nothing more than to adopt the Retracement Survey as has been followed by both Carroll County and Baltimore County since it was performed. The Court, however, does not have the authority to order the legislature to consider the matter nor take any other action which effectively requires the Court to consider possibly defining or relocating county boundaries . Count Three of the Complaint seeks a whole host of relief for past issues between the Plaintiff and the respective Counties, and as set forth in the pending Motions to Dismiss, the relief sought has been subsequently dismissed by the Plaintiff, and the Court will dismiss these claims without prejudice but will comment that the Court believes that all of the defenses raised by both Counties in this action in their respective pleadings are fully supported as to all allegations raised therein.

All of the matters have been previously litigated .... Myers filed a motion for reconsideration on December 15, 2017, where he argued that the circuit court dismissed his complaint "for reasons not contained in [appellees' pleading]," and that the circuit court's opinion was "biased." The circuit court denied Myers's motion on January 3, 2018. Additional facts will be included as they become relevant to our discussion below. ³³⁸ STANDARD OF REVIEW "Where a controversy is appropriate for resolution by declaratory judgment ... the trial court must render a declaratory judgment." Christ by Christ v. Dept. of Natural Resources , 335 Md. 427 , 435, 644 A.2d 34 (1994). The Court of Appeals has "emphasized, time after time, that dismissal 'is rarely appropriate in a declaratory judgment action.' " Id.

(quoting Popham v. State Farm , 333 Md. 136 , 140 n.2, 634 A.2d 28 (1993). In Christ by Christ , 335 Md. at 435 , 644 A.2d 34 , the Court of Appeals went on to explain, however, that "[i]t is proper to dismiss a