4900 Park Heights Ave. LLC v. Cromwell Retail 1, LLC
Decision Date | 30 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 3136, Sept. Term, 2018,3136, Sept. Term, 2018 |
Citation | 227 A.3d 757,246 Md.App. 1 |
Parties | 4900 PARK HEIGHTS AVENUE LLC v. CROMWELL RETAIL 1, LLC |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Thomas M. Wood, IV (Nicole M. Barnard, Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, PA, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Meagan C. Borgerson (Jonathan P. Kagan, Kagan, Stern, Marinello & Beard, LLC, Harry C. Blumenthal, Liff, Walsh & Simmons, LLC, on brief), Annapolis, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Fader, C.J., Friedman, Gould, JJ.
Fader, C.J. 4900 Park Heights Avenue LLC ("4900 Park Heights"), the appellant, owns and operates The Sofa Store, which is located in a Glen Burnie business park developed by the appellee, Cromwell Retail 1, LLC ("Cromwell"). 4900 Park Heights initiated this litigation to resolve whether it had the right to erect on its premises, without Cromwell's approval, a 30-foot-tall, freestanding pylon sign to advertise its business. On the eve of trial, counsel informed the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County that the parties had reached a settlement and would not go forward with the trial. The next morning, counsel for both parties appeared in court, confirmed that they had reached an agreement, and placed terms on the record. The central issue in this appeal is whether the terms placed on the record were binding on the parties. The circuit court determined that they were and, therefore, granted Cromwell's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. We agree and, as to that issue, will affirm the judgment. However, because the enforcement order impermissibly modified part of the settlement agreement, we also will vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In January 2014, Cromwell transferred ownership of Lot 7R in Cromwell Business Park to 4900 Park Heights, subject to the terms of a 2014 Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions (the "2014 Declaration"). The 2014 Declaration contained a series of "perpetual and irrevocable" covenants that "run with the land within the Property." Central here are paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 2014 Declaration:
The Declaration also required that, "[b]efore commencement of construction of any improvements," the owner of the lot "shall submit plans and specifications" to Cromwell for approval.
In March 2015, 4900 Park Heights applied to the Anne Arundel County Department of Inspections and Permits for a permit to construct a freestanding, 30-foot tall, LED pylon sign on Lot 7R to advertise The Sofa Store. The County issued a permit in July 2015. In September 2016, without first seeking approval from Cromwell, 4900 Park Heights began construction.
Cromwell promptly sent 4900 Park Heights a cease and desist letter. Cromwell asserted that 4900 Park Heights was violating the 2014 Declaration by constructing the sign without Cromwell's advance approval. The letter stated that if 4900 Park Heights did not cease all work on the sign, Cromwell reserved "the right to seek injunctive relief and recoupments of any costs or expenses incurred in enforcing the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions."
4900 Park Heights beat Cromwell to the punch. In October 2016, 4900 Park Heights filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, asking the court to declare that Cromwell had unreasonably withheld its approval of the sign and, therefore, that construction of the sign could proceed.1 In February 2017, with the litigation still pending, 4900 Park Heights finished construction of the sign. The following month, Cromwell filed a counterclaim in which it sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief against 4900 Park Heights.
The parties’ opposing claims were scheduled to proceed to trial on March 28, 2018. The evening before that, however, counsel for the parties reached what they both believed to be a settlement. That night, Cromwell's counsel sent an e-mail to the court, copied to counsel for 4900 Park Heights, which stated in pertinent part: "Counsel will appear Wednesday to place on the record their agreement which settles this case as well as another case pending before the Court."2
The following day, counsel for both parties—Thomas M. Wood, IV, for 4900 Park Heights, and Jonathan P. Kagan, for Cromwell—appeared before the circuit court. After a preliminary discussion, the court noted that it was "happy that the parties have reached an agreement" and asked, "[W]hich side would like to memorialize the terms of the agreement?" The following discussion ensued:
The court expressed a preference that the parties "resolve any wordsmithing issues" with the agreement, and sign the final draft, before forwarding it to the court. Before dismissing the parties, the court reiterated that it was "pleased you reached a settlement."
On May 4, 2018, counsel for Cromwell wrote to the court to request that the court grant the parties "an additional 10 days, until May 14, 2018, to finalize and execute the settlement documents and file a Stipulation of Dismissal with the Court." The letter, which was copied to counsel for 4900 Park Heights, stated that "[w]hile the material terms of the settlement were agreed to on the record, the parties are still in the process of working out the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release, and Restated Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that will need to be filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alston v. TowneBank
...of legal claims provisions have been upheld when they are “sufficiently definite.” 4900 Park Heights Ave. LLC v. Cromwell Retail 1, LLC, 246 Md.App. 1, 31, 227 A.3d 757, 774, cert. denied sub nom. 4900 Park Heights Ave. v. Cromwell Retail, 469 Md. 655, 232 A.3d 257 (2020). Plaintiff's FCRA ......
-
Moore v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co.
...contracts, subject to the same general rules of construction that apply to other contracts." 4900 Park Heights Avenue, LLC v. Cromwell Retail 1, LLC , 246 Md. App. 1, 19–20, 227 A.3d 757 (quoting Erie Ins. Exch. v. Estate of Reeside , 200 Md. App. 453, 460, 28 A.3d 54 (2011) ), cert. denied......
-
Meit v. Kondratowicz
...within the scope of [] employment are binding upon [a] client under the ordinary principles of agency." 4900 Park Heights Ave. LLC v. Cromwell Retail 1, LLC, 246 Md. App. 1, 20 (2020) (quoting Salisbury Beauty Sch. v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists, 268 Md. 32, 45 (1973)). In appropriate circu......
-
Vogel v. Estate of Hillman
...term, or is otherwise too vague or indefinite with respect to an essential term, it is not enforceable." 4900 Park Heights Ave. LLC v. Cromwell Retail 1, LLC, 246 Md. App. 1, 31, cert. denied, 469 Md. 655 (2020) (quoting Stone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 361 F. Supp. 3d 539, 551 (D. Md. 2019......