Dabbs v. Anne Arundel Cnty.
Decision Date | 10 April 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 23, Sept. Term, 2017,23, Sept. Term, 2017 |
Citation | 182 A.3d 798,458 Md. 331 |
Parties | William A. DABBS, Jr., et al. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by John R. Greiber, Jr. (Roy L. Mason, Smouse & Mason, LLC, Towson, MD; Robert H. B. Cawood, Cawood & Cawood, LLC, Annapolis, MD), on brief, for Petitioners.
Argued by Kurt J. Fischer (Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD; Nancy Duden, County Attorney, Hamilton Tyler, Deputy County Attorney, Anne Arundel, County Office of Law, Annapolis, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued before: Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), Dale R. Cathell (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
"[D]espite reams of papers being filed, it is[, still to this day,] [ ] difficult to tease out [precisely what the Dabbs Class'] specific contentions are except for the assertion that they should receive a refund of some unspecified amount."
Dabbs, et al. v. Anne Arundel County , Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Case No. 02–C–11–165251 (14 January 2016).
This is the latest installment of a litigation saga (although perhaps we are nearing its end) traveling two quite kindred paths over more than fifteen years, (Halle, et al. v. Anne Arundel County ("Halle ") and Dabbs, et al. v. Anne Arundel County ("Dabbs ") ) in Maryland's courts. Pursuant to the power vested in the government of Anne Arundel County, Maryland ("the County") through 1986 Md. Laws, ch. 350, the County imposed road and school impact fees according to County districts beginning in 1987.1 These fees were paid usually by land developers and builders.2 Those who paid impact fees (like the Dabbs Class) might become eligible, under certain circumstances, for refunds of those fees. See Anne Arundel County Code § 17–11–210.3 Refunds were contingent upon the County's failure to utilize or encumber within a specified time the collected fees for present or future eligible capital improvements, i.e., projects for the "expansion of the capacity of public schools, roads, and public safety facilities and not for replacement, maintenance, or operations." § 17–11–209(a).4 The Dabbs Class' claims are a demand for refunds of an unspecified amount of impact fees collected by the County between fiscal years (FY) 1997–2003.
Halle Dev., Inc. v. Anne Arundel County , No. 1299, Sept. Term, 2016 at 6, 2017 WL 5629677 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 22, 2017).9 The intermediate appellate court, in 2008, held, inter alia in an unreported opinion, that the circuit court erred in its formulation of the mathematical formula used to calculate that $4,719,359 in refunds were due. The County was entitled, in fact, to count impact fee encumbrances10 when determining impact fees available for refund. Halle Development v. Anne Arundel County , No. 2552, Sept. Term, 2006 at 8–9 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May. 5, 2008) ( ); Halle Development v. Anne Arundel County , No. 2552, Sept. Term, 2006 at 52 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 7, 2008) ( ). The intermediate appellate court, on remand, instructed the circuit court to recalculate appropriately the refunds with consideration given to the encumbered impact fees. See id. The County sought successfully a writ of certiorari from this Court to review that judgment. We affirmed, on 6 May 2009, the intermediate appellate court regarding its decision as to the encumbrances, and directed a remand to the circuit court to calculate available impact fee refunds. See Anne Arundel County v. Halle Dev., Inc. , 408 Md. 539, 971 A.2d 214 (2009).
On 25 March 2011, the circuit court reduced the refunds for which the payors were eligible from $4,719,359 to $1,342,360, plus interest. The Halle Class, in response, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with this Court. We denied the Halle Class' attempt to pole-vault over review by the intermediate appellate court. The Halle Class appealed then to the intermediate appellate court. In a 29 July 2013 unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's 25 March 2011 order. The Halle Class petitioned again for a writ of certiorari. We denied that petition also. The circuit court awarded, on remand on 13 May 2014, counsel fees in the amount of 39 percent of the $1,342,360 in refunds, plus five-percent interest on each refund, and, on 8 August 2016, issued its final judgment. The owners appealed to the intermediate appellate court, which, in an unreported opinion on 22 November 2017, affirmed the circuit court's 8 August 2016 order, explaining, "in prior opinions, [the intermediate appellate court and this Court] have already addressed all but one11 of the arguments raised by the [Halle Class]." Halle Development v. Anne Arundel County , No. 1299, Sept. Term, 2016 at 1, 2017 WL 5629677 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 22, 2017).12
We adopt, supplementing as needed, the intermediate appellate court's recitation of the procedural posture of this case as rendered in Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County , 232 Md. App. 314, 328–31, 157 A.3d 381, 389–91 (2017), cert. granted Dabbs v. Anne Arundel Co. , 454 Md. 677, 165 A.3d 473 (2017) :
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weir v. Newsom
...; Common Sense All. v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. , at *7, 2015 WL 4730204 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015) ; Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County , 458 Md. 331, 182 A.3d 798, 813 (2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 230, 202 L.Ed.2d 127 (2018).4 The Court also notes that the exorbitant fee......
-
Willowbrook Apartment Associates, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
...Art. III, Sec. 40 ; Litz v. Maryland Dep't of Environment , 446 Md. 254, 265-66, 131 A.3d 923 (2016) ; see Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County , 458 Md. 331, 348, 182 A.3d 798 (2018). "[T]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article III, § 40, of the Maryland Co......
-
Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of Harnett
...854 S.E.2d 1 (citing Koontz , 570 U.S. at 603, 133 S.Ct. 2586 ). On the contrary, the Court of Appeals found Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County , 458 Md. 331, 182 A.3d 798 (2018), in which Maryland's highest court held that generally applicable fees do not implicate the "unconstitutional conditio......
-
Parkway Neuroscience & Spine Inst., LLC v. Katz, Abosch, Windesheim, Gershman & Freedman, P.A.
...are regularly used in the accounting field and have been recognized in Maryland and other courts. See, e.g. , Dabbs v. Anne Arundel Cnty. , 458 Md. 331, 360, 182 A.3d 798 (2018) ; Reiger v. Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP , 117 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1009 (S.D. Cal. 2000) ("[GAAP] comprise a set of......