Jones v. Anne Arundel Cnty.
| Decision Date | 01 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 32,32 |
| Parties | DARYL JONES v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Daryl Jones v. Anne Arundel County. Maryland, et al., No. 32, September Term, 2012. Opinion by Battaglia, J.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT - EXPRESS POWERS ACT, SECTION 5(S) OF ARTICLE 25A, MARYLAND CODE - ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY COUNCIL - AUTHORITY TO REMOVE A COUNCILMEMBER FOR CHANGE OF "RESIDENCE"
Daryl Jones, a member of the Anne Arundel County Council, was c onvicted f or failing to file a federal tax return and sentenced to 5 months incarceration in a federal correctional facility in South Carolina. The remaining members of the Anne Arundel County Council enacted a bill to declare Jones's seat vacant under Section 202(c) of the Anne Arundel County Charter, which provides that a councilmember's seat shall be vacated if he "move[s] his residence from the councilmanic district in which he resided at the time of his election." The Court of Appeals held that the County Council did not have the authority to remove Jones, under Section 5(s) of the Express Powers Act, Article 25A, Maryland Code (1957, 2011 Repl. Vol.), which provides that the County may "pass all ordinances . . . as may be deemed expedient in maintaining the peace, good government, health and welfare of the county." Section 5(S) provided the County with the power to enact public local laws, applying to all people within the County and the bill, which applied to Jones alone, was not a local law but a special law.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT - ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CHARTER - QUALIFICATIONS OF COUNCILMEMBERS - MEANING OF "RESIDENCE" UNDER SECTION 202(C) - DOMICILE
Section 202(c) of the Anne Arundel County Charter provides that a councilmember's seat shall be vacated if he "move[s] his residence from the councilmanic district in which he resided at the time of his election." Consistent with longstanding jurisprudence interpreting constitutional, statutory and charter provisions, the Court of Appeals held that "residence" under Section 202(c) means domicile, or an individual's permanent legal home. Thus, the Court held that a councilmember, whose domicile rem ained in his councilmanic district while he was incarcerated in South Carolina, did not move his residence, and thereby did not vacate his seat.
EQUITABLE DEFENSES - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE
The clean hands doctrine did not bar a councilmember from bringing an action against the Anne Arundel County and the Anne Arundel County Council where the basis for his claim, which was the County Council's interpretation of residence under Section 202(c) of the Anne Arundel County Charter, did not relate to the improper conduct alleged by the County and County Council.
Opinion by Battaglia, J.
Our decision of the present case depends upon whether "residence," in a provision of the Anne Arundel County Charter, means a place of abode or domicile. A place of abode includes any dwelling or place where one sleeps, Boer v. University Specialty Hospital, 421 Md. 529, 53 8, 27 A.3d 175, 180 (2011), and merely requires "actual physical presence," Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490, 496, 325 A.2d 392, 395 (1974), while domicile is the particular permanent home of an individual, "to which place he has, whenever he is absent, the intention of returning." Shenton v. Abbott, 178 Md. 526, 530, 15 A.2d 906, 908 (1940). A domicile serves as an individual's residence for "voting, income tax returns, driver's license, motor vehicle registration, school attendance, receipt of mail, banking, contracts and legal documents, the keeping of personal belongings, [and] membership in organizations[.]" Blount v. Boston, 351 Md. 360, 367-68, 718 A.2d 1111, 1115 (1998). An individual may have several abodes, but he or she may have but one domicile. Shenton, 178 Md. at 530, 15 A.2d at 908.
The section of the Anne Arundel County Charter at issue provides:
(c) Change of Residence. If any member of the County Council during his term of office shall move his residence from the councilmanic district in which he resided at the time of his election, his office shall be forthwith vacated; but no member of the County Council shall be required to vacate his office by reason of any change in the boundary lines of his councilmanic district made during his term.
Based upon this provision, the Anne Arundel County Council, Appellee, enacted a bill that provided that Daryl Jones, Appellant, forfeited his elected councilmanic position. TheCounty Council reasoned that Jones "move[d] his residence from the councilmanic district in which he resided at the time of his election" to a correctional facility in South Carolina, after having been convicted of failing to file a federal tax return.
Jones, thereafter, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County challenged the authority of the County Council to expel him as a member based upon its interpretation of "residence" as a temporary place of abode. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and County Council, concluding that the County Council had the authority to declare Jones's seat vacant under the Express Powers Act, Section 5(S), Article 25A of the Maryland Code1 and that the County Council properly interpreted "residence"under Section 202(c) as a temporary place of abode. Jones appealed and, prior to a decision in the Court of Special Appeals, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which we granted. 427 Md. 62, 46 A.3d 404 (2012). Jones presents two questions for our consideration:
In response, the County and County Council filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Conditional Cross-Petition, which we also granted, 427 Md. 62, 46 A.3d 404 (2012), to consider the following question:
Does the Clean Hands Doctrine bar the Petitioner's claims for relief seeking removal of the incumbent member of the County Council who now represents the First Councilmanic District from office and restoration of the Petitioner to office for the remainder of the term that expires in December 2014?
We shall hold that the County Council did not have the authority, under Section 5 of the Express P owers Act, to declare Jones's seat vacant and that "residence" in Section 202(c) embodies the notion of domicile, such that Jones did not "move his residence" by virtue of his five-month incarceration. We finally shall hold that the clean hands doctrine does not bar Jones's claim.
In 2006 and again in 2010, Daryl Jones was elected to serve as a member of the Anne Arundel County Council for the First Councilmanic District. In November of 2011, however, Jones pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in federal district court to one count of willful failure to file income tax returns, in violation of Section 7203 of Title 26 of the United States Code, and was sentenced to a 5 month term, commencing on January 23, 2012, in a federal correctional facility in South Carolina.
In December of 2011, pursuant to the advice of the County Attorney, Councilmember Benoit of the Anne Arundel County Council introduced Bill 85-11 and Councilmember Grasso introduced Resolution 65-11, which declared that Jones's seat would be vacated,according to Section 202(c) of the Charter, "on the date that Councilman Jones begins 'residence' in a federal correctional facility that is located outside of Councilmanic District I."2 The Bill and Resolution were scheduled to be considered by the County Council on,January 17, 2012.
On January 4, 2012, Jones filed a three-count Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Other Relief in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. In Count One, Jones sought a declaratory judgment that "(A) Councilman Jones' temporary absence from Councilmanic District I does not constitute a change in residence under Section 202 (c) of the AnneArundel County Charter and (B) his office as a Councilman does not become vacant by virtue of the temporary absence." Counts Two and Three reiterated the substance of Count One, and included requests for injunctive relief and mandamus to prevent the declaration of a vacancy of Jones's seat and the removal of Jones from office. On January 17, 2012, the County Council, with Jones abstaining, voted to adopt Bill 85-11. Peter I. Smith was later appointed to fill the vacancy for the First Councilmanic District.
Thereafter, on January 25, 2011, Jones filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and for the Entry of Expedited Declaratory Relief, alleging that the County Council lacked the authority to declare his...
To continue reading
Request your trial