Litz v. Md. Dep't of the Env't

Citation446 Md. 254,131 A.3d 923
Decision Date22 January 2016
Docket NumberNo. 23, Sept. Term, 2015.,23, Sept. Term, 2015.
Parties Gail B. LITZ v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF the ENVIRONMENT, et al.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

G. Macy Nelson (Law Office of G. Macy Nelson, LLC, Towson, MD; Philip W. Hoon, Hoon & Associates, LLC, Chestertown, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Steven R. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondents.

K. Nichole Nesbitt (Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondents.

ARGUED BEFORE: BARBERA, C.J., BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, WATTS, and GLENN T. HARRELL, JR. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

GLENN T. HARRELL, JR.

, J. (Retired, Specially Assigned).

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’ "
Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States, News Conference (12 August 1986).

Petitioner, Gail B. Litz, might have welcomed hearing those nine words spoken to her, but, according to her Third Amended Complaint, they were not forthcoming. In this litigation, Ms. Litz makes a second appearance before this Court regarding a parcel of real property (containing a lake) in Caroline County, Maryland, that was contaminated allegedly by run-off from failed septic systems serving homes and businesses in the Town of Goldsboro. The human sewage seeped out of the septic fields into ground and surface water flowing into drainage swales, which drained into streams flowing into Ms. Litz's lake. Ms. Litz operated a popular lake-front recreational campground on her property in Goldsboro. Unable to operate the campground because of the pollution to her lake, Ms. Litz lost the property through foreclosure by the bank holding the mortgage.

She filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Caroline County. After two prior trips to the Court of Special Appeals and one to this Court, Ms. Litz's remaining claims against Respondents, the State of Maryland, the Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE"), the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (in the guise of the Caroline County Health Department) (collectively referred to in this opinion sometimes as the "State" or the " State Respondents"), and the Town of Goldsboro, the case reaches us for the second time regarding her claims of inverse condemnation against all Respondents and trespass against the Town. We issued a writ of certiorari to consider questions regarding Ms. Litz's relative success in stating these claims and the applicability of the Local Government Tort Claims Act and the Maryland Tort Claims Act. After determining in our first encounter with this litigation that Ms. Litz filed suit within applicable statutes of limitations, we hold now that, at the preliminary motion stage of the litigation, Ms. Litz provided sufficient factual averments to state claims for inverse condemnation against Respondents.1

ALLEGATIONS IN THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 2

The 140 acre Litz property is located in the Town of Goldsboro in Caroline County, Maryland. When Ms. Litz's parents purchased the property in 1948, it contained a pond and grist mill. The Litz family constructed a dam in the mid–1950s to create originally a 28–acre lake, known as "Lake Bonnie," to assist with irrigation of the fields. The Litz family opened also a recreational campground business on the property, which had campsites, swimming, fishing, and boating—centered around Lake Bonnie. Ms. Litz inherited the property in 2001 and became the owner of the campground business. It was her "intention and expectation that she would continue to own and operate the Campground as her primary occupation and source of income."

Lake Bonnie "receives its water from two local streams, the Oldtown Branch and the Broadway Branch, and [the lake] discharges a constant overflow of water [through a spillway] directly into the Choptank River," a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Because Goldsboro was a small town3 , there was no public water or sewer service available. The residents and businesses in the Town relied on individual wells and septic systems. Both of the local streams receive groundwater and surface water from roads maintained by the Maryland State Highway Administration and flow into Lake Bonnie. Two local drainage associations4 were created along these streams. The municipal surface water open drainage collection system flows also into the streams and ultimately into Lake Bonnie.

As time passed, the septic systems within the Town began to fail, the septic fields overflowed into the open drainage system, and contaminated the two streams, which led to the contamination of Lake Bonnie. Following failed attempts to fix the problem in the 1970s, the Caroline County Health Department conducted studies in the 1980s.5 A study conducted in 1985 by Lester A. Coble, Jr., then Director of the Caroline County Department of Health, "found that between 70% and 80% of the Town had at least one of the three following problems: (1) confirmed sewage pits; (2) raw sewage or waste water; or (3) shallow wells less than one hundred feet or deep wells less than fifty feet from a source of contamination."

By 1988, the Caroline County Health Department reported to the Maryland Department of the Environment that the shallow wells tested in Goldsboro contained "elevated levels of fecal coliform," i.e., pathogens found in human bodily waste. On 18 September 1995, the Caroline County Health Department concluded that the "use of the stormwater management system in the Town as a sewage system has gotten to crisis proportions." A 1 December 1995 letter from the Maryland Department of the Environment stated that "[t]here are actual water quality impacts on Lake Bonnie ... It now appears that the situation has deteriorated and created environmental concerns that will need to be addressed."

On 8 August 1996, MDE and Goldsboro's then-Mayor William H. Bartin signed an administrative consent order which "explain[ed] the problems, order[ed] Goldsboro to take certain actions, impose[d] mandatory reporting obligations and specifie[d] penalties for non-compliance." Some of the specific requirements of the agreement between MDE and Goldsboro included:

1. Within 60 days ... (Goldsboro will) identify the private sewage disposal systems located in and around Goldsboro which are discharging pollutants to surface or ground water ...
2. By October 30, 1996, complete a study to identify and characterize the construction of a public sewer system ...
3. By January 1, 1997, submit (to MDE) for review and approval a plan and schedule ... for construction of a public sewer system (the "Compliance Plan")4. Within 30 days of approval of the Compliance Plan, begin implementation of the Compliance Plan.

Meeting the timetable and remedies contemplated by this Consent Order did not come to pass.

In 2004, the Caroline County Health Department issued warnings to multiple towns, including Goldsboro, about issuing additional building permits for areas with water and sewage concerns. Even with these warnings, "the Town has failed to comply with any of the material terms of the Consent Order and MDE has enforced no part of it."

Because Lake Bonnie was being polluted continually by the pollutants in the water flowing through the drainage system into the Oldtown Branch and the Broadway Branch and then into Lake Bonnie, Ms. Litz alleges that "the campground has been destroyed, and Litz's property has been substantially devalued," which left her "unable to pay the mortgage on the Litz property because the campground was generating no income." A foreclosure action resulted and the property was sold to Provident State Bank on 14 May 2010 for $364,000.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Litz's original complaint, filed on 8 March 2010, sought a permanent injunction and alleged negligence, trespass, private and public nuisance, and inverse condemnation against the Town of Goldsboro and Caroline County (the Health Department6 ) and negligence and inverse condemnation against MDE. An amendment later added a count for mandamus or equitable relief under the Environmental Standing Act. Ms. Litz's second amended complaint added the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DHMH") and the State of Maryland as defendants, seeking a permanent injunction and alleging negligence, trespass, private and public nuisance, and inverse condemnation against the newly added defendants.

On 13 September 2010, a hearing was conducted in the Circuit Court on motions to dismiss (based on a host of defenses, including applicable statutes of limitation) filed by MDE, DHMH, the State, the County, and Goldsboro. The Circuit Court granted the motions to dismiss as to all defendants7 , save the Town, reserving ruling as to the Town to allow for a response to be filed. On 22 September 2010, Ms. Litz filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the Circuit Court and, a few days later, filed her opposition to Goldsboro's Motion to Dismiss. On the same day, Ms. Litz filed her Third Amended Complaint, which added some factual allegations, but stated no additional claims.

The trial judge denied Ms. Litz's Motion for Reconsideration and dismissed her claims against all of the defendants, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Ms. Litz appealed to the Court of Special Appeals8 , which affirmed, in an unreported opinion, the Circuit Court's dismissal based on its narrow conclusion that Ms. Litz's claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitation.

We granted Ms. Litz's first Petition for Certiorari, Litz v. Maryland Dep't of Env't, 429 Md. 81, 54 A.3d 759 (2012)

. We concluded ultimately that "it was error to affirm the grant of the motions to dismiss Litz's causes of action for negligence, trespass, and inverse condemnation on the grounds of limitations, but we affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court and the intermediate appellate court in dismissing Litz's nuisance counts." Litz v. Maryland...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Md. Shall Issue v. Hogan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • November 15, 2018
    ...as the Maryland Constitution, to the extent its Takings Clause follows federal law. (See Compl. ¶ 21 (citing Litz v. Md. Dep't of Env't. , 446 Md. 254, 131 A.3d 923, 930 (2016) ("[T]he decisions of the Supreme Court on the Fourteenth Amendment are practically direct authorities [for constru......
  • Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cnty.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 24, 2020
    ...and [ ] the decisions of the Supreme Court on the Fourteenth Amendment are practically direct authorities.’ " Litz v. Md. Dep't of Env't , 446 Md. 254, 266, 131 A.3d 923 (2016) (footnote omitted) (quoting Bureau of Mines v. George's Creek Coal & Land Co. , 272 Md. 143, 156, 321 A.2d 748 (19......
  • Nero v. Mosby
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 7, 2018
    ...the MTCA to grant only immunity from liability would render the phrase "immune from suit" meaningless. See Litz v. Md. Dep't of Env't , 446 Md. 254, 131 A.3d 923, 938 n.18 (2016) ("[T]he MTCA provides state employees with direct immunity from suit, whereas the LGTCA grants to local governme......
  • Willowbrook Apartment Associates, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 27, 2021
    ...that Maryland courts apply to laws passed by local governments. Maryland Const., 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 Amend......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Castles-and Roads-in the Sand: Do All Roads Lead to a 'Taking'?
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 48-10, October 2018
    • October 1, 2018
    ...bet ween planning-level/legislative versus min-4. 63 So. 3d 835 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011).5. Litz v. Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, 131 A.3d 923 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016).6. See, e.g., Christopher Serkin, Passive Takings: e State’s Armative Duty to Protect Property, 113 M. L. R. 345 (......
  • Green Infrastructure for Chesapeake Stormwater Management in a Changing Climate
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 48-2, February 2018
    • February 1, 2018
    ...for inverse condemnation by pleading governmental inaction “in the face of an airmative duty to act.” Litz v. Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, 446 Md. 254, 267 (Md. 2016) (alleging state’s failure to address pollution and sewage from private property owners’ septic ields resulted in runof that ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT