Marc v. Richmond Am. Homes of Md., Inc.
| Docket Number | 0805-2020 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 2022 |
| Parties | DAVID J. MARC, ET AL. v. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF MARYLAND, INC., ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. 13-C-13-094319
Fader C.J., Arthur, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The underlying subject of this litigation is the effect of the stormwater management system for a newly constructed housing development on an adjacent, downhill property. The primary issue in this appeal, however, does not concern the merits of that dispute. Instead, this appeal concerns whether the appellants, David J. and Deborah A. Marc (the "Marcs"): (1) were precluded from pursuing a claim for injunctive relief against some or all of the appellees after a prior decision of this Court; and (2) if not precluded, chose a viable path to pursue such a claim.
After this Court last remanded this case to the Circuit Court for Howard County, the parties presented differing interpretations of our mandate, which led to a fundamental disconnect as to what should have occurred next. The ensuing procedural confusion significantly complicated the issues that were presented to the circuit court and the issues now presented on appeal. Ultimately, we: (1) agree with the circuit court that the Marcs could not pursue a claim for injunctive relief by either (a) a motion filed in a case that had been fully resolved or (b) a complaint that did not clearly state a new cause of action and allege facts to support the elements required for their request for injunctive relief; (2) hold that the Marcs were not precluded by res judicata or laches from pursuing their claim for injunctive relief to the extent that it was based on events occurring after the conversion of a silt pond to a stormwater management pond; and (3) hold that the circuit court should have provided the Marcs leave to amend their complaint against some, but not all, of the appellees. Accordingly, we will affirm the circuit court's denial of the Marcs' motions to reopen, for a new trial, and for a post-remand injunction; affirm in part, vacate in part, and reverse in part the court's dismissal of the complaint and summary judgment rulings; and remand for further proceedings. We will also reverse an award of sanctions against the Marcs.
The Marcs, the plaintiffs below, own a five-acre property situated at 6145 Old Washington Road in Elkridge on which they built their home. Much of the Marcs' property is subject to a conservation easement in favor of the Rockburn Land Trust, Inc., which contains significant restrictions on the Marcs' use of the property. The purpose of the easement "is to maintain the significant conservation features [of the property] . . . and the dominant scenic cultural, rural, agricultural, woodland and wetland characteristics of the Property, and to prevent the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with these features and characteristics and the maintenance of the Property in its open-space condition."
Richmond American Homes, Inc. ("Richmond"), an appellee and a defendant below, is the developer of the Augustine Valley Development, a seven-acre housing development situated uphill from the Marcs' property. Richmond is the successor-in-interest to Emily's Delight, LLC, the original developer of the land.
Augustine Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "HOA"), an appellee and a defendant below, is a homeowners association created for the Augustine Valley Development. The HOA is the owner of certain portions of the Augustine Valley Development, including "Lot 4," the lot in the development on which certain stormwater management features that are central to the present dispute are located.
In addition to Richmond, Emily's Delight, and the HOA, the Marcs also named as defendants more than 30 present and former owners of the 20 homes located in the Augustine Valley Development (the "Individual Homeowners"). All of the Individual Homeowners were members of the HOA at the time they owned homes in the Augustine Valley Development. Several of the Individual Homeowners no longer owned homes in the Augustine Valley Development at the time they were named as defendants in the Marcs' sixth amended complaint, which is the operative complaint for purposes of this appeal.
Howard County, Maryland (the "County") has ownership of and responsibility for the manmade aspects of the stormwater management features that are at issue in this appeal. Pursuant to a Developer Agreement and a Maintenance Agreement, both dated May 17, 2011, and Howard County Code § 18.504(b), the County agreed to accept future storm drains, stormwater management facilities, and landscaping that together made up the stormwater management system for the Augustine Valley Development into the County's system of publicly operated and maintained facilities. On October 24, 2019, the County officially assumed ownership of, and operation and maintenance responsibility for, the facilities. As noted, the HOA continues to own Lot 4, on which the facilities are located.
Emily's Delight initiated the development of the Augustine Valley Development in 2011. Richmond took over the project in late 2012 and built 20 homes, which were subsequently sold to and occupied by the Individual Homeowners. As part of the project, Emily's Delight and Richmond cleared and regraded the land and then constructed a stormwater management system with two features that the Marcs contend were the source of excessive stormwater runoff onto their property through April 2016. First, Richmond constructed a "riprap channel" around the border of the development, which diverted runoff coming from uphill properties around the development and onto the Marcs' property at a specific point.[1] Second, Richmond constructed a "silt pond" on Lot 4 to collect runoff that landed on the development and then directed it onto the Marcs' property at a point near where the riprap channel also deposited runoff. A depiction of the properties and those features, which the Marcs introduced at trial, is below:
(Image Omitted)
As we will explain, around the time of the September 2016 trial of this matter, Richmond converted the silt pond into a stormwater management pond.[2]
The Marcs filed their initial complaint in March 2013. By the time the matter proceeded to trial in September 2016, the operative complaint was the Marcs' three-count fifth amended complaint, which they filed in February 2016. In Count I, the Marcs alleged that the appellees collectively had altered the natural course of surface water over the Augustine Valley Development in such a way as to cause runoff onto their property "in inordinate amounts," that doing so had created a nuisance, and that their property suffered resulting damage in the form of flooding, sediment deposition, "erosion, loss of trees and a general degrading of the natural habitat." The Marcs sought damages in excess of $75, 000. In Count II, the Marcs alleged that the intruding water constituted a trespass on their property, which resulted in the same damages as the nuisance, for which the Marcs also sought damages in excess of $75, 000. In Count III, the Marcs alleged that the increased water runoff interfered with their "use and occupancy of their property," "[wa]s causing continuous and progressive damage to [their] property," and that they were "without an adequate remedy at law to abate the continued physical degradation of their property[.]" The Marcs sought "an injunction prohibiting Defendants from the continuing diversion of excessive and unreasonable water run-off onto Plaintiffs' property and direct[ing] Defendants to abate and cure these conditions."
After conducting a three-day bench trial in September 2016, the circuit court: (1) found that all the defendants had "engaged in creating a nuisance on Plaintiffs' land"; (2) found that Richmond and Emily's Delight had "engaged in trespass onto [the Marcs'] property through the intrusion of silt and storm water runoff"; (3) awarded nominal damages of $1.00 for each of Counts I and II, because the Marcs had failed to prove any measurable financial harm; and (4) entered an injunction against Richmond and the HOA. The injunction prohibited Richmond and the HOA "from allowing or causing concentrated flow of storm water runoff from Defendants' property or storm water management structures onto [the Marcs'] property in an amount that causes soil erosion or other damage when rainfall is Five Point Two (5.2) inches or less in a twenty-four (24) hour period at the location of Defendants' property[.]"[3]
Although the circuit court acknowledged that the runoff onto the Marcs' property was coming from two concentrated flows, it did not differentiate between damage coming from one source or the other in reaching its conclusion that the runoff flow was unreasonable. Instead, the court identified the problem as the unreasonable flow of runoff generally. Reflective of that conclusion, the court acknowledged that the conversion of the silt pond to a stormwater management pond might have solved the problem, expressed hope that "there would [be] no further damage" to the Marcs' property as a result of that conversion, but concluded that it was not possible to know whether that was the case. The court issued the injunction.
Richmond the HOA, and the Individual Homeowners filed an appeal in which they challenged only the circuit court's issuance of the injunction. In an unreported opinion, this Court reversed the injunction without disturbing any other aspect of the circuit court's judgment. Richmond American Homes...
To continue reading
Request your trial