Opinion ID: 3171495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trespass Claim against the Town of Goldsboro

Text: Ms. Litz contends that the Court of Special Appeals erred by deciding that her trespass claim against Goldsboro was a tort subject to the LGTCA and its notice requirement. She relies on Maryland common law to argue that local governments should not be afforded immunity from a trespass claim. She contends further that the adoption of the LGTCA did not change the common law standard and, therefore, her trespass claim should not be subject to the LGTCA. The Town responds that Ms. Litz did not assert an actual trespass claim against it, alleging only that the Town failed to stop a trespass by others. Because Ms. Litz did not allege that the Town committed a trespass, according to the Town, the issue of whether this claim is covered by the LGTCA is moot. Under common law, a trespass claim is generally “an intentional or negligent intrusion upon or to the possessory interest in property of another.” Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc., 212 Md. App. 451, 475, 69 A.3d 512, 526 cert. denied sub nom. Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, 435 Md. 269, 77 A.3d 1086 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In Ms. Litz’s Third Amended Complaint, she alleged that the “Town, County, DHMH and the State are invading and have invaded Litz’s property by approving residential septic systems in the Town that channel polluted ground water and discharge those waters in unnatural and harmful quantities, qualities, and rates of flow onto Litz’s property.” In our earlier opinion in this litigation, we found that the 24 complaint alleged a continuing cause of action on this score because, in the light most favorable to Ms. Litz, “a trier of fact could conclude that the Town’s duties were ongoing and continuous.” Litz I, 434 Md. at 648-49, 76 A.3d at 1091. In specific reference to the trespass claim, we concluded that Although her cause of action for trespass appears to be in reference to the ongoing effects from the approval of the septic systems, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to [Ms.] Litz, we do not construe this allegation to assert that the Town on a single occasion approved a septic system in Goldsboro that has channeled polluted water onto her property. Additionally, there is nothing in the Complaint that indicates that the Town did not approve any septic systems within three years of [Ms.] Litz filing a claim in 2010. From the earlier allegations that the private septic systems all penetrated the groundwater, that they were contributing to contamination of the ground and surface water, that such water was channeled eventually into Lake Bonnie, and that the contamination problems continued over a long period of time, one could infer reasonably that approval of septic systems by the Town contributed to the continual flow of effluent from the Town to Lake Bonnie. Litz I, 434 Md. at 650, 76 A.3d at 1091. Thus, Ms. Litz’s trespass claim was not barred by the relevant statute of limitations. We are tasked here, however, with determining whether the LGTCA’s notice requirement applies to the trespass claim. The Court of Special Appeals determined that a trespass claim is considered a tort subject to the LGTCA. We agree. The Court of Special Appeals relied on our decision in Lee v. Cline to conclude that the LGTCA embraced trespass claims. In Lee¸ our focus was on the language of the MTCA, which “plainly appear[ed] to cover intentional torts and constitutional torts as long as they were committed within the scope of state employment and without malice or gross negligence.” Lee, 384 Md. at 256, 863 A.2d at 304. Because the “term ‘tort’ as 25 defined by Blacks encompasses all ‘civil wrong,’ not just wrongs that were recognized as a civil wrong at common law,” it would follow necessarily that a trespass claim is included within this definition. Espina, 442 Md. at 325, 112 A.3d at 450. Ms. Litz takes issue with the intermediate appellate court’s reliance on Lee because Lee involved an interpretation of the MTCA, not the LGTCA. The MTCA was amended in 198517 to broaden the coverage “to include tort actions generally, with certain specified exceptions and limitations. Section 12-104(a)(1) of the State Government Article now provides that . . . [n]either intentional torts (in the absence of malice), nor torts based upon constitutional violations, are excluded.” Lee, 384 Md. at 255, 863 A.2d at 303. Therefore, under this statute, as long as the intentional tort or constitutional violation was “committed within the scope of state employment and without malice or gross negligence,” it is subject to the MTCA. Lee, 384 Md. at 256, 863 A.2d at 304. Because “the purpose of the [Maryland] Tort Claims Act’s immunity is to insulate state employees generally from tort liability if their actions are within the scope of 17 When the General Assembly enacted the Maryland Tort Claims Act in 1981, the wavier of the State’s governmental immunity was limited to six distinct categories of claims: These six categories were limited to specific types of negligence actions such as the negligent operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle, negligence by a state health care employee, defective conditions in state structures or property, and negligent actions by state employees in state parks or recreation facilities. These six categories would not have encompassed intentional torts or tort actions based upon constitutional violations. Lee, 384 Md. at 255, 863 A.2d at 303. 26 employment and without malice or gross negligence,” it would be reasonable for this “broader purpose” to apply fully to non-malicious intentional torts and covered constitutional violations. Lee, 384 Md. at 261, 863 A.2d at 307. There is not a vast chasm between the language of the two statutory tort claim schemes as to the tortious conduct covered. The LGTCA was enacted for a purpose similar to the MTCA, to “provide a remedy for those injured by local government officers and employees, acting without malice in the scope of their employment, while ensuring that the financial burden of compensation is carried by the local government ultimately responsible for the public officials’ acts.” Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 108, 660 A.2d 447, 465-66 (1995). Consequentially, the analysis for which tortious conduct is covered would be largely identical.18 The LGTCA “covers municipalities and counties and applies to ‘employees,’ as distinguished from the common law concept of public officials, and it applies to all torts without distinction, including intentional and constitutional torts.” Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md. App. 440, 457, 688 A.2d 448, 456 (1997). Because the language of the LGTCA makes no distinction between intentional and non-intentional torts, Ms. Litz’s trespass claim against the Town of Goldsboro would be subject to the LGTCA and its notice requirement. The notice requirement of the LGTCA is “intended to apprise a local government 18 The only major difference between the two statutes for present analytical purposes is the protection that each affords the state employees – the MTCA provides state employees with direct immunity from suit, whereas the LGTCA grants to local government employees only immunity from damages, not from suit. 27 of its possible liability at a time when it could conduct its own investigation, i.e., while the evidence was still fresh and the recollection of the witnesses was undiminished by time, sufficient to ascertain the character and extent of the injury and its responsibility in connection with it.” Prince George’s Cnty. v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450, 466-67, 19 A.3d 859, 869 (2011) (citing Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 126–27, 872 A.2d 1, 14 (2005)). Under the LGTCA, “an action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government or its employees unless the notice of the claim required by this section is given within 1 year after the injury.” Maryland Code (1974, 2013 Repl. Vol.), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-304(b)(1) (“CJP”). It further requires a plaintiff to provide notice in writing and “shall state the time, place, and cause of the injury.” CJP § 5-304(b)(2). We concluded previously that Ms. Litz’s trespass claim was a continuing tort based on the “ongoing effects from the approval of the septic systems.” See Litz I, 434 Md. at 650, 76 A.3d at 1091-92. Because we were not asked in the earlier case to determine whether Ms. Litz’s notice under the LGTCA was timely, we affirm now the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, which concluded that Ms. Litz may be able to show that her notice to the Town under the LGTCA was timely, and hold that it was improper for the Circuit Court to grant the Town’s motion to dismiss Ms. Litz’s trespass claim at this preliminary stage of litigation. Discovery will reveal likely the answer to this asserted defense. Thus, Ms. Litz is entitled to continue to litigate her tort claims (negligence and trespass) against the Town, but must show compliance with the notice requirements of 28 the LGTCA. We conclude further that her inverse condemnation claims against the State Respondents and the Town may proceed, without regard to the notice provisions of the MTCA or the LGTCA. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CAROLINE COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENTS. 29 Circuit Court for Caroline County Case No. 05-C-10-013616 Argued: November 9, 2015 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 23 September Term, 2015 ______________________________________ GAIL B. LITZ v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, ET AL. ______________________________________ Barbera, C.J. Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts Harrell, Jr., Glenn T. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Watts, J., which Battaglia and McDonald, JJ., join ______________________________________ Filed: January 22, 2016 Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the Majority that “the tort of trespass is covered by the notice requirement of the” Local Government Tort Claims Act (“the LGTCA”). Maj. Slip Op. at 9.1 Assuming that we reach the issue, I also agree with the Majority that “a claim for inverse condemnation is not covered by the notice provisions of” the LGTCA and the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“the MTCA”). Maj. Slip Op. at 9. I, however, would not reach that issue because I agree with the Court of Special Appeals that Gail B. Litz (“Litz”), Petitioner, failed to state a claim for inverse condemnation against the State and its agencies (together, “the State”). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.2 1 As the Majority notes, in its petition for a writ of certiorari, the Town contended that Litz failed to state a claim for trespass. This Court denied the Town’s petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted only Litz’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which did not present a question as to whether Litz stated a claim for trespass. Thus, like the Majority, I express no opinion on whether Litz adequately stated a claim for trespass, as that issue is not before this Court. On a related note, the Majority lists, as one of the questions presented in Litz’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the issue of “[w]hether the Court of Special Appeals exceeded the scope of this Court’s remand order[.]” Maj. Slip Op. at 8. In a footnote, the Majority notes that this issue “was not briefed fully by all sides[,]” Maj. Slip Op. at 8 n.9, but the Majority states: “[W]e will exercise our discretion to decide the issues, which we have determined are before us properly[,]” Maj. Slip Op. at 9 n.9. The Majority, however, does not address the issue of whether the Court of Special Appeals exceeded the scope of this Court’s remand order. Given that the Majority expresses no opinion on this issue, neither do I. 2 The Circuit Court for Caroline County (“the circuit court”) dismissed all of Litz’s claims against all of the defendants. Litz appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Litz filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted. See Litz v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t, 429 Md. 81, 54 A.3d 759 (2012). This Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Court of Special Appeals. See Litz v. Md. Dep’t of Env’t, 434 Md. 623, 657, 76 A.3d 1076, 1096 (2013). On remand, the Court of Special Appeals, among other things: (1) affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Litz’s claim for inverse condemnation against the State; (2) reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of Litz’s The Majority candidly acknowledges that it is writing on a blank slate. Specifically, the Majority states: A difficulty with [] Litz’s claim of a “taking” fitting neatly within conventional thinking about inverse condemnation is that her allegations focus predominantly on the inaction of Respondents, rather than any affirmative action by those parties. There is no controlling Maryland law that we could find that sheds light on this wrinkle. Maj. Slip Op. at 13 (emphasis added). The Majority proceeds to discuss out-of-State cases, and ultimately holds that Litz stated a claim for inverse condemnation based on Respondents’ inaction. See Maj. Slip Op. at 13-17. I would write on the blank slate differently. Specifically, I would hold that, to state a claim for inverse condemnation, a plaintiff must allege that some kind of affirmative action by a governmental entity constituted a taking; I would not hold that an omission by claims for inverse condemnation and trespass against the Town; and (3) remanded to the circuit court. The Majority: (1) reverses the Court of Special Appeals’s affirmance of the circuit court’s dismissal of Litz’s claims for inverse condemnation against the State; (2) affirms the Court of Special Appeals’s reversal of the circuit court’s dismissal of Litz’s claims for inverse condemnation and trespass against the Town; and (3) remands to the Court of Special Appeals with instructions to remand to the circuit court. See Maj. Slip Op. at 2829. In other words, on remand in the circuit court, Litz’s claim for inverse condemnation against the State, and her claims for inverse condemnation and trespass against the Town, will remain. As the Majority does, I would affirm the Court of Special Appeals’s reversal of the circuit court’s dismissal of Litz’s claims for inverse condemnation and trespass against the Town; however, unlike the Majority, I would also affirm the Court of Special Appeals’s affirmance of the circuit court’s dismissal of Litz’s claims for inverse condemnation against the State. In other words, under my position, on remand in the circuit court, Litz’s claims for inverse condemnation and trespass against the Town would remain, but Litz’s claim for inverse condemnation against the State would not. As noted above in Footnote 1, this Court denied the Town’s petition for a writ of certiorari; thus, the issue of whether Litz stated claims for trespass or inverse condemnation against the Town is not before this Court. -2- a governmental entity can constitute a taking. The definition of “inverse condemnation,” examples of claims for inverse condemnation, and judicial restraint lead me to this result. Earlier in this litigation, in Litz v. Md. Dep’t of Env’t, 434 Md. 623, 652, 76 A.3d 1076, 1093 (2013), we noted that an “[i]nverse condemnation is a taking without just compensation.” (Citation omitted). In other words, a claim for inverse condemnation is “a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency[.]” Id. at 653, 76 A.3d at 1093 (some emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Implicit in the definition of “inverse condemnation” is the principle that, to engage in an inverse condemnation, a governmental entity must, in fact, “take” property through some kind of affirmative action, as opposed to an omission. This Court’s precedent offers examples of claims for inverse condemnation, and it appears that every single one of them was based a governmental entity’s alleged active taking of property through some kind of affirmative action, as opposed to an omission. For example, in MacLeod v. City of Takoma Park, 257 Md. 477, 481, 478, 263 A.2d 581, 584, 582 (1970), a plaintiff raised a claim for inverse condemnation where a city demolished the plaintiff’s fire-damaged building. In Reichs Ford Rd. Joint Venture v. State Roads Comm’n of the State Highway Admin., 388 Md. 500, 506, 505, 504, 880 A.2d 307, 310, 309 (2005), a plaintiff raised a claim for inverse condemnation where, without “formally exercis[ing] its eminent domain powers[,]” the State Roads Commission of the State Highway Administration of the Maryland Department of Transportation took steps to -3- condemn the plaintiff’s property, thus allegedly scaring off the plaintiff’s existing tenant and future tenants.3 Similarly, in Coll. Bowl, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 394 Md. 482, 489, 907 A.2d 153, 157 (2006), a plaintiff raised a claim for inverse condemnation where a city allegedly “us[ed] the threat of condemnation to force the [plaintiff’s landlord] to undertake its own redevelopment of the [plaintiff’s] building.”4 In Coll. Bowl, 394 Md. at 489, 907 A.2d at 157, this Court offered even more examples of inverse condemnation, stating: [A]n inverse condemnation can take many different forms[: ]the denial by a governmental agency of access to one’s property, regulatory actions that effectively deny an owner [of] the physical or economically viable use of the property, conduct that causes a physical invasion of the property, hanging a credible and prolonged threat of condemnation over the property in a way that significantly diminishes its value, or . . . conduct that effectively forces an owner to sell. One of these types of inverse condemnation, a “regulatory taking,” occurs where a governmental entity adopts a “regulation [that] deprives the property owner of all viable economic use of the entire property at issue[.]” City of Annapolis v. Waterman, 357 Md. 484, 507, 745 A.2d 1000, 1012 (2000) (citation and footnote omitted); see also Muskin v. State Dep’t of Assessments & Taxation, 422 Md. 544, 566, 30 A.3d 962, 974 (2011) (“To 3 Specifically, in Reichs Ford Rd. Joint Venture, 388 Md. at 504, 880 A.2d at 309, a lessee operated a gas station on the plaintiff’s property. The State Roads Commission “met with . . . the lessee . . . to inform it of the intended condemnation[.]” Id. at 505, 880 A.2d at 309. The lessee “elected not to exercise its option to extend the lease term with [the plaintiff], apparently due to the looming specter of condemnation.” Id. at 505, 880 A.2d at 309. The plaintiff “claim[ed] that it was unable to lease the property as a gas station or for any other economically viable use due to the [State Roads Commission]’s plans.” Id. at 505, 880 A.2d at 310. 4 In Coll. Bowl, 394 Md. at 491, 907 A.2d at 158, this Court concluded that “[t]here was no taking.” -4- determine whether a regulatory taking occurred, the Court must look to the facts of the individual case and consider the following factors: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the governmental action.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In each of these scenarios, a plaintiff attempts to hold a governmental entity responsible for something that the governmental entity did, not something that the governmental entity did not do. By contrast, here, Litz advances the novel legal theory that governmental entities “took” her property by omission or inaction. The Majority endorses Litz’s theory by “recogniz[ing] an inverse condemnation claim based on alleged ‘inaction’ when one or more of the defendants has an affirmative duty to act under the circumstances.” Maj. Slip Op. at 13. To me, this is essentially the equivalent of creating a private right of action5 anytime that a plaintiff’s property decreases in value as a result of a governmental entity’s noncompliance with a statute—even if nothing in the statute’s language or legislative history indicates that the General Assembly intended to create a private right of action. As the Majority notes, “[u]nder the current version of the Environment Article of the Maryland Code, the State is empowered to step-in to ensure the enforcement of the Federal Water 5 “A private right of action is a basis upon which a claimant may bring a claim.” State Ctr., LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P’ship, 438 Md. 451, 517, 92 A.3d 400, 439 (2014); see also Private Right of Action, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (“private right of action An individual’s right to sue in a personal capacity to enforce a legal claim.” (Bolding in original)). -5- Pollution Control Act.” Maj. Slip Op. at 19-20 (citing Md. Code Ann., Envir. (1984, 2013 Repl. Vol.) (“EN”) § 9-253). In turn, EN § 9-253 states in its entirety: (a) In general. — For purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Secretary [of the Environment] is the State water pollution control agency in this State. (b) Granting of powers to Secretary. — The Secretary [of the Environment] has all powers that are necessary to comply with and represent this State under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (c) Other units of State government prohibited from exercising powers. — Another unit of the State government may not exercise any power given to the Secretary [of the Environment] under this section. (Paragraph breaks omitted). Nothing in EN § 9-253’s language indicates that the General Assembly intended to create a private right of action anytime that a plaintiff’s property decreases in value as a result of the Secretary of the Environment’s noncompliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Respectfully, the Majority neither mentions EN § 9-253’s legislative history nor addresses whether EN § 9-253’s legislative history indicates that the General Assembly intended to create a private right of action. Accordingly, there is no basis for affording the equivalent of a private right of action based on a governmental entity’s noncompliance with EN § 9-253. See Walton v. Mariner Health of Md., Inc., 391 Md. 643, 669, 894 A.2d 584, 599 (2006) (“Where the legislative history does not indicate any discussion whatsoever as to whether a statute gives rise to [] a[n implied private] right [of action], the fact that the [statute] is silent would weigh heavily against an intent by the [General Assembly] to create a private cause of action.”). Simply stated, I would hold that an affirmative action by a governmental entity— i.e., a “taking”—is essential to a claim for inverse condemnation. Alleging an omission or -6- inaction by the governmental entity is insufficient to state a claim for inverse condemnation. By holding otherwise, the Majority greatly expands the definition of inverse condemnation, the consequences of which are yet to be seen. For the above reasons, respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. Judge Battaglia and Judge McDonald have authorized me to state that they join in this opinion. -7-