Opinion ID: 2297312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Taking Without Just Compensation?

Text: HNS argues that, when the Board of Appeals denied the amended development plan solely on the basis of a Master Plan conflict, a taking without just compensation occurred. The Court of Special Appeals concluded that HNS failed to preserve properly this issue for appeal. We disagree with this reasoning because HNS presented, in oral argument to the Board of Appeals at its 17 December 2008 hearing, a vague, but notice-worthy, takings argument. [14] Although we consider the issue preserved (barely), we conclude that this challenge is waived for two reasons. Under Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(5), a brief is to contain [a] concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue, which may appear in the discussion of the issue or under a separate heading placed before the argument. Moreover, Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(6) requires a brief to supply argument in support of the party's position on each issue. A necessary part of any argument are case, statutory, and/or constitutional authorities to support it. We have said that Maryland Rules are not guides to the practice of law but precise rubrics `established to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice and [that they] are to be read and followed.' Isen v. Phoenix Assurance Co., 259 Md. 564, 570, 270 A.2d 476, 479 (1970) (quoting Brown v. Fraley, 222 Md. 480, 483, 161 A.2d 128, 130 (1960)). Maryland Rule 8-504(c) allows this Court to dismiss the appeal or make any other appropriate order with respect to the case, in the event of noncompliance with Md. Rule 8-504(a)(5). The Court of Special Appeals refused repeatedly (based on Md. Rule 8-504(a)(5)) to address issues not briefed properly by a party. See, e.g., Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assocs., 181 Md.App. 188, 202, 955 A.2d 869, 877 (2008) (stating that where a party cited no controlling law to support her position, the court refused to seek out law to sustain her position); Kramer v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 124 Md.App. 616, 634, 723 A.2d 529, 538 (1999) (refusing to address an issue not supported in the brief by argument or authority); Konover Prop. Trust, Inc. v. WHE Assocs., 142 Md.App. 476, 494, 790 A.2d 720, 730 (2002) (stating that where a party failed to cite any relevant law on an issue in its brief, the court refused to rummage in a dark cellar for coal that isn't there, or to fashion coherent legal theories to support appellant's sweeping claims (citing Elecs. Store, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, 127 Md.App. 385, 405, 732 A.2d 980, 990 (1999))). HNS's brief addressing the question of whether a taking occurred does not cite any constitutional or common law authority for its position. [15] The brief provides only sweeping accusations and conclusory statements. After reviewing HNS's brief, we are disinclined to search for and supply HNS with authority to support its bald and undeveloped allegation that the Board of Appeals's action constituted a taking, no matter how alluring such a sweeping claim may be. [16] Considering the well-developed body of law addressing Fifth Amendment takings, including those applied specifically to regulatory takings, this omission is unacceptable and so we deem this argument waived for present purposes.