Opinion ID: 2068552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attorney's Fees under the Maryland Open Meetings Act

Text: Although we conclude that, under the Yorkdale rule, Petitioners' challenge to the validity of the City Council's authorization of the parking lot in Ordinance 04-659, in light of the Council's subsequent enactment of Ordinance 04-855, is moot, this is so only insofar as their challenge seeks to undo the validity of the parking lot at the Cresmont complex. Whether Petitioners are entitled to attorney's fees and, if so, how much those fees should be, as awarded generally by the Circuit Court upon its conclusion that Petitioners' proved that the Committee's process leading to the adoption of Ordinance 04-659 violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act, is a separate and collateral consideration that remains to be decided finally by the trial judge. As noted at the outset of this opinion, we are not compelled here to reach the parties' questions in this regard, because of our holding as to mootness; however, we shall comment (admittedly as dicta) on the issue for guidance when this matter is considered by the trial judge. The Maryland Open Meetings Act is found in the State Government Article in Title 10, Subtitle 5, §§ 10-501 to -512. See, e.g., Md.Code, State Gov't Art. § 10-512 (This subtitle may be cited as the `Open Meetings Act.'). The Act provides, in § 10-510(c), that [i]n an action under this section, it is presumed that the public body did not violate any provision of this subtitle, and the complainant has the burden of proving the violation. Md.Code, State Gov't Art., § 10-510(c). Subsection (d) of § 10-510 grants the following powers to a court hearing an action brought by a complainant alleging that a public body violated the Act: A court may: (1) consolidate a proceeding under this section with another proceeding under this section or an appeal from the action of the public body; (2) issue an injunction; (3) determine the applicability of this subtitle to the discussions or decisions of public bodies; (4) if the court finds that a public body willfully failed to comply with § 10-505, § 10-506, § 10-507, or § 10-509(c) of this subtitle and that no other remedy is adequate, declare void the final action of the public body; (5) as part of its judgment: (i) assess against any party reasonable counsel fees and other litigation expenses that the party who prevails in the action incurred; and (ii) require a reasonable bond to ensure the payment of the assessment; and (6) grant any other appropriate relief. Md.Code, State Gov't Art., § 10-510(d). In the present case, the Circuit Court determined that Petitioners proved that the Committee acted in violation of the Open Meetings Act. As part of its judgment, the Circuit Court awarded attorney's fees generally, pursuant to § 10-510, to Petitioners. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's award of attorney's fees. The intermediate appellate court opined that, because Petitioners did not obtain any of the relief that they requested, Petitioners were not prevailing parties under § 10-510(d)(5)(i), and thus did not qualify for an award of attorney's fees. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals regarding the award of attorney's fees. Section 10-510(d)(5)(i)'s provision for an attorney's fees award in Open Meetings Act violation claims has been addressed by both Maryland appellate courts on several occasions. In Malamis v. Stein, 69 Md. App. 221, 516 A.2d 1039 (1986), the Court of Special Appeals considered whether a trial judge must award attorney fees and other litigation expenses to the prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to the Open Meetings Act. Id. at 222, 516 A.2d at 1040. The appellants in Malamis filed a petition in the Circuit Court challenging the actions of the Allegany County Board of Education in reaction to the flooding of one of the county schools. Id. at 222-23, 516 A.2d at 1040. The flooding of the school necessitated its closing and the reassignment of its students to other schools in Allegany County. Id. at 222-23, 516 A.2d at 1040. Three days after the flooding incident, a meeting was held involving Board officials, parents, and students to discuss the relocation assignment options. Id. at 223, 516 A.2d at 1040. During the meeting, the School Superintendent informed those assembled that the final decision regarding reassignment of students would be made at a closed meeting to be held later that day. Id. at 223, 516 A.2d at 1040. At the closed meeting, a final decision was reached, and that decision was ratified subsequently at a regularly scheduled public meeting. Id. at 223, 516 A.2d at 1040. Appellants alleged that the closed afternoon meeting violated the Open Meetings Act. Id. at 223, 516 A.2d at 1040. They sought a declaration holding that the Board's decision was invalid, an injunction against implementation of the plan, and an award of the cost of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Id. at 223-24, 516 A.2d at 1040-41. The trial court found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by having the closed hearing. Id. at 224, 516 A.2d at 1041. Consequently, the trial judge ordered the Board to conduct an open meeting for the purpose of adopting a plan of reassignment for the students. Id. at 224, 516 A.2d at 1041. He did not void, however, the plan in effect, which was to remain in effect until a new plan was adopted. Id. at 224, 516 A.2d at 1041. Concerning appellants' request for attorney's fees, the trial judge ruled: The Act provides that the Court as part of its judgment may assess against any party reasonable counsel fees that the party who prevails in the action incurs. The Court finds that while the Board failed to comply with the Sunshine Act its actions were not taken in bad faith nor with an intention to deceive the public. Rather, the Board acted to deal with an emergency situation in an expedited fashion and thereby overlooked statutory requirements. Therefore, the Court declines to award counsel fees in this case. Id. at 224, 516 A.2d at 1041. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting appellants' position that the award of attorney's fees was mandatory upon finding a violation of the Open Meetings Act. The intermediate appellate court, applying the rules of statutory construction, resolved that the provision in the Act regarding attorney's fees is clear: the legislature intended that trial judges determine, in their discretion, whether the circumstances warrant the award of attorney's fees or other expenses of litigation. Id. at 227, 516 A.2d at 1042. Concerning the standard of review for that trial court decision, the Malamis court added: We do not find the denial of attorney fees and other expenses to be an abuse of discretion. Where the trial judge has discretion to award attorneys fees, his or her exercise of that discretion will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See Dent v. Simmons, 61 Md.App. 122, 127, 485 A.2d 270 (1985). Moreover, the exercise of that discretion is presumed to be correct until the attacking party has overcome such presumption by clear and convincing proof of an abuse. Langrall, Muir & Noppinger v. Gladding, 282 Md. 397, 401, 384 A.2d 737 (1978). See I.W. Berman Prop. v. Porter Bros., 276 Md. 1, 19-20, 344 A.2d 65 (1975). No such clear and convincing proof has been presented here. Accordingly, neither the trial judge's finding that the Board did not act in bad faith or to deceive the public, nor his reliance on such finding to support his refusal to award attorneys fees is clearly erroneous. Id. at 227-28, 516 A.2d at 1042-43 (footnote omitted). Over a decade later, this Court decided Wesley Chapel Bluemount Ass'n v. Baltimore County, 347 Md. 125, 699 A.2d 434 (1997). There, the issue was whether the Baltimore County Board of Appeals was required by the Open Meetings Act to deliberate in open session when considering an appeal from a hearing officer's approval of a land development plan. Id. at 127, 699 A.2d at 435. We concluded that the Open Meetings Act applies to consideration of development plans, and, thus, required the board to deliberate in open session. Id. On the issue of attorney's fees, the Court declined to affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees in favor of the petitioner, however, because the trial court's judgment did not comport with the findings required for the relief sought under the Open Meetings Act. [28] Nevertheless, the Court provided instructive guidance to assist the trial court in its reconsideration of the attorney's fee issue: Although, as we have indicated, an assessment of attorney's fees under § 10-510(d)(5) does not depend on a finding of willfulness, the animus of the board, if any, would certainly be a factor to consider. We do not believe that the Legislature intended for such assessments to be automatic upon a finding of a violation, for that would require the diversion of scarce public funds for fee-shifting purposes merely because a public body guessed wrong on the eventual outcome of a legal issue. Courts considering fee assessments need to take into account, among other things, whether, how, and when the issue of a closed session or other prospective violation was presented to the public body, the basis, if any, the public body gave for concluding that its action was permissible under the Act, whether that basis was a reasonable one under the law and the circumstances, whether the amounts claimed are reasonable, and the extent to which all parties acted in good faith. The circuit court will have an opportunity to do that and to make appropriate findings when the case is remanded to it. Id. at 150, 699 A.2d at 446 (footnote omitted). In 1999, the Court of Special Appeals visited again § 10-510's attorney's fees provision, in Andy's Ice Cream, Inc. v. City of Salisbury, 125 Md.App. 125, 724 A.2d 717 (1999). Andy's Ice Cream brought an action against the Salisbury Zoo Commission, Inc., asserting that the Commission, in a closed meeting, failed to comply with the Public Information Act [29] and the Open Meetings Act in the course of awarding a food concession contract to Andy's competitor. Id. at 131, 724 A.2d at 719-20. Andy's sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the Commission's decision to award the contract to the competitor. Id. at 131, 724 A.2d at 720. All parties sought attorney's fees. Id. The Circuit Court concluded that there was no Open Meetings Act violation because the Act did not apply to the Commission. Id. at 159, 724 A.2d at 733. No attorney's fees were awarded to any party. Id. at 131, 724 A.2d at 720. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court with regard to the Open Meetings Act, concluding that the Act was applicable to the Commission, and that the Commission violated the Act by making the award decision in a closed meeting. Id. Regarding the issue of the appropriate remedy for violation of the Open Meetings Act, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that, because the City Council of Salisbury could not delegate lawfully to the Zoo Commission the discretionary power to award the franchise at issue, there was no need to declare the final action of the [C]ommission void pursuant to the provisions of § 10-510(d)(4). Id. at 159, 724 A.2d at 733-34. With regard to the issue of attorney's fees, however, the intermediate appellate court informed the trial court that, on remand, it would be appropriate to re-consider the issue of attorneys' fees as to th[e Open Meetings Act] issue. Id. at 167, 724 A.2d at 737. A close examination of these cases [30] suggests to us that the Court of Special Appeals erred in the present case when it concluded that, for the purposes of § 10-510(d)(5)(i)'s provision for the award of attorney's fees, a party bringing an action alleging an Open Meetings Act violation must obtain the relief it requests on the merits of its claim in order to be deemed the prevailing party. In none of the three cases on point did an appellate court of this State interpret the qualifier prevails in § 10-510(d)(5)(i) to mean that a party had to achieve the relief it requested on the merits of its claims. In fact, in two of the cases, the appellate courts acknowledged implicitly that, because the petitioners/appellants proved that the actions taken by the pertinent governmental bodies violated the Open Meetings Act, the trial courts in those cases, on remand, could consider the issue of attorney's fees separate and distinct from any other relief sought by the petitioners/appellants. [31] Of greater consequence, the intermediate appellate court's decision here conflicts with the purpose and goals of the Open Meetings Act. We discussed in Wesley Chapel the intention at the heart of the Act: This case is governed by four sections of the State Open Meetings Act, codified as Maryland Code (1995 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-501 through 10-512 of the State Government Article. Section 10-501 recites the legislative policy behind the Act. It begins by declaring essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that, except in special and appropriate circumstances, public business be performed in an open and public manner and that citizens be allowed to observe the performance of public officials and the deliberations that go into the making of public policy. It then expresses the truism that the ability of the public to attend and report on meetings of public bodies and to witness their deliberations ensures the accountability of government and increases the faith of the public in government. That legislative policy undergirds and pervades the Act and necessarily sets the general direction for its interpretation. Wesley Chapel, 347 Md. at 127-28, 699 A.2d at 435. With regard to the enforcement provision of the Act, § 10-510, we stated: [Section 10-510] provides for enforcement of the Act. Section 10-510(b) allows a person adversely effected by an alleged violation of the Act to file a petition in the circuit court to determine the applicability of the Act, to require the public body to comply with the Act, and to void an action of the public body taken in violation of the Act. Section 10-510(d) permits the court to issue an injunction and determine the applicability of the Act but allows it to void the action complained of only if it finds that the public body willfully failed to comply with the Act and that no other remedy is adequate. § 10-503(d)(4). As part of its judgment, whatever it may be, the court is permitted under § 10-510(d)(5) to assess against any party reasonable counsel fees and other litigation expenses that the party who prevails in the action incurred and to require a reasonable bond to ensure payment of the assessment. Section 10-510(d)(5) does not, on its face, require a finding of willfulness as a precondition to the assessment of counsel fees and litigation expenses. Id. at 128-29, 699 A.2d at 436 (emphasis added). Thus, a goal of the Act is to ensure that public business be performed in an open and public manner, to the end that such discourse increases both the accountability of government and the faith of the public in that government. One of the means by which the Legislature chose to reach this goal was to authorize enforcement of the Act's provisions by persons affected adversely, including, among others, granting those persons the potential to be awarded attorney's fees if they prevail[] in the action. Md. Code, State Gov't Art. § 10-510(b)(1), (d)(5). In light of the Act's goals and purpose, as described above, we interpret the qualifier prevails as being determinable according to the parties' respective success litigating the seminal Open Meetings Act violation claim, [32] regardless of the specific remedies sought, or whether any or all of those remedies are achieved. To conclude otherwise that the non-governmental party qualifies as a prevailing party only if that party obtains an injunction, a declaration of invalidity of the legislative act, or achieves other remedies following establishment of the merits of its foundational claim seems to us to run counter to the intent of the Act for two reasons. First, if the non-governmental party sought any remedy other than attorney's fees, the intermediate appellate court's interpretation of prevails would seem to limit the discretion of trial judges to award attorney's fees to the non-governmental party to only those actions in which the non-governmental party succeeded in securing all of the substantive relief sought. [33] Such a limitation conflicts with prior judicial interpretations of § 10-510(d), which make clear that discretion remains with trial judges with regards to § 10-510(d)(5)(i)'s provision for awarding attorney's fees. See Wesley Chapel, 347 Md. at 129, 699 A.2d at 436 (As part of its judgment, whatever it may be, the court is permitted under § 10-510(d)(5) to assess against any party reasonable counsel fees and other litigation expenses that the party who prevails in the action incurred and to require a reasonable bond to ensure payment of the assessment.); Malamis, 69 Md.App. at 227, 516 A.2d at 1042 ([T]he legislature intended that trial judges determine, in their discretion, whether the circumstances warrant the award of attorney's fees or other expenses of litigation.). Our ruling here does not mean necessarily that it would be an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to deny attorney's fees to a litigant who proves a violation of the Act. Each case will rise or fall on its own unique circumstances and the trial court's articulated or discernable exercise of discretion. Second, because the remedy of voiding the public body's action under § 10-510(d)(4) requires a finding that the public body willfully failed to comply with the pertinent sections of the Act, in those cases in which the non-governmental party seeks that remedy, under the intermediate appellate court's interpretation of prevails, the non-governmental party would not be eligible for attorney's fees unless willfulness was found. That interpretation was rejected by this Court in Wesley Chapel, where we made clear that the willfulness standard is not applicable to analysis of the challenging party's request for attorney's fees. See Wesley Chapel, 347 Md. at 129, 699 A.2d at 436 (Section 10-510(d)(5) does not, on its face, require a finding of willfulness as a precondition to the assessment of counsel fees and litigation expenses.). Finally, our interpretation of prevails most befittingly incorporates § 10-510(c)'s provision that [i]n an action under this section, it is presumed that the public body did not violate any provision of th[e Act], and the complainant has the burden of proving the violation.  Md.Code, State Gov't Art., § 10-510(c) (emphasis added). In light of § 10-510(c), to conclude other than as we do here would violate one of the cardinal rules of statutory interpretation of ensur[ing] that `no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.' Jackson v. State, 408 Md. 231, 236-37, 969 A.2d 277, 281 (2009) (quoting Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1715 v. Mayor of Cumberland, 407 Md. 1, 9, 962 A.2d 374, 378 (2008)). [34] Accordingly, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City must resolve finally its general attorney's fees award. [35] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE APPEALS; COSTS TO BE PAID 1/3 BY PETITIONERS AND 2/3 BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.