Opinion ID: 2311940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Relocation Cost Reimbursement Provision

Text: The relevant statutory sections here are Md. Code (1974, 1980 Cum. Supp.), § 11-120 of the Real Property Article and M.C. Code § 11A-5 (c) of the Condominium Chapter. Maryland Code § 11-120 provides: § 11-120. Zoning and building regulations. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the provisions of all laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning building or zoning shall have full force and effect to the extent that they apply to property which is subjected to a condominium regime and shall be construed and applied with reference to the overall nature and use of the property without regard to the form of ownership. No law, ordinance, or regulation may establish any requirement or standard governing the use, location, placement or construction of any land and improvements which are submitted to the provisions of this title, unless the requirement or standard is uniformly applicable to all land and improvements of the same kind or character not submitted to the provisions of this title. (b) No county, city, or other jurisdiction may enact any law, ordinance, or regulation which would impose a burden or restriction on a condominium that is not imposed on all other property of similar character not subjected to a condominium regime. Any such law, ordinance, or regulation, is void. (Emphasis added.) Montgomery County Code § 11A-5 (c) (now § 11A-7 (c)) provides in pertinent part: (c) Upon the involuntary termination of any tenancy which results from a condominium conversion, the developer or converter shall reimburse displaced tenants, determined to be in need of financial assistance under criteria established by County Executive regulation, the reasonable costs of relocation as determined under regulations issued by the County Executive up to a maximum obligation of $750. (Emphasis added.) I do not agree with the majority that Md. Code § 11-120 (b) prohibits all local laws that impose a burden or restriction on a condominium that is not imposed on all other property of similar character. In my view, Md. Code § 11-120 prohibits a county from enacting only those local laws that do not apply building, land use and zoning regulations such as land use standards, building code requirements, and similar standards and requirements uniformly to condominiums and other property substantially similar in character, regardless of the form of ownership. The majority relies on a generalized statement in a single sentence in the introductory comments contained in the Committee report that proposed the enactment of the Horizontal Property Act which said: The Committee cannot emphasize sufficiently the importance which it attributes to the General Assembly passing one statute that will govern condominiums in the entire State so that this important new phase of real estate development is not sectionalized on a county by county basis. See § 11-120. I agree with the majority that in that sentence the Committee emphasized the importance of enacting a statute that will govern condominiums in the entire State. In my view, however, the majority has read this sentence out of context. In the remainder of the paragraph in which the sentence appears, the Committee said: Some counties are using the popularity of the consumer's interest in condominiums to impose regulations that are different than the ones applicable to apartment buildings. There is no basis in reason or fact for such a distinction when it is remembered that a condominium is merely a different form of ownership of title to the same structure. For instance, the Committee does not believe a county should impose a more stringent fire rating on the walls of a building merely because the unit owners own an interest in the units. Tenants burn just as rapidly as owners and a respectable argument can be made that a tenant, who has a lesser property and financial interest in the structure, should be protected by higher minimum requirements than an owner. If the fire rating is inadequate for a wall in a building that is inhabited, the building code should be amended to require an adequate rating for that building, without regard to the form of ownership of the occupied areas. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Committee's primary concern, as expressed in the full paragraph in which the sentence appears, was that apartment buildings, in which the units are rented by the residents, and condominium buildings, in which the units are owned by the residents, should not be subjected to nonuniform building, land use and zoning regulations under local law. The underlying rationale for this conclusion was that apartments and condominiums are essentially the same in their physical and use characteristics, although the form of ownership differs. Thus, from the introductory comments contained in the Committee report, I conclude that the Committee, and therefore the Legislature, intended to prohibit only local laws that regulate physical and use characteristics, such as land use standards, building code requirements, and similar standards and requirements, and that are not uniformly applicable to condominiums and apartments or other property substantially similar in character. I cannot conclude, as does the majority, that the Legislature intended to require uniformly applicable local laws regulating an owner's responsibility to tenants during a building's conversion from a rental facility to a condominium or some other form of ownership, such as a cooperative, or to some other use, such as a commercial or office building. The Committee's comments specifically interpreting the express language of Md. Code § 11-120 also lead to the same conclusion. These comments state: The last sentence of subsection 11-120 (a) and subsection 11-120 (b) constrain the adoption of local laws, etc., which apply different land use standards, building code requirements and the like to condominiums than would be applied to other property substantially similar in character not submitted to the provisions of this Title. The Committee firmly concluded that `condominium' is a matter of title (i.e., a form of ownership) and not a matter of land use or zoning. These provisions are substantially the same as those adopted in several other jurisdictions (e.g., Chapter 711.21, Florida Statutes).... (Emphasis added.) In the initial two sentences of this comment, the Committee could not have more clearly expressed the fact that the purpose of Md. Code § 11-120 was confined to prohibiting the adoption of only such local laws as would nonuniformly regulate the physical and use characteristics of condominiums and apartments or other property substantially similar in character. In attributing to the Legislature a purpose substantially broader than that so clearly expressed by the Committee, the majority relies not only on a generalized statement in a single sentence in the introductory comments of the Committee report that, in my view, is read out of context, but also on the fact that arguably, under my interpretation, subsection (b) is rendered surplusage. The majority's analysis in this respect is unpersuasive because under its own convoluted interpretation of Md. Code § 11-120, the second sentence of subsection (a) is rendered surplusage. Similarly, in the third sentence of the comment specifically interpreting the express language of Md. Code § 11-120, the Committee could not have more clearly expressed the fact that the purpose of Md. Code § 11-120 and that of the Florida statute were substantially the same. The Florida statute contains no language similar to that contained in Md. Code § 11-120 (b). Thus, the Florida statute's purpose is unequivocally confined to prohibiting the adoption of only such local laws as would nonuniformly regulate the physical and use characteristics of condominiums and apartments or other property substantially similar in character. Because, in my view, the legislative purpose of Md. Code § 11-120 and that of the Florida statute is the same, I cannot, as does the majority, interpret Md. Code § 11-120 (b) as establishing a purpose for Md. Code § 11-120 never envisaged by or embodied in the Florida statute. In my view, Md. Code § 11-120 (a) and (b) can be successfully harmonized to achieve the legislative purpose. The first sentence of Md. Code § 11-120 (a) provides that all existing local laws concerning building or zoning are applicable to condominiums. The second sentence of that subsection provides that a county may not enact local laws regulating the physical and use characteristics of condominiums that are not uniformly applicable to other property substantially similar in character. Maryland Code § 11-120 (b) provides that if a county enacts any local law in violation of Md. Code § 11-120 (a), such an enactment is void. Thus, in my view, the Committee's plain and unambiguous comments specifically interpreting the express language of Md. Code § 11-120 (a) and (b) support the conclusion that the Legislature's purpose was to prohibit only such local laws as establish zoning, land use, building, and similar regulations that are not uniformly applicable to condominiums and apartments or other property substantially similar in character, and not to require uniformly applicable local laws regulating an owner's responsibility to tenants during the course of a building's conversion. This conclusion is further supported by the caption of Md. Code § 11-120 that appears in Chapter 641 of the Acts of 1974, effective 1 July 1974, as, Zoning. In Md. Code § 11-120, this caption appears as, Zoning and building regulations. While captions of sections in the Annotated Code of Maryland, inserted by the codifier, may not be considered in interpreting statutes, Md. Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol.), Art. 1, § 18, captions of sections adopted by the General Assembly when it enacts a statute may be considered. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Comm'r of Md., 283 Md. 663, 674-75 & n. 3, 392 A.2d 1114, 1120 & n. 3 (1978). The caption, Zoning, was adopted by the General Assembly when it enacted Chapter 641 and may, therefore, be considered. Manifestly, the use of this caption indicates that the Legislature intended the prohibition of Md. Code § 11-120 to apply only to local laws that regulate the physical and use characteristics of condominiums and that are not uniformly applicable to apartments or other property substantially similar in character, and not to local laws regulating an owner's responsibility to tenants during the course of a building's conversion. Thus, the introductory comments in the Committee report, the Committee's comments specifically interpreting the express language of Md. Code § 11-120, and the caption of Md. Code § 11-120 all lead to the same conclusion. Montgomery County Code § 11A-5 (c) requires that under certain circumstances an owner reimburse for reasonable costs of relocation upon the involuntary termination of a tenancy that results from a condominium conversion. This subsection is part of a provision that delineates an owner's responsibilities to tenants during the course of a conversion from a rental facility to condominium. Montgomery County Code § 11A-5 (c) is not a local law that nonuniformly regulates the physical and use characteristics of condominiums and apartments or other property substantially similar in character. Therefore, M.C. Code § 11A-5 (c) is not prohibited by Md. Code § 11-120 and is not void. Accordingly, I would hold M.C. Code § 11A-5 (c) to be valid. Judge Cole authorizes me to state that he joins me in the views expressed herein.