Court Opinion

ID: 9884186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:45:47.704461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:36.246623
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.,
dissenting:
I dissent in this case for three reasons: (1) the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has no standing to appeal in this cause; (2) the Commission has suffered no “damage” within the meaning of Section 12-32, as properly construed; and (3) in any event, it is error to hold as a matter of law that the Commission may be damaged by the proposed abandonment.
(1)
The majority opinion indicates that the Planning Commission has standing to be or to have become a party to the abandonment proceeding as “representing the taxpayers” of the County. To me this is a curious theory which is not only unsound, but is fraught with grave dangers if pursued to its logical conclusion. In my opinion, neither the taxpayers as a general class nor the Planning Commission as their “representative” have standing to object to the proposed abandonment.
Taxpayers in Maryland represent themselves and have standing to sue if public officials act unconstitutionally or illegally and by such action, increase the taxes of the taxpayer. No tax*678payer has protested the abandonment proceeding in this case, has asked leave to intervene or has been made a party. Even a taxpayer, as a party, would have to show by proof that in fact the tax rate would likely be increased by the proposed unconstitutional or illegal action, not merely that an increase might possibly result if the taxpayer were unsuccessful in the litigation. Citizens Committee of Anne Arundel County, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, 233 Md. 398, 404, 197 A. 2d 108 (1964) and cases therein cited. Indeed, it seems clear that taxpayers in order to have standing to sue must allege and prove a special interest in the subject matter distinct from that of the general public. Citizens Committee of Anne Arundel County, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, supra. The position of the Planning Commission is that if it can block the abandonment of the land dedicated for streets, it might not have to pay as much for the owner’s property if and when it condemns that property for park purposes. I have never understood that taxpayers have standing to litigate alleged savings of public éxpenditures which might possibly be spent in the future.
In the present case, there is no showing that taxpayers could suffer any special damage resulting from an increase in the Prince George’s County tax rate. County funds for the Planning Commission are derived from a maximum levy of apparently 12 cents on each $100 of assessed value of property. Section 59-56(c) and (d), Prince George’s County Code (1963). There is no showing that this maximum tax rate has not already been levied. Under the applicable law, there could be no additional tax payable by any County taxpayer if the maximum rate has been reached, regardless of the result in the present case.
If the theory is that the Planning Commission “represents” the taxpayers as “suppliers” of public funds, endless vistas of litigation arise. The Planning Commission obtains funds from the federal government, pursuant to agreements between the National Capital Planning Commission and the Planning Commission. See Sections 59-28, 59-49, 59-50, 59-53, Prince George’s County Code (1963); The District of Columbia Park and Play*679ground Act (The “Capper-Cramton Act”), 66 Stat. 790 (1952), 40 U.S.C. §§ 71-74 (1964).
Does this mean that the federal government or every federal taxpayer would have standing to become a party to a Prince George’s County abandonment proceeding under the Maryland Act? It would appear to follow that they would have such standing if the “taxpayer” theory of the majority is carried to its logical extreme.
We may avoid these difficulties by simply observing that the Planning Commission does not represent any taxpayer, that taxpayers represent themselves in appropriate cases (of which this is not one), and that there has been no proof of any special damage to taxpayers.
In addition, the conclusion that taxpayers or their public representatives lack standing to sue is supported by the abandonment statute itself. In my opinion, the statute in question should be construed to bar taxpayers, as a general class, from objecting to the proposed abandonment.
That taxpayers are outside the class protected by Section 12-32 is shown by an analysis of the purpose of the Act of 1908 and its subsequent amendment. The purpose of the 1908 Act, of course, was to assure that certain third persons were in no way harmed by the vacation of the facilities originally dedicated to public use. The Act, in its original form, provided for notice “by publication or otherwise or as [the Circuit Court] shall direct” to persons who could suffer damage from the proposed abandonment. Apparently, this notice requirement did not adequately describe the class desired to be protected under the statute, for by the Acts of 1957, ch. 693, the notice provision was clarified by amendment. The title to this Act is instructive. It is as follows :
“An Act to repeal and reenact with amendments, Section 308 of Article 17 of the Public Local Laws of Prince George’s County (1953 Edition) [now Section 12-32], * * * relating generally to the abandonment of subdivision plats and public areas in Prince George’s County and prescribing certain procedural requirements as to notice being given to persons affected by the said abandonment.” (Emphasis supplied.)
*680The 1957 Act made clear that the “persons affected” were the “Owner or owners of all property adjoining or abutting streets * * * sought to be abandoned in said petition * * They are the persons “aggrieved”, as it were, and in my opinion, our decisions in zoning cases requiring the allegation and proof of “aggrievement” or special damage have some analogy. It is true that the unusual provisions of a zoning ordinance confine those who may object to persons “aggrieved” by the action of the zoning board, but the word “aggrieved” is a broader term than the words applicable in the present case, and the determination of who is “aggrieved” depends upon the facts in each case. Under the Act, the class to be protected is now specifically defined.
It seems to me that a sensible construction of the statute and its amendment demands that the public in general should not be included in the class of “persons” who may be damaged by the proposed abandonment. The sweeping scope attributed to Section 12-32 by the majority, I believe is unwarranted and is not consistent with the evident purpose of the statute. We should construe the Act reasonably and in accordance with the legislative purpose, Cooley v. White Cross Health and Beauty Aid Discount Centers, 229 Md. 343, 350, 183 A. 2d 381 (1962), and cases therein cited; and to avoid an unreasonable or oppressive result. See Kolb v. Burkhart, 148 Md. 539, 129 Atl. 670 (1925) ; Height v. State, 225 Md. 251, 170 A. 2d 212 (1961).
(2)
I do not believe, under the facts of this case, that either the public or the Planning Commission may, in any way, be damaged by the proposed abandonment.
First, it is certain that the filing of the subdivision plat in 1908 by McCaw’s predecessor in title secured no rights to the public at large, even though the plat was filed under the Act of 1908, ch. 619, (the Act) which contained a provision substantially identical to the present Section 12-32. To understand the legislative intent in the passage of the Act brief consideration must be given to the principles of common law dedication, since it is against this legal setting that the Act should be construed.
*681Under the common law, an owner of the fee in land could manifest, by an unequivocal act, an intent to dedicate the land for a present or future public purpose. When that offer of dedication was either expressly or impliedly accepted on behalf of the public, the dedication for the particular public use was complete. Prior to such acceptance, the municipality is not liable for failure to keep the road in repair. Cox v. Board of County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, 181 Md. 428, 431-32, 31 A. 2d 179 (1943). As Judge Marbury stated for the Court:
“It is equally well settled that the highway for which the municipality becomes liable on account of its failure to keep it in repair must be one that has been created or accepted by the public authorities, and that the liability does not extend to a highway not accepted, but which has merely been dedicated to public use by a private owner, or one which such owner has permitted the public to use. It must actually have been accepted by the public authorities either expressly or impliedly.”
The dedicator may impose conditions and restrictions in his offer to dedicate, and when the offer is accepted by the donee, the dedication is limited by those conditions and restrictions. Armiger v. Lewin, 216 Md. 470, 477, 141 A. 2d 151 (1958). When the owner of land makes and records a plat in which streets are laid out and thereafter sells lots as bounding on those streets, an intention to dedicate the area in the roadbeds for public use will be presumed in the absence of contrary language. The public authorities, however, must still accept the presumed offer of dedication before the dedication is complete. Hackerman v. Mayor & C. C. of Baltimore, 212 Md. 618, 130 A. 2d 732 (1957). Taxation by the municipality of an entire tract, including areas therein which have been offered as dedications of streets, is evidence that there has been no acceptance of the offer of dedication by the municipality on behalf of the public. United Finance Corp. v. Royal Realty Corp., 172 Md. 138, 148-49, 191 Atl. 81 (1937); Canton Co. v. Mayor & C. C. of Baltimore, 106 Md. 69, 66 Atl. 679 (1907).
*682The primary effect of Section 12-32, set out in part in the majority opinion, was to prevent a revocation of the offer to dedicate contained in the recorded subdivision plat, except by the procedure in the Circuit Court provided in the statute. The statute changed the common law rules in regard to revocations or abandonment of the offer of dedication by the landowner. But the Act did absolutely nothing to change the common law rule regarding acceptance of the dedication by the public body. We held in Pope v. Clark, 122 Md. 1, 89 Atl. 387 (1913) (construing the sister provision to Section 12-32, contained in the Montgomery County Code) that the mere filing of the subdivision plat under the statute did not constitute an acceptance of the streets and roads by the public.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Planning Commission, as the taxpayer’s representative, may have a right to complain of the proposed abandonment, this right, in my opinion, could not exist and no damage to the right could occur until the public body had accepted the dedication offered in the subdivision plat. As filing a plat under the Act had no effect on the duties of the public with respect to the dedicated property, filing a plat likewise had no effect on the rights of the public. Pope v. Clark, supra.
The Pope case held, in 1913, that the recording of a subdivision plat pursuant to a statute in Montgomery County (Acts of 1894, ch. 622, now sections 17-1 to 17-9, Montgomery County Code, 1965), containing almost identical language as that used in the Act of 1908, did not result in an acceptance of the proposed streets by the public. With respect, I suggest that a close reading of the record and opinion in Pope will disclose that this is a holding and not a dictum, as indicated in Note 1 in the majority opinion.
In Pope, the defendants-appellees, and the plaintiff all owned lots in a subdivision. The defendants put in sewers, which were installed at their expense and were not laid in that half of the streets upon which the lots of the plaintiff directly abutted nor within the line of his deeds. Upon plaintiff’s bill for an injunction, the Chancellor sustained the defendant’s demurrer and dismissed the bill. The decree was sustained on appeal. The decision of the Chancellor and of the Court of Appeals did not *683rest solely “on the ground that Pope [the plaintiff] had shown no impending damage.” The opinion of the Court, and the briefs, make certain that two arguments, mutually exclusive, were presented by the plaintiff to the lower court and on appeal :
1. By the recording the subdivision plat, the streets shown on it became public streets and the right to their use and control for street purposes passed out of the owner and became vested in the public. Therefore, the construction of the sewers was unlawful, because not authorized by the General Assembly.
2. Even if the construction of the sewers was lawful, the continuation and maintenance of the sewers created a nuisance per se.
In affirming the Chancellor on appeal, this Court decided the case on two grounds: (1) that the mere filing of the subdivision plat did not make the streets public highways; and (2) that there were insufficient allegations of impending damage for relief to be granted on the ground that the sewers constituted a nuisance. Both points of decision were necessary to a determination of the case. Judge Burke, for the Court, stated in regard to the filing of the plat:
“But the mere recording of the plat [under the dedication statute] did not make the streets public highways or public roads. ‘There must be not only a dedication, or a right acquired by proscription, but there must also be an acceptance before the road becomes a public road that the County Commissioners are obliged to maintain. * * * Not only is such an acceptance necessary, but must be proved.’ State, use of James v. Kent County, 83 Md. 377.” (122 Md. at 9, 89 Atl. at 389.)
I perceive no inconsistency between this holding in Pope and the holding in Whittington v. Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church, 236 Md. 185, 202 A. 2d 751 (1964), which the majority indicates overrules the "dictum” in Pope by implication. On the contrary, as I see it, the two cases are entirely consistent. Whittington, a case arising in Prince George’s County, involved a subdivision plat which was required by *684statute to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to recordation. The plat, in fact, had been approved as required. We held that this approval with the subsequent recordation of the approved subdivision plat constituted an acceptance by the public of the area designated on the plat for use as public streets. Judge Anderson, for the Court, stated:
“Section 308 [now Section 12-32] clearly sets out that upon recording of a plat the area designated in said plat as streets, roads, avenues, lanes, alleys and public parks shall be and the same are hereby declared to be forever dedicated to public use, meaning that upon approval of the subdivision plat for recording by the appropriate public officers, such approval and subsequent recording of the plat constitutes dedication and acceptance of the areas on the plats shown as streets, roads, avenues, etc.” (Emphasis supplied.) 236 Md. at 192, 202 A. 2d 755.
We have held in Small v. State Roads Commission, 246 Md. 652, 229 A. 2d 408 (1967), that it is the approval of the subdivision plat by the appropriate public officials which operates as the acceptance by the public of the dedication. In the present case, no approval of the subdivision plat by any public official prior to recordation was either required or given, as an examination of the subdivision plat plainly shows;1 in Whittington such prior approval was required and was given. The dedication in Pope was not contrary to that in Whittington and, indeed, the Pope case probably is not cited in the opinion in Whittington because this fundamental legal and factual difference made Pope inapplicable. In my opinion, the alternative *685holding in Pope correctly construes the statute, is still effective, has been acquiesced in by the General Assembly and should have been followed by us in the present case.
By following the alternative decision in Pope, we also avoid' a construction possibly rendering the statute unconstitutional. It is well settled that we should construe the statute so that it will survive the test of constitutionality. Middleman v. Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, 232 Md. 285, 289, 192 A. 2d 782 (1963), and authorities therein cited.
If the unilateral filing of a subdivision plat by the owner of land is held, ipso facto, to result in an acceptance by the public-body of the proposed streets and roads, there might well be an unconstitutional attempted delegation of governmental police-power to individual land owners. The objections to surrender by a governmental body of its police power has recently been fully discussed, in respect to a ‘‘contracting away” of that power in my dissent in Mayor & C. C. of Rockville v. Brookeville Turnpike Construction Co., 246 Md. 117, 228 A. 2d 263 (1967). The principles and authorities noted in Part 3a of that dissent are similarly applicable to the present case.
In addition, it may be thought that the avowed intent of the Planning Commission to resist the abandonment of the street area so that the public body would not have to pay the land owner as much money for that area when it is condemned for use as a park is an attempt to take the land owner’s property without the payment of just compensation, contrary to the provisions of Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution. See Association of Independent Taxi Operators, Inc. v. Yellow Cab Co., 198 Md. 181, 192, 82 A. 2d 106 (1951). It is clear from the record that the Planning Commission, as and when it condemns the adjoining land, has no intention of using this area for street purposes in accordance with the subdivision plat, but solely for park purposes. Indeed, under the applicable law in Prince George’s County, the Board of County Commissioners —and not the Planning Commission—has the general duty and power to pave and maintain the public streets and roads in Prince George’s County. Section 64-1, Prince George’s County Code (1963). A street area, dedicated for street purposes, cannot be used as a park. Kennard v. Eyermann, 267 Mo. 1, 182 *686S. W. 737 (1916). In short, the Planning Commission is attempting to take the use of street areas for public park purposes, without paying the land owner for a use not accepted by the public authority. In my opinion, this is not constitutionally permissible. Association of Independent Taxi Operators, Inc. v. Yellow Cab Co., supra.
(3)
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Planning Commission has status as a party and that there has been an acceptance of the street area by the public, the majority are, in my opinion, in error in holding as a matter of lazo that the Planning Commission'—or any one else—can be damaged by the proposed abandonment.
The record establishes that the lower court decided against the Planning Commission upon the pleadings and arguments of ■counsel. The reasons for the lower court’s decision are not given ■and counsel made no request for such reasons pursuant to Maryland Rules 18 c and 564 b 2. We have several times recently strongly recommended that such a request be made. See Southwestern Mines, Inc. v. P. & J. Coal Company, Inc., 244 Md. 180, 184, 223 A. 2d 162 (1966) and cases therein cited. It is most helpful to us to have the lower court’s reasons for its rulings and we trust that counsel will hereafter freely avail themselves of the provisions of the Maryland Rules.
In any event, it is clear that no testimony was taken to establish what,' if any damage the Planning Commission, in its representative capacity or otherwise, in fact, could possibly suffer from the abandonment. The Act specifically requires that the trial court be “convinced * * * upon proof” what, if any, damage may be sustained. This means to me that if the pleadings present an issue of whether damage may be sustained by a party having status to object to the abandonment and who may possibly suffer damages as contemplated by the Act, the trial ■court must proceed to determine the nature of such damages, as matter of fact, upon the evidence produced in the trial of the case. As stated before, there is no showing that the Prince George’s County tax rate could possibly increase as a result of the proposed abandonment.
In my opinion, even assuming the correctness of the ma*687jority opinion otherwise, the case should be remanded to the trial court to make the determination required by the Act upon proof at a hearing to be held after the return of the mandate from this Court.
I am authorized to state that Judge Marbury and Judge McWilliams concur in the views herein expressed.

. It will be observed that in the original Act of 1908 there was no provision for approval of the subdivision plat by the County Commissioners, or the Planning Commission or any other public body of like nature. Indeed there was no Planning Commission in existence in 1908. The Commission was not created until April 16, 1927 by the Act of 1927, ch. 448. Under the 1908 Act, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County was directed to file the subdivision plat when offered for recordation by the owner of the land when there had been compliance with the provisions of the Act.