Preview:

Halle Development, Inc., et al. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland No. 1, September Term, 2002 Headnote: The Court does not reach the merits of the case due to the application of the "voluntary payment rule."

Circuit Co urt for Anne A rundel Co unty Case #2000-65786

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1 September Term, 2002

Halle De velopme nt, Inc., et al.

v.

Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Bell, C. J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ.

Opinion by Cathell, J.

Filed: October 10, 2002

This case concerns waiver agreements entered into between Halle Development, Inc., Halle Enterprises, Inc., and Arundel Homes, Inc. (petitioners)1 and Anne Arundel County (respondent) on four occasions between 1989 and 1999. Respondent entered into

agreements with petitioners to waive the application of the school capacity requirements of respondent's Adequacy of Public Facilities Ordinance in respect to petitioners' proposed subdivisions in exchange for the payment of money to respondent and, in one instance, the conveyance of land to respondent by petitioners. On September 5, 2000, petitioners brought suit against respondent in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for class action relief seeking a refund of the monies paid and a return of the land conveyed2 based upon the allegedly unlawful procedure used by respondent of contracting with petitioners for waivers regarding the Adequacy of Public Facilities Ordinance. On February 16, 2001, the Circuit Court issued a written decision and granted summary judgment for respondents.3 On March 1, 2001, petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. On December 4, 2001, the intermediate appellate court affirmed, on other grounds, the decision of the trial court in a reported opinion Halle Development, Inc., et al. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 141 Md. App. 542, 786 A.2d 48 (2001). On December 18, 2001, petitioners filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this
Petitioners are corpor ations enga ged in the land development and construction business.
1

Hereafter we refer to the money paid and the land conveyed by petitioners to respondent as "fees" or "payments."
The trial court shou ld not have considered the case, in the first instance, as w e shall indicate , infra. The case should have been dismissed for the reason stated herein.
3

2

Court. On January 18, 2002, respondent filed its Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Conditional Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari. On March 6, 2002, we granted both petitions. Halle v. Anne Arundel County, 368 Md. 239, 792 A.2d 1177 (2002). Petitioners have presented two questions for our review:4 "1. When a chartered County government, without the consent of the legislature, admits to `...develop[ing] a "School Fee Agreement"' as a predicate to granting a waiver of Adequacy of Facilities Ordinance, has that County rated or levied an aid, charge, tax, burthen or fee under `pretense of contract in violation of Article 14 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?' "2. Did the Court of Special Appeals engage in judicial legislation when it found that the County has the power under Article 26,

Download Halle v. Anne Arundel County.pdf

Maryland Law