Maryland Court Of Appeals Considers Statutes Of Limitations In Inverse Condemnation: Do Appeals Toll Time?

Here's the video of the OA held this morning (March 10, 2020) in a case we've been following, about the statute of limitations governing inverse claims. Maryland Reclamation Association filed an regulatory takings claim in 2013, and eventually the jury awarded a whopping $45 million in just compensation and interest. Hartford County asserted the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, and the claim accrued in 2007 when the Board of Appeals administratively denied MRA's variance request. 

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals concluded that "An inverse condemnation claim 'accrues when the affected party knew or should have known of the unlawful action and its probable effect.'" Okay, the County responded, MRA discovered the County's conduct in 2007 when the Board denied the variances. In response, MRA asserted that the taking must become "permanent or stabilized," and that didn't occur until the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the variance. The court of appeals agreed with the County that the "final decision" for purposes of both ripeness and statutes of limitation was the Board's denial of the variance.

"Stabilization" unnecessary. Appeals further up the food chain are just appeals. 

The Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) granted discretionary review, and the court's website spells out the issues under consideration:  

No. 52 - Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Does a takings claim under the Maryland Constitution accrue at the time of a stayed administrative decision or at the time of a final judicial decision affirming that result? 2) May a regulatory taking become permanent and stabilized before a court of proper jurisdiction determines the validity of the regulation effecting the taking? 3) Should Petitioner’s takings claim be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to raise this constitutional issue in any administrative proceeding? 4) Did the decision of the Harford County Board of Appeals prohibiting a proposed use of Petitioner’s land to protect the public constitute a taking for which compensation is due? 5) Does the jury’s damages award as compensation for an unconstitutional taking contravene Maryland law when the damages are not the fair market value of Petitioner’s land but are, instead, the capitalized profits of a hypothetical business?

Watch and listen. We shall continue to follow this case.