Bollech v. Charles County
69 F. App'x 178 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government entity is discharged from its contractual obligations and does not violate the Contracts Clause by enacting new regulations if the other party to the contract committed a prior material breach by failing to perform its own obligations within the contractually specified time.
Facts:
- In 1989, the Trustees entered into a Development Agreement with Charles County to build residential units on their land, known as 'Potomac Cliffs'.
- The agreement required the Trustees and other property owners to finance and construct adequate public facilities, including upgrading a sewer plant, to support the new development.
- In exchange, the County agreed to approve the development in stages and issue building permits.
- The Development Agreement set a specific schedule requiring the full development of the Trustees' 'Potomac Cliffs' property to be completed by August 1994.
- The Trustees failed to ensure the construction of the required sewer and water facilities and did not develop the Potomac Cliffs property by the 1994 deadline.
- In 1999, five years after the deadline had passed, the Trustees submitted a preliminary development plan to the County.
- The County refused to accept the application, citing amendments to local zoning regulations that had been enacted in the intervening years which prevented approval.
Procedural Posture:
- The Trustees sued Charles County in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The complaint alleged impairment of the obligation of contract in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause and a state-law claim for breach of contract.
- Both the Trustees and the County filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the County's motion for summary judgment and denied the Trustees' motion.
- The Trustees, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Charles County as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county violate the Contracts Clause by enacting land use regulations that prevent a development project when the developers previously failed to perform their contractual obligations to construct public facilities and complete the project by a specified deadline?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A county does not violate the Contracts Clause because its obligations under a development agreement are discharged when the other party materially breaches the contract by failing to perform within the specified time. To prove a Contracts Clause violation, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of an enforceable contract at the time of the alleged impairment. Here, the Development Agreement unambiguously required the Trustees to ensure the provision of adequate sewer facilities and complete their development by August 1994. The Trustees' failure to perform these obligations constituted a material breach. Under the principles of contract law, a material failure of performance by one party discharges the remaining duties of the other party. Therefore, when the Trustees failed to meet their 1994 deadline, Charles County was released from its obligations under the agreement. As there was no enforceable contractual obligation on the part of the County in 1999, the subsequent zoning changes could not have impaired an obligation that no longer existed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental contract principle that a material breach by one party excuses performance by the non-breaching party. It clarifies that the protections of the Contracts Clause are not absolute and only apply to valid, enforceable contractual obligations. The ruling establishes that developers cannot 'sit on their rights' indefinitely and then later claim a constitutional violation when a government entity, freed from its own obligations by the developer's breach, enacts new regulations. This provides municipalities with greater certainty in managing long-term development agreements, confirming that performance deadlines are meaningful and that a developer's failure to meet them can dissolve the government's reciprocal duties.
